Poll of the Day > My tenants owe me over $8000

(+) Yeah! (+)

IronBornCorps posted...

Don't forget pay their college loans back at the same time. I get the TV had like 5 channels, and there was no internet, but things like food insecurity and homelessness just weren't as big of issues back then.

Exactly. Even working people considered "poor" by the standards of the time probably at least rented a detached house.

As for UBI, I think there should be strings attached, but overall I've seen enough evidence to think the concept can work. Especially after the AI industrial revolution, where most of the workforce will be unemployed. I get compromises like rehab/therapy for addicts so the money isn't flushed into the black market or a verifiable monthly commitment of hours to community service (even if it's just talking to old people in a home or adopting a street). People need two things: hope and a purpose.

OhhhJa posted...

Most landlords are just middle class people. Many are older people just making their retirement money

Just sounds to me like double the reason to have guarantees on housing and other basic human needs. Landlords might lose their tenants but they can rest easier about retirement.

I think renting a room in the house you live in is one thing but if you start owning separate properties then you're just getting into using wealth to build more wealth. We're way too obsessed with wealth in western culture. If the supposed premise is that you just want to secure your future then okay, but it's obvious people go way beyond that. And the premise of being priced out of a dignified life is gross to begin with anyway. Maybe a long time ago you could make the case for our current systems but I feel like we've technogically advanced to the point where we could take care of everyone if we were willing to actually put in the effort

LinkPizza posted...

I think there are too many problems for UBI to work properly. At least anytime soon. And it really depends on how much they make. You say that people would work. But when people were making more money to not work, they decided to just not work. Even @Muscles (IIRC) said people at his job weren't returning because they were making more money staying home. It just depends on what benefits they get from working, and if they think those are worth it... That being said, there's also the problem of job losses coming with automaton and other stuff like self-checkout and whatnot...

idk how comparable that really is, considering a lot of people also stayed home because a quarantine for a global pandemic. Personal example, my bf quit his job because his boss said they didn't have to wear masks, he has yet to get a new one. He's not making more to stay home.

Automation doesn't really kill jobs, it just changes them in the long run. Remember when they said there would be no more bank tellers after ATM's came out? Yeah, less positions as a cashier, but now they have the grocery pickers for online delivery.

I personally believe that automation and UBI should go hand in hand. If we ever reach the point where everything can be automated, then not use the benefits of the automation to serve everyone instead of one billionaire who profits off it?

LinkPizza posted...

I think there are too many problems for UBI to work properly. At least anytime soon. And it really depends on how much they make. You say that people would work. But when people were making more money to not work, they decided to just not work. Even @Muscles (IIRC) said people at his job weren't returning because they were making more money staying home. It just depends on what benefits they get from working, and if they think those are worth it... That being said, there's also the problem of job losses coming with automaton and other stuff like self-checkout and whatnot...

Yep, but making more money to not work is different than working because ubi+wages > just ubi

---

Arcturusisnow posted...

Or perhaps actually be a fucking decent human being. We are still short 10 million jobs or hadn't you noticed. Landlords like you are the scum of the earth and deserved to be kicked in the dick multiple times.

Lmao. You sound so fucking stupid.

IronBornCorps posted...

idk how comparable that really is, considering a lot of people also stayed home because a quarantine for a global pandemic.

Automation doesn't really kill jobs, it just changes them in the long run. Remember when they said there would be no more bank tellers after ATM's came out? Yeah, less positions as a cashier, but now they have the grocery pickers for online delivery.

I personally believe that automation and UBI should go hand in hand. If we ever reach the point where everything can be automated, then not use the benefits of the automation to serve everyone instead of one billionaire who profits off it?

I get what you're saying, but the difference is a lot more far-reaching than "moving from the farm to the factory" was. Yeah, new jobs will emerge, but we will perpetually be erasing more than we create as A.I. takes over because it'll just do more of the new jobs too. Obviously I can't predict the future, and there are bound to be some new avenues and it's not going to be "everyone's unemployed" one day. Even some billionaires have admitted that a UBI may be necessary past a certain point because otherwise it'll be a few owners and billions of broke people coming to kill them.

Here's an interesting video:
https://youtu.be/LvpjwHT7o4I

CoorsLight posted...

Just sounds to me like double the reason to have guarantees on housing and other basic human needs. Landlords might lose their tenants but they can rest easier about retirement.

I think renting a room in the house you live in is one thing but if you start owning separate properties then you're just getting into using wealth to build more wealth. We're way too obsessed with wealth in western culture. If the supposed premise is that you just want to secure your future then okay, but it's obvious people go way beyond that. And the premise of being priced out of a dignified life is gross to begin with anyway. Maybe a long time ago you could make the case for our current systems but I feel like we've technogically advanced to the point where we could take care of everyone if we were willing to actually put in the effort

That's generally why most people try to accrue wealth. If that's how someone wants to earn their money then so be it. Doesnt make someone a bad person simply for earning money with their property. Anyone with a half a brain would do the same thing if they had multiple properties.

If you don't pay your mortgage, you lose your house to the bank. Why are we shitting on landlords while simultaneously excusing banks?

Even someone with multiple properties isn't necessarily mega rich either

I hear what you are saying too. As technology advances, it's going to replace jobs at a faster rate than new jobs are produced. Then yes, eventually an advanced AI could even do those jobs. I have worked with AI before as a programmer, that is still a fairly long way off imo.

I have no doubt there is a lot of nuance to getting UBI to be successful in the US, but it does work where it's implemented so far.

IronBornCorps posted...

I hear what you are saying too. As technology advances, it's going to replace jobs at a faster rate than new jobs are produced. Then yes, eventually an advanced AI could even do those jobs. I have worked with AI before as a programmer, that is still a fairly long way off imo.

I have no doubt there is a lot of nuance to getting UBI to be successful in the US, but it does work where it's implemented so far.

Yeah. The thing I think of is something I've mentioned on here before. This "bootstraps" conservative mayor didn't want anyone getting a free ride, but he agreed to a brief trial run. They found that the city's taxpayers saved about $50k per year per person because of the lower crime rate and decreased frequency in medical emergencies. So he took the stance of it still not being fair, but at the end of the day the community was safer and less tax dollars were being spent, so who cares?

Because people who hate landlords are well known for liking banks lol

The whole system is fucked up, paying an insane markup in the form of interest on a basic need is something I'm against. Like most wealth schemes, people pass it down. The owner getting dicked by the bank passes it on to the tenant with markups of his own. That doesn't make him necessarily worse than the bank but people are just ragging on landlords cause it's more relevant to the topic

Raddest_Chad posted...

Yeah. The thing I think of is something I've mentioned on here before. This "bootstraps" conservative mayor didn't want anyone getting a free ride, but he agreed to a brief trial run. They found that the city's taxpayers saved about $50k per year per person because of the lower crime rate and decreased frequency in medical emergencies. So he took the stance of it still not being fair, but at the end of the day the community was safer and less tax dollars were being spent, so who cares?

The whole "bootstraps" things is actually pretty crazy when you look at the history. "To pull ones self over the fence by their bootstraps" is supposed to be an impossible task.

CoorsLight posted...

Because people who hate landlords are well known for liking banks lol

The whole system is fucked up, paying an insane markup in the form of interest on a basic need is something I'm against. Like most wealth schemes, people pass it down. The owner getting dicked by the bank passes it on to the tenant with markups of his own. That doesn't make him necessarily worse than the bank but people are just ragging on landlords cause it's more relevant to the topic

Dude. That is the best way to put it. Basic needs should have a lot more protections from exploitation. A lot of things really just need a PR makeover too. Like "minimum wage" should be renamed "livable wage". It's a lot easier for people to swallow terrible-sounding pay for jobs they look down on, like fast food or retail, when in reality a min. wage was always supposed to be livable and that train of thinking just got spun out of the conversation.

I think the point is that property comes with a cost. If you live in someone else's house, you should pay them for it. Most landlords can't afford to bleed money so someone can squat in their house. The banks can, because worst case scenario, the corporate welfare state will bail them out

CoorsLight posted...

I think renting a room in the house you live in is one thing but if you start owning separate properties then you're just getting into using wealth to build more wealth.

I agree. If you live in a house and rent out rooms or a basement of whatever, that's fine. It's when you buy up properties that you aren't living in that it becomes a problem...

IronBornCorps posted...

idk how comparable that really is, considering a lot of people also stayed home because a quarantine for a global pandemic. Personal example, my bf quit his job because his boss said they didn't have to wear masks, he has yet to get a new one. He's not making more to stay home.

True. Some people did stay home for the quarantine. But many others probably stayed home since they made more from not working. It would be hard to get an accurate count. But logically, it makes sense. "Should I go to work to make my regular paycheck.? Or stay at home, relax, and spend time with my family to make like 50% more or double of what work pays me?" It would make sense to get more while doing less.

IronBornCorps posted...

Automation doesn't really kill jobs, it just changes them in the long run. Remember when they said there would be no more bank tellers after ATM's came out? Yeah, less positions as a cashier, but now they have the grocery pickers for online delivery.

I disagree. I think it kills jobs. Both of the big Wal-Marts use to have plenty of cashiers. Now, they each have maybe one at the front. Two on busier days or times... And I think ATMs are different, tbh. Most things, I can't do at every ATM. Like not all ATMs have deposits. And even then, it needs to be one at your bank, IIRC. Not to mention getting like cashiers check or money order. Bank tellers still do a bunch of things that ATMs don't or that most don't, I should say. When it comes to self-checkout, many have already lost their jobs... As for grocery store pickers, that's not every store. Only the big stores do it. And not everywhere yet, not all the big stores. And that's still very few jobs compared to the amount of cashiers they had. And all I ever hear is about new stuff they are making so that's humans have less jobs...

IronBornCorps posted...

I personally believe that automation and UBI should go hand in hand. If we ever reach the point where everything can be automated, then not use the benefits of the automation to serve everyone instead of one billionaire who profits off it?

The problem is that it will be a while before everything can be automated (if it ever can be, or if we ever get that far). But I don't see UBI working out very well anytime soon, and see a very messy world when trying to implement it, tbh... I mean, I guess it doesn't matter much as I don't think I'll be getting very old, so I most likely won't see it. But still...

Muscles posted...

Yep, but making more money to not work is different than working because ubi+wages > just ubi

I do agree it's different... to a degree. It depends still. Many people would probably be fine. If UBI is more than they made and they were already living comfortably, what reason is there to keep working. Especially if you don't like the job or something, unless you were getting something like maybe healthcare. That depends on the job, though. From what I hear, there are tons of people who wish they could quit their crappy job that barely pays enough to live." So, if they got free money, maybe they would actually quit. The only good thing that does is opens the job market a little for people who do still want to work. Though for how long is anyone's guess...
---

IronBornCorps posted...

The whole "bootstraps" things is actually pretty crazy when you look at the history. "To pull ones self over the fence by their bootstraps" is supposed to be an impossible task.

Not to mention boomers (and to a lesser extent, gen x) essentially having the world handed to them and then the game changing so much that it's literally impossible to follow the same template. Like the GOP dude the other day talking about his $6 wage being good enough... when it would be $24 now, or something.

OhhhJa posted...

I think the point is that property comes with a cost. If you live in someone else's house, you should pay them for it. Most landlords can't afford to bleed money so someone can squat in their house. The banks can, because worst case scenario, the corporate welfare state will bail them out

Yeah. I agree with that sentiment. You should pay for a service. My thing was simply saying "monopolizing and gouging housing markets" should be illegal. Especially in areas with huge shortages of places to live.

Every American should have a right to a job if they want it, healthcare, and a home for their family.

---

Mead posted...

Every American should have a right to a job if they want it, healthcare, and a home for their family.

100%. The best country is not measured by a headcount of billionaires, but by how small the gap between them and the bottom is.

OhhhJa posted...

If you live in someone else's house, you should pay them for it.

I think the problem is that most people don't want to live in someone else's house. But if landlords are buying up all the houses, it becomes nearly impossible, if not impossible, to not live in someone else's house... Many people want to own, but can't due to the landlords buying up all the property (or all the affordable property)...
---

Raddest_Chad posted...

100%. The best country is not measured by a headcount of billionaires, but by how small the gap between them and the bottom is.

I can dig this

LinkPizza posted...

I think the problem is that most people don't want to live in someone else's house. But if landlords are buying up all the houses, it becomes nearly impossible, if not impossible, to not live in someone else's house... Many people want to own, but can't due to the landlords buying up all the property (or all the affordable property)...

See but we're blaming the wrong people. It's not the fault of landlords that buying a house is so outrageously priced

OhhhJa posted...

See but we're blaming the wrong people. It's not the fault of landlords that buying a house is so outrageously priced

No. We're blaming the right people. It's the landlords fault for buying up 10 houses (along with the other landlords doing the same), which causes the people who live there to have no other choice but to rent. I don't see how it's anybody else's fault except for the landlords...
---

OhhhJa posted...

I think the point is that property comes with a cost. If you live in someone else's house, you should pay them for it. Most landlords can't afford to bleed money so someone can squat in their house. The banks can, because worst case scenario, the corporate welfare state will bail them out

Sure if someone had to pay for their house I think they're entitled to expect someone to pay them to use it, but I don't think someone should buy a house if they are reliant on it to be income to pay for itself. I still hate it though because they're charging the tenant more than it's worth for fewer privileges. And I agree that banks get too much government money which is why I feel that we'd be capable of investing a ton of it into the people instead

CoorsLight posted...

I don't think someone should buy a house if they are reliant on it to be income to pay for itself.

I mentioned this in another topic. If you want to buy multiple houses, you should be able to afford them. You shouldn't have to rely on someone else to pay for it to keep it...
---

I agree the banks have a role in this, but things like gentrification are on predatory landlords.

There are countless factors to why home prices are high but either way if you're going to use something as a means to generate wealth/income, you have some factor in that so that includes both landlords and banks

LinkPizza posted...

No. We're blaming the right people. It's the landlords fault for buying up 10 houses (along with the other landlords doing the same), which causes the people who live there to have no other choice but to rent. I don't see how it's anybody else's fault except for the landlords...

So if I have the money to buy a 2nd house I shouldn't do it because I become a supervillain if I do? That's silly my dude. Property is one of the safest investments anyone can make. If I wanna secure a future for my children by buying 2 or 3 properties and renting them out to someone who can't afford to buy a home, that doesn't make me a bad person

OhhhJa posted...

So if I have the money to buy a 2nd house I shouldn't do it because I become a supervillain if I do? That's silly my dude. Property is one of the safest investments anyone can make. If I wanna secure a future for my children by buying 2 or 3 properties and renting them out to someone who can't afford to buy a home, that doesn't make me a bad person

It does if you price gouge, not maintain the property per your agreement, or the properties you buy are the only ones in the area, giving you a monopoly on housing in the area.

OhhhJa posted...

So if I have the money to buy a 2nd house I shouldn't do it because I become a supervillain if I do? That's silly my dude. Property is one of the safest investments anyone can make. If I wanna secure a future for my children by buying 2 or 3 properties and renting them out to someone who can't afford to buy a home, that doesn't make me a bad person

IronBornCorps posted...

It does if you price gouge, not maintain the property per your agreement, or the properties you buy are the only ones in the area, giving you a monopoly on housing in the area.

This... Also, not really a supervillain, but a bad person... I'm fine if you want to buy a single house as a safe investment. It when you buy a bunch of properties, causing many others to not be able to buy any themselves... So, yes. It can (and usually does) make you a bad person...
---

Its over 8000!!!!!!!

---

yeah, not really a super villain. Mostly because I'm pretty sure those are fictional.

Haven't ready anything since post 40. Can I get a summary pls?

---

AwesomeTurtwig posted...

Haven't ready anything since post 40. Can I get a summary pls?

we're going to seize the means of production

---

tldr;

Landlords bad vs. Banks are worse

also discussion around universal base income.

we got kicked out of the house we rented when I was a kid because the landlord decided to let her son move there after getting married
---

AwesomeTurtwig posted...

Relatively annoying. I could buy so many snacks with that money. Just need them to pay!

Maybe some people fell behind due to the pandemic so allow them some space but if they're not paying you because they're not paying you then deal with that with legal action.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

we got kicked out of the house we rented when I was a kid because the landlord decided to let her son move there after getting married

That sucks and could have been handled better for sure but when you rent you never know what may come up and most people do not have a place to go on short notice or enough money to rent a motel room.

---

My tenant would owe me over $6000, but I am ignoring it as his situation didn't allow him to make payments. He has a new higher paying job starting Monday and has expressed an interest in voluntarily paying higher amounts now that he can afford to pay again.

It would be nice to have six grand, but I'm doing ok without it. And if he is able to make the payments as he expects to, I should be back to normal in a couple months.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Maybe some people fell behind due to the pandemic so allow them some space but if they're not paying you because they're not paying you then deal with that with legal action.

$8k is some space.

---