1y ago

Get rid of landlords...

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

513 comments

You seem to be confusing maintenance, utilitiy management, and other actual services
I guess in your fantasy world all of those jobs happen because the service providers are benevolent clairvoyants and don't need to be vetted, managed, or need oversight.
- No, those jobs are still managed and overseen in a co-op.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative
  The system is identical, but instead of the owner profiting for their own sake, there is no owner other than the collection themselves, and no profit.
  
  Hurr durr, so in your fantasy world everybody lives in a coop, and people like me who don't want to are forced into it. No, thanks, I don't want that totalitarian shit.
  
  It's just as "totalitarian" either way. It's esentially the same system without the surplus being taken out of your pocket.
  In a landlord system:
  You pay $2000 a month. Of that, $1500 goes towards mortgage. Another $200 goes to maintenance, utilities, etc. The landlord pockets $300 for himself.
  You have no choice but to rent from a landlord, buy housing yourself, or be homeless
  Eventually the landlord pays off the mortgage, and pockets the additional $1500 for themselves because it's "market rate". Your rent remains at $2000/month.
  The landlord dictates the rules of the building. You cannot get rid of a tyrant landlord except for moving, which isn't free, easy, or time convenient
  In a co-op:
  You pay $1000 a month. Of that, $800 goes towards mortgage, far less because it is no longer a speculative investment. The remaining $200 goes to maintenance, utilities, etc. There is no landlord, the collective collectively owns the housing. Nobody pockets any money for themselves.
  You have no choice but to rent from a co-op, buy housing yourself, or be homeless
  Eventually the co-op pays off the mortgage and your rent then drops to $200/month.
  You vote for who is the manager/council of the building(s), which is almost always a tenant themselves. It's generally not a full time job usually single digit hours, and they are compensated. If the manager/council become tyrannical, you vote them out.
  You have a clearly better system available, both in terms of your freedom and your wallet. And the better option isn't the landlord. They're all too happy to use your paycheck to buy another yacht or private jet.
  And this isn't fantasy, non-market co-ops do exist. Look at the above link about Pittsburgh.
  
  That's a lot of mental gymanstics to justify forcing me into a lifestyle I don't want.
  You have a clearly better system available, both in terms of your freedom and your wallet
  That's my decision, not yours.
  
  Why do you not want a system of cheaper housing, with more power/freedom in your hands?
  
  it's clearly just a landlord pretending to be a happy renter
  
  While possible, there is no way to be certain. Corporate interests like these don't get perpetuated solely by the owning class. It requires swaths of the working class to have stockholm syndrome. So until it devolves into insults, generally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
  Botting on the other hand is a different story.
  
  Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance. Owners have had centuries of propaganda to fool people that they actually do anything.
  
  You pay $1000 a month. Of that, $800 goes towards mortgage, far less because it is no longer a speculative investment.
  It is bizarre that you think that housing is used as a "speculative" investment. Housing and stocks were monetized because our money is centrally planned and devalues through excessive money creation, and people simply need a place where they can store wealth without having it destroyed. If people could use money to store their wealth housing would be demonetized and prices would go down, then your coop model could naturally outcompete renting if it truly is superior. Fix the money, fix the world.
  
  It is bizarre that you think that housing is used as a “speculative” investment.
  No it's not.
  https://create.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Real-Estate-Speculation.pdf
  people simply need a place where they can store wealth without having it destroyed
  That's what banks are for.
  If people could use money to store their wealth housing would be demonetized and prices would go down, then your coop model could naturally outcompete renting if it truly is superior. Fix the money, fix the world.
  This is a load of nonsense. People already use money to store their wealth.
  Coops haven't taken off because it is in the financial interest of the owning class to maintain the status quo. They do everything in their power to buy up every property they can, and to influence the law to keep their business in power.
  The problem is systematic, it requires a fundamental change to the structure of our economy.
  
  This is a load of nonsense. People already use money to store their wealth.
  I guess you never heard about inflation, must be nice to be that privileged.
  
  I guess you never heard about a savings account or corporate greed, must be nice to be that privileged.
  
  If you believe that a savings account outpace inflation I don't know how to help you. You've obviously never been poor, or very rich, if you swallow the official CPI numbers.

513 comments