31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’ • Hacker News Board

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#141

Post by dang » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #127

nerdponx wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ah yes, the newly established internet debater. Fully equipped with "that's a logical fallacy (that you didn't bother naming or explaining because you don't know what you're talking about)" into the standard polite ad hominem (which I will explain because I'm capable of doing so). You see, directing insults at the person rather than attacking their argument is an actual fallacy. Here, I'll even link you to some mater…

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That just makes the thread even worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#142

Post by drawkbox » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

dbcurtis wrote: post #132

drawkbox wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see a lot of simplistic "landlords must suck it up" comments in this thread. Your answer is for the rent payer, with no economy, to "suck it up". If the top felt the pain of recessions more than the bottom, you can bet there would be less recessions where massive wealth value extraction happens. You have to align the market incentives right. Make the top feel the pain, at the bank level even, and you are gonna ha…

> Your answer is for the rent payer, with no economy, to "suck it up". You miss-read me. First of all, I did not suggest any answer. I suggested that people put more thoughtfulness into their analysis. What I am saying is that there really is no one person to "suck it up". The furloughed school cafeteria worker is going to take a double hit because the public employee retirement system probably holds REITs. Scapegoat…

> Stop scapegoating landlords

If rent collection at the very top, above the landlord, above the management company, if they have to take the hit from this the most, there will be many less recessions. If the bank, credit cards and mortgage owners have payments suspended in recessions, there would be many less recessions.

If the top of the chain, that is the elusive 'trickle down' source, felt the pain for recessions the most, there would be many less recessions.

If 'too big to fail' banks and companies were immediately broken up on commencement of recessions, there would be many less recessions.

If you let the bottom just suck it up, extract all value and wealth from them while they take the hit and are the value creators and workers, then there will be many more recessions and incentives to go bigger every single time.

Stop incentivizing bigger and bigger recessions and companies that get 'bailout big' from 'too big to fail'.

It is only going to get worse if the top doesn't feel the pain, instead they gain with the current setup. This isn't a normal market, you can't put it on the bottom again. We shouldn't only care about the rent-seekers, they add little value and the assets still exist if they change. We should be focused on the value creators, workers and consumers, not just the value extractors and rent-seekers.

Incentives and regulations drive markets to targets, set the targets better, and take the target off the backs of the lower/middle class.

Markets are garden, they mostly just grow, but it takes some maintenance. The in trouble lower/middle should be brought up and focused on, the massively growing top should be scaled back or harvested regularly.

If you run any projects or have any game designs for markets, you know this is something that requires maintenance and balance, not inequality. Life is a free to play game, whales should provide most of the funds for a good game design for all.

More in this comment so I don't have to repeat it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22852799

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#143

Post by erik_seaberg » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #76

shubidubi wrote: post #33

I don't get why it's not ok to steal food from a grocery store but it is ok to not pay rent. Both are basic necessities and in both cases you hurt someone else by not paying for service (food/shelter).

Those are both potentially morally acceptable. If you are on the verge of starving and have no money and no other source of food, it's ok to steal something from a grocery store. If you are on the verge of homelessness and have no money and no other source of shelter, it's ok to not pay your rent. I'm sure there's a moral framework where it's never acceptable to hurt someone else when you could sacrifice yourself ins…

If you're starving, stealing from the food delivery network is about the worst thing you could do about it. Robbing random strangers in the street would do less damage than victimizing the specific people you depend on.

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#144

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

tree3 wrote: post #122

FireBeyond wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you make that happen, realistically? "You must sell." "Okay, this 3br house is $10MM. It's not selling." Eminent domain? Are we going to do that for the huge swathes of vacant homes we already have, too?

The government already values homes for the purpose of property taxes.

So you're mandating that a house must not just be sold, but that it must be sold at or below property-appraised tax value?

That is sure to go down well.

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#145

Post by AjithAntony » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

mercer wrote: post #125

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that it's not an uncharacteristically complicated business, but all businesses are hard! The idea that business owners sit there sipping whiskey, living an unburdened life like an aristocrat, is almost always false.

It can still be an unreasonably comfortable life provided by, proportionally, little effort and, disproportionately, sizeably negative consequences for much of society. I personally know way too many permutations of 'landlords' to feel comfortable judging them all in a similar way, but I'm still inclined to judge most of them negatively and harshly. Because in most cases, it's just so obvious how their owning and 're…

What planet do you live on? San Francisco? Maybe you can get lucky and accidentally buy a house in a place that becomes the next silicon valley like your landlord.

In the real world, there are thousands of landlords that are just regular people and regular businesses that are not royalty. You can live anywhere you like.

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#146

Post by texasbigdata » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #52

peacefulhat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then should rents go up? It is now much riskier to be a landlord, risk that is going uncompensated...

Theoretically yes, although the demand curve also comes into play. In a parallel universe where the risks of a pandemic/lockdown was known and taken seriously, you would definitely expect rents to be higher.

I think you're confusing the risk of buying an asset with the day to day reality of operating in.

In the current environment, asset value decreases and certain costs (prices charged) have decreased as the supply chain adapts to try to maintain break even volume.

Maybe it's different across the board.

Re: 31% Can’t Pay the Rent: ‘It’s Only Going to Get Worse’

#147

Post by effie » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 3:10 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #78

barrkel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit is not compensation for risk. Risk is a limiting factor in chasing after profits, sure, but you can take unprofitable risks, and if you have a particularly privileged position or information, you can make a profit with little to no risk. Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster doesn't exactly take a lot of risk for his rents.

My point isn't that "all profit that ever occurs in this universe happens only because an equivalent level of risk was assumed". This isn't thermodynamics. My point is that profit as a concept exists because without it, there would be no reason to assume risk in the first place. Therefore, profit is compensation for risk.

The idea about "all profit is due to risk" is a little one-dimensional. People/groups of people can profit for many reasons. For example, owner of a company can profit by selling or even bankrupting his company. There is often little to no risk connected to that. On the other hand, if somebody else takes on some substantial risk and invests in a company, he may not profit at all - if the owner makes it bankrupt.