381–390 of 594 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't everyone get everything for free that can be provided for free? Forcing other people to pay a cost because you paid a cost is just sour grapes.
It can’t be provide for free, that’s the point. Mitigating risks has costs that you are ignoring. Those costs aren’t cheap and someone has to pay for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any morally valid reason to evict a tenant other than nonpayment of rent? For bad behavior that should be between them and the police, not you.
I'm sure there's lots, but lease says no X, tenant insits on doing X seems like a reasonable thing to evict about, but not a reasonable thing to ask the police to adjudicate. At least as long as 'no X' is a reasonably moral thing to restrict. So no pets, no working on cars in the parking lot, no smoking, no loud noises/no more than N police noise complaints, etc. At least my moral code allows one to form a contract t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any morally valid reason to evict a tenant other than nonpayment of rent? For bad behavior that should be between them and the police, not you.
Sure: it's morally valid to evict someone who violates any legally-enforceable provision in the lease agreement they signed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should landlords have that expectation? I think the default case should be that when someone rents a space they have freedom to do what they want with that space until they stop renting it, and then when they stop renting it they must be forced to return it to its original condition. Did you know in Australia it's normal to give your landlord a tour of your house every 3 months to prove you haven't broken it? Tha…
And how exactly do you "force" the deadbeat broke tenant that trashed your house to return it to its original condition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes I’m doing it for the money Right, so not well meaning. You said well meaning. You're taking that back. Correct? You're upset at someone maximizing money at your expense. You like it when you maximize money at someone else's expense just fine. Correct? The world's smallest violin is playing. Please no 'I'm providing a valuable service' argument. We've already established your only interest is money.
I never said my only interest is money. At your job, is your only interest money? Do you not feel a social obligation to your coworkers; want to do good for your teammate and your company? Again, talk about a stupid take, as if humans are one dimensional like that. Corporate landlords and hedge funds that own apartment sky rises are probably only in it for the money. You can't say the same thing about every small lan…
The critics here are trying to make the argument that no you can't. Any such motivation is completely pretend, and everybody is 100% always dedicated to only their own benefit, not taking any of these squishier benefits into account ever, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise and you're conning other people on purpose if you PRETEND otherwise. There is nothing but paperclip maximizing, and we're all robots but some of us are lying robots.
These critics exist, and I'm sure they live their beliefs. Sucks to be them, even when they include the literal wealthiest people in the world, because they live those beliefs. They're inflicting them on the rest of us, but it doesn't make them correct, it just means the rest of us have to deal with the harm they inflict. Cheers nikkwong, thanks for being more of a gray area, like a lot of us are :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why we can't just copy another country's housing strategy. There are many countries in the world where housing is affordable, relatively high quality, and the homelessness rate is low. What are we doing that makes this problem so seemingly intractable? Why is our approach to public housing seemingly worse than any other approach in history?
A bit of a misnomer. Housing is, actually, extremely affordable across the US - just not in major cities. You can plunk $10-$20K and get land and a homestead in dozens of states. Agree with the other comment that overbuilding is a reasonable strategy, but if you look at Detroit downtown (mid 2010s) having an overbuilt downtown is bad too. It's a hard problem.
In a place where the only jobs to be had are at below-subsistence minimum wage at the dollar store and you have to drive 2 hours to see a doctor, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s fascinating that America can be the world’s superpower(?) and yet huge swathes of society still live in unstable conditions like this.
> It’s fascinating that America can be the world’s superpower(?) and yet huge swathes of society still live in unstable conditions like this. Because huge swathes of society choose to live in these unstable conditions. They could move to Detroit or even Salt Lake City, but they prefer the lifestyle of New York City.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities. America has enough land. We could build new infrastructure, give people lots of land or build houses like we did in the 40s and 50s. Of the price of a house was brought down to 1x the annual salary of the median individual income some of these problems wouldn’t exist. We need to flood the system with investment and inven…
> The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities. So it is not simple. "Just build more" always comes up in those discussions, and while it does help (and has been proven to help), it is not the definite answer for the housing issues. Build a new city from the ground up with a bunch of cheap modern housing, walkable and all modern goodies and ... nobody will move. Peo…
Free land for internal colonisation was a successful policy that almost every country in the recent past has employed. Even small countries.
For those looking for the actual data. It's from 2024 - says nothing about the current situation. * ~37K affordable housing units (baseline) across ~400 projects * 89% rent collection rate (down from 90.6% in 2023) * That's 600 units that went 'delinquent' in 2024 - assuming a $24K 'base' rent (just a guess) that's $15M in lost rent. * Deeply troubled projects (that can't survive without this rent) are at 11% - seems…
The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities. America has enough land. We could build new infrastructure, give people lots of land or build houses like we did in the 40s and 50s. Of the price of a house was brought down to 1x the annual salary of the median individual income some of these problems wouldn’t exist. We need to flood the system with investment and inven…
There is no easy fast solution to this. Just build more housing will not solve complex issues. Not saying there should not be more construction, though.