this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45745 readers
100 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Elmo: Let me introduce you to the revolutionary who taught me all this.

*knocks on trash can

[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if this is an Oscar reference or a Zizek reference and either way I'm here for it.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I like to think you'd find both of them inside the trashcan of ideology.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

CAPITAL-ism is aimed and designed to benefit those with the capital.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Rich people who lived simply, "not underdeveloped, over exploited."

The bananas were a nice touch. It's sickening how politicians are using terms like "banana republic" divorcing them from actual meaning. I almost said, "and kangaroo court," but caught myself, before typing "court," since for a lot of North Americans struggling for any justice get that, for instance the college protesters.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They call countries banana republics, from what could be described as oil and banking republics with just a small modification or two, without a hint of irony.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago

You know it!

[–] ThatGiantCameron@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I hate this about our system. To combat this i am sharing equity with the guy that rents a room. I'm tracking how much his rent payments go to paying off the mortgage (which I can make myself, it's just a larger house with rooms to spare) he will get a check based off the percent he paid off on sale, or a percentage of revenue if we end up keeping and paying it off years later. Finance people think I'm crazy giving up that much equity. I just hated tossing rent money to the void, so I figured now that I'm in a position to change my little corner of the world, I will.

[–] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

That's super cool, I've wanted to do something similar like this but never have had the opportunity.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The finance people (and sadly, many many others) think making the number bigger is a more important and worthwhile goal than making your corner of the world a better place. So good on you for being a compassionate human!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter what individuals think in the system, the system moves regardless because if they don't take advantage of it, others will and will supercede them. In this manner, Capital functions almost like a god that is actually worshipped.

Individuals being compassionate within a horrible system will not influence the system overall, though it doesn't mean compassion isn't worth it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Have you consulted with a lawyer about this? The laws differ from place to place, but I'd be worried the equity you give him may also grant him some sort of claim on the house, which would mean he gets a say on financial things related to the real estate. This can complicate things in the future.

Also - what does "percentage of revenue if we end up keeping and paying it off years later" mean? That after he leaves you will pay him for his share in your house?

[–] ThatGiantCameron@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have and officially on paper he is a normal renter. Since this kind of deal doesn't happen there's really no system so his payout is a handshake deal on sale, as of now only around 8%. As for if the property is kept, once fully paid off he would receive a yearly dividend of what was made off rent, which wouldn't be much as we won't charge much above operating and maintenance cost. Truthfully keeping it is the less likely option as we would like to sell so he can walk away with a decent down payment on his own place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point because the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn't have the luxury of caring about things like this thanks to the broke ass system we all reside in.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Yeah, they're not going to suddenly gain $50k+ cash for a down-payment to replace their home. Yes, a mortgage should be cheaper than rent but a renter probably can't save an extra 3 year's worth of rent to put it down.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're describing a job in that scenario too lol.

Yes, people lose their shit once they stop doing their job lol. Landlords in their version are effectively building mechanics and paper pushers keeping their property above board so people can live in it. Most of them I knew all had jobs outside of it too because it doesn't pay the bills lol.

Yes, it would be phenomenal if they dropped all their extra money into the stock market like your average person but they diversified or put it into equity instead since they didn't trust stock or had houses willed to them.

I get when people talk about slumlords, or giant corpos. But I've had to quote it before that the lionshare of them are people like I mentioned above with corpos buying out more and more in recent years because they're just as poor as everyone else.

Meanwhile even the most liberal people on here get baited thinking they're scum. Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.

Unionize. Reform land and property ownership. Vote in as many Progressive > Democrats to help make that happen. Vote yes on school ballot measures even if you get taxes. Run for government yourself if you loathe who represents you. Grassroot campaigns are hard as hell with a huge uphill battle, but poor people aren't excluded from government.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.

Landlording isn't a job.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

Who are you responding to, bud?

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

It is virtually impossible to work individually against landlords. Instead, form or join a tensnts' union. And maybe some orgs opposed to landlordism.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_strike

When you get the whole building involve, it can be surprisingly effective.

the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn’t have the luxury of caring about things like this

You don't think a family of 3 cares when their rents double over five years while their wages barely budge?

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No, I didn't say that. I said a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it and you're too busy making a point to pay rent.

This is true. So not sure what point any of what you said serves, though you're not wrong.

Also, my grandma lived inna building where 90% of the tenants did this, came together and made their demands and refused to pay rent all together.

They were all removed systematically.

Not saying it never works, but it's alot for the average working class American to risk.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)

a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it

Why do you think anyone can afford these homes?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

But if you need a place to rent... Quid pro quo.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] zanyllama52@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Stop paying rent to see who loses their home. It's an ugly system.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Who forecloses on the tenant? The landlord

Who forecloses on the landlord? The bank

Who actually performs the eviction? The sheriff's office

Who therefore truly controls the property?

[–] Hackworth@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] KellysNokia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Corporate landlords who pick up the property at collapsed values and maximize rent to suppress the ability for these folks to buy property again?

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Rocko is the landlord

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

..So you're not living in the house in which you pay rent? You're paying for the landlord to live there?? Then where do you stay??? What is this logic??? It doesn't make sense.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I mean, this is how businesses work in general. If you don't buy their products/services, then they wouldn't be able to continue providing them.

I understand that we're trying to draw attention to exploitative landlords, but if anyone can afford to keep their property regardless of whether or not you pay rent, it's the exploitative ones.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (24 children)

The problem is that landlords don't create value, they seek to endlessly profit off of one time labor. Rent-seeking creates no real Value of any substance.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including 'many', 'most', or such as an easy remedy.

Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including 'many', 'most', or such as an easy remedy.

The act of landlording creates no Value. There isn't a "most" there, because it creates no Value, period.

Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.

Maintenance workers create Value, yes. Landlords are not creating value, here, the workers are. Landlords often pay management firms as well, cutting out all personal involvement. The minor, administrative labor does create Value, but that is incredibly small in the scope of the money expropriated from the renters.

Greed didn't make this happen, Capitalism did. The Mode of Production naturally led to this, it isn't a case of especially greedy people taking power.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

In theory, the value they create is in handling all the home maintenance. Of course, many of them don't do their jobs in practice.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Maintenance creates Value, yes, but landlords aren't maintenance services, they extract by far the bulk of the profits off of owning the home itself and renting it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)

They do create value. They provide maintenance free housing as well as short term housing (short term as in 1-3 years.) Not everyone wants to stay in the same location for 5+ years. If you move around alot It you want to rent is usually the better option.

Now sure you could argue they are over charging for that service but that doesn't mean they aren't providing value.

The only reason why we are having issues is because there is a housing shortage that is raising the price and large companies have taken advantage of this by buying up all the houses at the crazy price and renting them out at crazy rent prices eating up the market for actual people to want to buy a house.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

No. It's not large companies. It's a sickness inherent in the system and exactly what this is taking about. The only service being provided is leveraging their own credit to get a mortgage from the bank and then paying that mortgage and taxes with rent. They do that because it will decrease supply and increase value. And that's a parasitic practice done not just by large companies by any means. In my city they even subcontract for maintenance and also pay for that out of the rent. If we're doing this shit, why exactly aren't we just letting the renters own their equity for paying the goddamn mortgage. It's a disgusting system.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

They provide maintenance free housing...

Keep in mind this isn't always the case. Landlords where I used to live are increasingly requiring tenants to pay for some maintenance costs. A past landlord had us pay for anything $300 or less.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] void_star@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (39 children)

If they don’t create value then they wouldn’t exist in a capitalist market. Their value is that they take the liability of homeownership.

load more comments (39 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nadru@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So you prefer having a millionaire landlord, noted..

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I prefer no landlords at all

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›