Live data from Hacker News

The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

reason.com

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#71
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is amazing what people can do when they work at it instead of demanding others give them stuff for free.

No amount of "working at it" is going to make you $80k as any restaurant employee.

I guess if you define yourself as only a "restaurant employee" and never consider doing anything else you might be right. The thing about humans is that they are flexible, adaptable, and creative and can do many different kinds of tasks.

You don't get handed a random job by the job fairy and then that's the only thing you ever get to do for the rest of your life.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between working to eat, and investing. Investments have inherent risk, and if you can't bear that risk, don't overleverage yourself.

Reading the article, the owners aren't exactly rolling in it and are also depicted as mostly working class. If it wasn't for a global pandemic, most would have been fine and they would have thought to have invested very conservatively. In my mind, it's just that it's convenient/expedient to make them eat the cost of unpaid rent -

> depicted as mostly working class.

What "working class" person owns investment property in NYC? They amount of capital required to do that is so enormous that the article calling them "working class" is deeply misleading. They certainly aren't working class in the way that most NYC tenants are.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunk cost. They'll lose their equity stake in the property (as well as future income) if the bank forecloses on the property because the landlords aren't making mortgage payments. Do the banks want to be in the situation of being landlords (even temporarily) of a huge number of tenants who are not or cannot pay rent? Doubtful. Does that mean they're a little less likely to foreclose on a rental property when there ar…

So cancel mortgages as well as rent, for landlords with below some threshold of total property value. Too-big-to-fail banks eat some temporary losses, small landlords don't lose their shirts, and rent still gets effectively canceled.

It honestly blows my mind that we didn't do this. It would have still been a mess, but at least in my mind a more manageable mess with less total harm.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#74
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the moral basis of rent? Rent is by definition differentiated from service provision in that it is simply the use of a legal right to extract an income. I don't see a moral basis, so I don't see how anything that impacts the interests of renters can be unfair. Bad on pragmatic level, perhaps, but not a moral one.

The moral basis comes from how the majority have agreed to structure society. A family isn't legally allowed to go to an unoccupied piece of land, start cutting down trees or making mud bricks into a shelter and stay there. We have divided up the land (a limited resource) into parcels of private ownership with government-enforced property rights. With that comes a moral responsibility to make sure that everyone can o…

moral basis comes from how the majority have agreed to structure society

That’s more of a rationalization than a moral foundation. The land we’re talking about (in North America), in a lot of cases, was stolen by means of violent force from the indigenous people who lived here before the arrival of European settlers. If we’re going to call that a moral basis, then we’re back to arguing the account of Thrasymachus [1] and might makes right. It’s a cynical take on justice, to be sure, but also a difficult one to counter.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/thrasymachus/

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#75
I have a friend who has lived in the same place for 20 years and has built a family there. They've never missed rent and have been excellent tenants, but nevertheless they're being pushed out and the property is being sold to developers. The developers are trying to intimidate my friend and hoping he doesn't know his rights and just leaves quietly - typical prisoner's dilemma final game betrayal that many property managers pull on people.

Were it not for the eviction moratorium my friend's family would have to up-end two decades of their life during a pandemic when none of them are vaccinated and one is immunocompromised, while juggling kids and trying to find a job. I understand there are some people taking advantage of these circumstances by not paying rent, but the fact is a lot of people are in pretty dire circumstances right now without many options.

Obviously this situation is also terrible for the people highlighted in this piece too and I feel for them - they worked hard and built something from nothing, and highlighting their story is important. I'm of two minds about what to feel about the broader context though, as non-residence real estate is ultimately an investment which carries risks, including unforeseen risks like pandemics. We learned quite recently in the 2008 recession that over-leveraged real estate is a systematic risk, and whether its a pandemic or a financial crisis, it's prudent that investors be able to manage a shock of at least 12 months without rent. Even absent external circumstances, a pipe could burst or another maintenance nightmare could emerge that would make an investment property uninhabitable for a long time.

Its very unfortunate that the US has such an investment-oriented view of residential real estate. In times like these, that approach pits people against each other rather than brings us together to better manage the crisis. Housing insecurity is an awful thing to have to deal with, and if everything is simultaneously quantified into 'how much am I going to make/lose', the fabric of society is going to tear.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#76
I'm really struggling to find sympathy with the landlords in this situation.

From multiple angles:

1. Landlords already serve no real market function. They're middlemen - literal rent-seekers that offer no real service to their tenants. And somehow I'm supposed to feel bad for them?

2. The bulk of the housing shortages throughout the US (and other developed nations, for that matter) derives directly from the treatment of real estate as an investment rather than, you know, merely space to live/work/play. People buying homes (particularly low-density ones, mind you!) as "investments" are the perpetrators of that shortage, not somehow the victims; not only do they consume an outsized portion of the housing supply, but they have a vested interest in benefiting from the effects of that constrained housing supply, and therefore will logically do everything in their power to continue to constrain it because it pushes their property values higher.

3. If real estate is to be treated as an investment, then the risks of that investment must be acknowledged. Why should I feel differently about landlords who burned their savings on rental properties than I would about people who burned their savings on, say, GameStop stocks or some cryptocurrency pump-and-dump?

Like, if anything the renter demanding $12k from the landlord has a point. The very notion of land ownership externalizes opportunity costs on everyone else in a given area, specifically because land is finite / in fixed supply and therefore land ownership is definitionally zero-sum (one person's ownership of land is at the exclusion of others). Landlords are long overdue to internalize these externalized opportunity costs - specifically, through a land value tax (possibly supplemented with a flat income tax starting above some threshold; Milton Friedman was a proponent of this combined tax scheme), the proceeds of which would fund programs like UBI and single-payer healthcare to make up for those opportunity costs.

I feel for these landlords only in the sense that they're newcomers to this country hoping to find opportunities to better themselves and secure their financial future, and I hope they - alongside the rest of their fellow Americans - can get some much-needed financial support. That doesn't mean they're somehow the "good guys" in this story just because they're poor immigrants.

----

And to be clear, the delinquent renters/squatters certainly ain't the "good guys" in this story, either. Refusing to pay anything for the space one inhabits - especially when one has the means to do so - also externalizes opportunity costs onto other renters (who are now excluded from that unit despite their willingness and ability to pay for it). I might disagree strongly with the morality of a landlord extracting rent, but refusing to pay rent entirely is not the way to go about fixing that. Rather, the fix is in actually correcting the circumstances that led to this situation - namely, by forcing the internalization of externalized opportunity costs, and by replacing landlords with housing cooperatives.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#77
>"Those are part of the costs of being a landlord," Weaver responds.

No they aren't. Landlords want to at least cover their costs. If they lose out on rental income they are forced to raise rents to compensate their loss. This will mean higher rents and a subsidy for dishonest squatters. The idea that you can make housing cheaper by making it a bad investment is hilarious. If constructing new housing is a bad investment for landlords then nobody will provide housing as a service. Everyone will have to buy their own house or condo.

>"In public housing, people are paying 30 percent of their income," Weaver told Reason. "What I am envisioning is a world in which housing is owned by a collective and people are paying 30 percent of their income in order to live in their housing. If your income is zero, you pay zero. If your income is $500,000 a year, you're paying 30 percent of that."

What makes her think that rich people can't afford to hide their income? It wouldn't surprise me if they could just start a company and simply keep the funds inside the company and only pay out as much as necessary. This is way too easy to game and the ROI is insane. If you earn 500k you would end up with 350k so by engaging in tax shenanigans you could increase your income by 40%. Who's insane enough to not do that?

>When asked how the federal government could afford such a program, Weaver told Reason that it could "print" the money.

No, the way the federal government will be able to afford such a program is by providing housing at cost. Subsidies aren't the right answer and outright printing money isn't it either. If you really wanted such a program you would spin it as a jobs program first with the additional housing as a bonus. By lowering unemployment you increase the number of people who can afford to pay rent. So it's a win win situation. The slow acting benefit of additional housing would take years to have an effect.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#78
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the article, the owners aren't exactly rolling in it and are also depicted as mostly working class. If it wasn't for a global pandemic, most would have been fine and they would have thought to have invested very conservatively. In my mind, it's just that it's convenient/expedient to make them eat the cost of unpaid rent -

> depicted as mostly working class. What "working class" person owns investment property in NYC? They amount of capital required to do that is so enormous that the article calling them "working class" is deeply misleading. They certainly aren't working class in the way that most NYC tenants are.

I love it. Too poor to invest in property? Working class.

Have enough money to invest in property? No longer working class.

It’s attitudes like this that prevent the working class from participating in the generation of wealth through capital. As soon as they dip their toe in, they’re now “rich” and get the rug pulled from under them.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#79

I feel the same way about rent control. It's not fair for society at large to make property owners eat the cost or the lost potential income alone. I am aggressively pro rent control and pro eviction moratorium during the pandemic, but I am for a (progressive) tax to fund these programs. It's just unfair to make yourself feel good by supporting these programs when you don't have any skin in the game. I'm not naïve th…

> It's just unfair to make yourself feel good by supporting these programs when you don't have any skin in the game.

The worst part about rent control is that there is zero accountability. Politicians pat themselves on the back for "lowering" prices without actually solving the underlying problem. The problem will only get worse over time until it becomes unbearable.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#80
post #32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By being extremely frugal. Did you read the part of the article where the owner does not live in the house. The owner lives in a "cheap studio apartment nearby with their two young daughters". That is how!

> By being extremely frugal. Did you read the part of the article where the owner does not live in the house. The owner lives in a "cheap studio apartment nearby with their two young daughters". That is how! You’re referring to Gao, I’m referring to Won. Different people.

And the top-level was seemingly referring to Gao by referencing the $80k in back rent.
Post reply on HN