21–30 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but probably that "fulfilling basic human needs shouldn't be for profit" I'm a colossal fan of co-ops and credit unions for this reason.
So if you fulfill basic human needs you aren't allowed to make a profit but every other industry can?
Sucks that SF is decay. But about the title - That's VERY Good! Humanity and society does not need an occupation identified as a "landlord". Housing should not be an investment ever.
Suppose you don't have enough money to buy real estate right now but you have enough to rent an apartment. If you don't want to be homeless, from whom do you acquire a lease?
Otherwise its almost always a second (or third) plot that is outrightly owned by the landlord, which means they dont need it and itd be better for you to just be able to buy it.
Also the even better answer is public housing.
if you have a vacant unit that you're having trouble filling and you don't want to be taxed, the free market is telling you to lower the price. it's not complicated.
Sucks that SF is decay. But about the title - That's VERY Good! Humanity and society does not need an occupation identified as a "landlord". Housing should not be an investment ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other arbitrary rules about investments do you have?
Seems like a rhetorical question that intentionally ignores the overall premise without adding value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other arbitrary rules about investments do you have?
Not OP, but probably that "fulfilling basic human needs shouldn't be for profit" I'm a colossal fan of co-ops and credit unions for this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but probably that "fulfilling basic human needs shouldn't be for profit" I'm a colossal fan of co-ops and credit unions for this reason.
So if you fulfill basic human needs you aren't allowed to make a profit but every other industry can?
These services, think healthcare, food, and housing, should be public services that are guaranteed not delivered by the market. You cannot look at the market-based solutions to literally any of these objectively and think it is performing well. At least, not if you value human life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you don't have enough money to buy real estate right now but you have enough to rent an apartment. If you don't want to be homeless, from whom do you acquire a lease?
Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.
Zoning laws are the reason housing is unaffordable. Landlords lobby for zoning laws, but if you have the political power to prohibit renting then presumably you have the political power to reform zoning. Moreover, you should do that anyway, because if all you do is prohibit renting without allowing new housing to be built, you're going to have a bad time.
> if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.
So if you make 110% of the median income but don't have a downpayment yet the government pays for your housing? Do you get free housing forever as long as you spend everything you make and never save anything up?
What if you have plenty of money but you know you're not going to be somewhere for more than two years and don't want to buy property there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you don't have enough money to buy real estate right now but you have enough to rent an apartment. If you don't want to be homeless, from whom do you acquire a lease?
Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.
Housing is unaffordable because demand outstrips supply.
Economic illiterates who blame “greed” making public policy tend to make it even worse.