Current Events > Greedy landlords can't stop hiking up the rent.

(+) Yeah! (+)

They want $1600 for a studio apartment, but they also require you to make 3x the rent. So you need to make $4800 a month just to have a studio apartment. This is why minimum wage should be $30 an hour.
---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

This is why minimum wage should be $30 an hour.

The landlords would love that! As long as they don't have employees, then they can make even more money off of rent.
---

Remember this next time you vote for a property tax increase.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Orlando_Jordan posted...

This is why minimum wage should be $30 an hour.

The landlords would love that! As long as they don't have employees, then they can make even more money off of rent.

No, because people with good jobs would rent nice houses, and poor people would be able to afford studio apartments again. It's ridiculous that you have to be rich to live in a studio.
---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Orlando_Jordan posted...

This is why minimum wage should be $30 an hour.

The landlords would love that! As long as they don't have employees, then they can make even more money off of rent.

No, because people with good jobs would rent nice houses, and poor people would be able to afford studio apartments again. It's ridiculous that you have to be rich to live in a studio.

Blame "poor doors" for this.

Nothing greedy about it. As a landlord myself for a six unit building, we're not running a charity. If landlords charge less than the market value for a given area, all you're doing is leaving money on the table and essentially lowering the value and quality of the building itself. I can't charge nearly as much for that in Evanston for my units (a couple hundred less for bigger units than TC described, but I wouldn't be doing myself any favors charging the cheapest rent on the street.

And there are plenty of cheaper options in other sections of Evanston and further away from the university/lakefront/L/metra lines, so it's not like my rent rate is keeping from anyone living in the area.
---

K181 posted...

Nothing greedy about it. As a landlord myself for a six unit building, we're not running a charity. If landlords charge less than the market value for a given area, all you're doing is leaving money on the table and essentially lowering the value and quality of the building itself. I can't charge nearly as much for that in Evanston for my units (a couple hundred less for bigger units than TC described, but I wouldn't be doing myself any favors charging the cheapest rent on the street.

And there are plenty of cheaper options in other sections of Evanston and further away from the university/lakefront/L/metra lines, so it's not like my rent rate is keeping from anyone living in the area.

You're just like that CEO who said he has a "moral requirement" to sell his drug for the "highest price" and hiked the price up 400%. You have dollar signs in your eyes and zero empathy.
---

From: 15 year old who lives with parents
---

Rent is about $2000 a month for a 1 bedroom around here

So you're saying no one can rent unless they make $6000 a month? Where are people living then?
---

Yeah, nice false equivalence there. Comparing necessary medicine to not living in a section of town that you want to.
---

Tc does not understand basic supply and demand.
---

The only thing worse than a landlord is a landlord who inherited the property from their landlord parents

In college I lived in an apartment with reasonable rent and free internet. The average joe owner died and some multi-millionaire real estate tycoon bought it, hiked the rent by almost half, killed the internet, and wouldn't get the complex a washing machine.
---

FursonaNonGrata posted...

The only thing worse than a landlord is a landlord who inherited the property from their landlord parents

This is why we need to abolish inheritance. When you die your possessions should go to the state for redistribution.
---

AlephZero posted...

FursonaNonGrata posted...

The only thing worse than a landlord is a landlord who inherited the property from their landlord parents

This is why we need to abolish inheritance. When you die your possessions should go to the state for redistribution.

Sell the building to your son for a dollar you say?

AlephZero posted...

This is why we need to abolish inheritance. When you die your possessions should go to the state for redistribution.

No one would want to invest if they knew all of their hard work is going to be stolen by the government at the end.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Rent is about $2000 a month for a 1 bedroom around here

So you're saying no one can rent unless they make $6000 a month? Where are people living then?

they live with roommates or other family members who contribute part of the rent
worst option is on the street.

cuts rent in half.
---

The cheapest apartments where I live are like $525 a month

But it's literally in the middle of Gary, Indiana.
---

Rent varies wildly from place to place.

Where I live now is vastly overpriced. I'm talking, I could have an apartment almost as nice for half the price in just a slightly different part of town. New management came in, jacked up the prices, and refuse to renovate or maintain the property.

Also, jsyk guys, "You need to make 3x what your rent is," is just good budgeting advice. My apartment complex actually won't rent to anyone whose pay falls below that line. So, for example, if you make minimum wage ($7.25/hr), you shouldn't live anywhere where the rent is more than $386. You'll be hard pressed to find anywhere with rent that cheap though, which is why minimum wage is in desperate need of a hike.

And of course, everyone thinks the solution is "give people more money".

Because of course, if the renters have more money, the landlords totally aren't going to try and take more from them.

The solution is a greater push for home ownership, and measures to make that more realistic.
---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

K181 posted...

Nothing greedy about it. As a landlord myself for a six unit building, we're not running a charity. If landlords charge less than the market value for a given area, all you're doing is leaving money on the table and essentially lowering the value and quality of the building itself. I can't charge nearly as much for that in Evanston for my units (a couple hundred less for bigger units than TC described, but I wouldn't be doing myself any favors charging the cheapest rent on the street.

And there are plenty of cheaper options in other sections of Evanston and further away from the university/lakefront/L/metra lines, so it's not like my rent rate is keeping from anyone living in the area.

You're just like that CEO who said he has a "moral requirement" to sell his drug for the "highest price" and hiked the price up 400%. You have dollar signs in your eyes and zero empathy.

Have you considered home ownership?
---

It'd be easier for me to buy a house than it would to rent, and I'm on disability.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Rent is about $2000 a month for a 1 bedroom around here

So you're saying no one can rent unless they make $6000 a month? Where are people living then?

they live with roommates or other family members who contribute part of the rent
worst option is on the street.

cuts rent in half.

So you're saying you need $4000 a month in disposable income left over a month or the rent isn't reasonable?
---

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.
---

K181 posted...

Nothing greedy about it. As a landlord myself for a six unit building, we're not running a charity. If landlords charge less than the market value for a given area, all you're doing is leaving money on the table and essentially lowering the value and quality of the building itself. I can't charge nearly as much for that in Evanston for my units (a couple hundred less for bigger units than TC described, but I wouldn't be doing myself any favors charging the cheapest rent on the street.

And there are plenty of cheaper options in other sections of Evanston and further away from the university/lakefront/L/metra lines, so it's not like my rent rate is keeping from anyone living in the area.

https://pics.me.me/puck-all-landlords-parasites-explioters-greedy-let-me-have-a-34115646.png
---

Paper_Okami posted...

K181 posted...

Nothing greedy about it. As a landlord myself for a six unit building, we're not running a charity. If landlords charge less than the market value for a given area, all you're doing is leaving money on the table and essentially lowering the value and quality of the building itself. I can't charge nearly as much for that in Evanston for my units (a couple hundred less for bigger units than TC described, but I wouldn't be doing myself any favors charging the cheapest rent on the street.

And there are plenty of cheaper options in other sections of Evanston and further away from the university/lakefront/L/metra lines, so it's not like my rent rate is keeping from anyone living in the area.

https://pics.me.me/puck-all-landlords-parasites-explioters-greedy-let-me-have-a-34115646.png

lmao
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.

Rent control doesn't work
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.

Rent control doesn't work

Greedy landlords hate it because then they get owned.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.

Rent control doesn't work

how

because dirty capitalists have more trouble exploiting people with it?
---

After the revolution there won't be any landlords
---

Waaaahh, why do the owners expect money for their investment and charge market rate waaaaah
---

K181 posted...

Waaaahh, why do the owners expect money for their investment and charge market rate waaaaah

There's well documented proof that landlords keep units empty in order to artificially keep supply down as demand continues to rise, allowing them to adjust the price because the market that CAN afford that price will take it.
---

---

NES4EVER posted...

Orlando_Jordan posted...

K181 posted...

Nothing greedy about it. As a landlord myself for a six unit building, we're not running a charity. If landlords charge less than the market value for a given area, all you're doing is leaving money on the table and essentially lowering the value and quality of the building itself. I can't charge nearly as much for that in Evanston for my units (a couple hundred less for bigger units than TC described, but I wouldn't be doing myself any favors charging the cheapest rent on the street.

And there are plenty of cheaper options in other sections of Evanston and further away from the university/lakefront/L/metra lines, so it's not like my rent rate is keeping from anyone living in the area.

You're just like that CEO who said he has a "moral requirement" to sell his drug for the "highest price" and hiked the price up 400%. You have dollar signs in your eyes and zero empathy.

Have you considered home ownership?

one person owning a home will not solve the problem of exploitative landlords
---

oh is this the part where CE's violent and lunatic literal communists start advocating for violence against the successful?
---

gunplagirl posted...

K181 posted...

Waaaahh, why do the owners expect money for their investment and charge market rate waaaaah

There's well documented proof that landlords keep units empty in order to artificially keep supply down as demand continues to rise, allowing them to adjust the price because the market that CAN afford that price will take it.

That's now how it works in literally 99% of the country. Anyone wanting to make money would charge the market rate and utterly destroy any landlords big and rich enough to try such a gamble.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.

Rent control doesn't work

how

because dirty capitalists have more trouble exploiting people with it?

because the people who own the property will just abandon it or lose it if it doesnt create any profit. it's not worth the time, effort, and risk to own and manage real estate if you arent rewarded for it. so what ends up happening is really shitty living conditions and abandoned towns.
---

This is why you should save up for a house.

R0N1N187 posted...

This is why you should save up for a house.

Sure, homes here start at $450,000 for a 1 bedroom condo. Semi-detached homes start off at $750,000.

I hope your rich parents have that $100,000+ down payment ready for you
---

REMercsChamp posted...

R0N1N187 posted...

This is why you should save up for a house.

Sure, homes here start at $450,000 for a 1 bedroom condo. Semi-detached homes start off at $750,000.

I hope your rich parents have that $100,000+ down payment ready for you

Maybe it's time to move away from the coasts to an area in the mid west that is more affordable?

Oh wait, I forgot, "Midwest is for poor people"

X-Pac_Heat posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

R0N1N187 posted...

This is why you should save up for a house.

Sure, homes here start at $450,000 for a 1 bedroom condo. Semi-detached homes start off at $750,000.

I hope your rich parents have that $100,000+ down payment ready for you

Maybe it's time to move away from the coasts to an area in the mid west that is more affordable?

Oh wait, I forgot, "Midwest is for poor people"

Sure, sounds good - if you don't mind your $80,000 a year professional job turning into working at a gas station for minimum wage.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Sure, sounds good - if you don't mind your $80,000 a year professional job turning into working at a gas station for minimum wage.

You could easily find a job in your field in Chicago and live in the suburbs of Indiana.

I'm sure the same could be done in all major cities in the mid west.

Jesus Christ, it's like you people think it is literally nothing but corn fields holy shit.

X-Pac_Heat posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Sure, sounds good - if you don't mind your $80,000 a year professional job turning into working at a gas station for minimum wage.

You could easily find a job in your field in Chicago and live in the suburbs of Indiana.

I'm sure the same could be done in all major cities in the mid west.

Jesus Christ, it's like you people think it is literally nothing but corn fields holy shit.

Is Indiana in Chigago?
---

REMercsChamp posted...

X-Pac_Heat posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Sure, sounds good - if you don't mind your $80,000 a year professional job turning into working at a gas station for minimum wage.

You could easily find a job in your field in Chicago and live in the suburbs of Indiana.

I'm sure the same could be done in all major cities in the mid west.

Jesus Christ, it's like you people think it is literally nothing but corn fields holy shit.

Is Indiana in Chigago?

It's 10 miles away, hero derp

The super rich area of St John is less than 30 miles.

Edit: that's not even true, Chicago city limits actually border with Hammond, Indiana.

You should murder them

With rent money.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.

Rent control doesn't work

how

because dirty capitalists have more trouble exploiting people with it?

http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/rent%20control/How%20Rent%20Control%20Drives%20Out%20Affordable%20Housing.htm

The most striking observation is that the graphs of rents in free-market cities follow a standard bell curve. The vast majority of advertised rents cluster around the median, with between 33 percent and 40 percent below the census median. The median advertised rent is rarely more than $50 above the census median. This may be because the very cheapest apartments are not likely to be advertised in the newspaper and because landlords often raise rents when apartments become vacant. The mode - the number where the graph peaks - usually occurs below both medians. Characteristically, there is a steep climb on the low-rent side of the curve, followed by a long tail toward the "luxury" end of the market.
http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/rent%20control/How%20Rent%20Control%20Drives%20Out%20Affordable%20Housing_files/pa-2742.gif

It is also striking how affordable housing is in most free-market cities. In Philadelphia, the nation's fifth largest city, the most common advertised rent, the mode, is between $450 and $500--below both the advertised and census medians. (See Figure 1.) In Chicago, the mode was $500 to $550, also below both medians. Unregulated cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Phoenix, and Seattle seem to have almost perfectly competitive housing markets, with housing available at every price level but clustered at the low end.

The two cities with strict rent control are glaring exceptions to this pattern. In both New York (see Figure 2.) and San Francisco, advertised rents peaked at $2,000--more than triple the U.S. Census median rent for each city. The median advertised rent in New York was $1,350, in San Francisco, $1,400--both more than double the census median. More important, there were almost no rental units available at the low end of the market. In both San Francisco and New York, less than 10 percent of advertised rents were below the census median. (The New York figures also included listings from the Daily News and the New York Post, which are slanted toward the lower end of the market.) Rent control in both these cities appears to make housing spectacularly unaffordable
http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/rent%20control/How%20Rent%20Control%20Drives%20Out%20Affordable%20Housing_files/pa-2741.gif

Questionmarktarius posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Rent control. without it, greedy landlords in major cities will continue to price gouge. Everyone needs shelter and they know this.

Rent control doesn't work

how

because dirty capitalists have more trouble exploiting people with it?

http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/rent%20control/How%20Rent%20Control%20Drives%20Out%20Affordable%20Housing.htm

The most striking observation is that the graphs of rents in free-market cities follow a standard bell curve. The vast majority of advertised rents cluster around the median, with between 33 percent and 40 percent below the census median. The median advertised rent is rarely more than $50 above the census median. This may be because the very cheapest apartments are not likely to be advertised in the newspaper and because landlords often raise rents when apartments become vacant. The mode - the number where the graph peaks - usually occurs below both medians. Characteristically, there is a steep climb on the low-rent side of the curve, followed by a long tail toward the "luxury" end of the market.
http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/rent%20control/How%20Rent%20Control%20Drives%20Out%20Affordable%20Housing_files/pa-2742.gif

It is also striking how affordable housing is in most free-market cities. In Philadelphia, the nation's fifth largest city, the most common advertised rent, the mode, is between $450 and $500--below both the advertised and census medians. (See Figure 1.) In Chicago, the mode was $500 to $550, also below both medians. Unregulated cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Phoenix, and Seattle seem to have almost perfectly competitive housing markets, with housing available at every price level but clustered at the low end.

The two cities with strict rent control are glaring exceptions to this pattern. In both New York (see Figure 2.) and San Francisco, advertised rents peaked at $2,000--more than triple the U.S. Census median rent for each city. The median advertised rent in New York was $1,350, in San Francisco, $1,400--both more than double the census median. More important, there were almost no rental units available at the low end of the market. In both San Francisco and New York, less than 10 percent of advertised rents were below the census median. (The New York figures also included listings from the Daily News and the New York Post, which are slanted toward the lower end of the market.) Rent control in both these cities appears to make housing spectacularly unaffordable
http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/rent%20control/How%20Rent%20Control%20Drives%20Out%20Affordable%20Housing_files/pa-2741.gif

b-but capital!!!
---