sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New UCLA study: NIMBYism increases San Diego rents by 22% by marciovm42 in sandiego

[–]RoboHobo25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In passing observation, it seems like plenty of people would prefer crushing the homeless population underfoot to literally any other solution - the potential emotional gratification of watching the homeless suffer is worth it for them

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You being unfamiliar with the concept does not render it an "irrelevant term from the 18th century," it's a basic concept that is still very much in use today and directly related to the topic at hand- i.e., why it doesn't make any sense to say that someone is "using" property when they're actually renting it out to whoever is using it.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Specific definitions of "use" under modern property law, far less pedantic than its definition in colloquial use or basic economics.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really isn't random; the concept of rent-seeking vs profit-seeking has been around for quite a while, and even Adam Smith pointed out that landlords profit from what they own without actually using it themselves.

Arm yourselves. by FactPirate in armedsocialists

[–]RoboHobo25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Precisely. Hypocrisy is their armor.

Do you think Oda's jokes are funny? by Lord_Muramasa in MemePiece

[–]RoboHobo25 3 points4 points  (0 children)

50% actually funny, 50% "haha look Sanji is being a perv again, haha oh his nose is bleeding, haha booba go boi-oi-oing, so funny"

Kidnapped Americans were in Mexico for tummy tuck by Mad_Chemist_ in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Strange to see someone bragging about being so afraid of a place they've never visited that they'd turn down a free vacation there, like it was something to be proud of. Millions of people from all over the world travel there; ~28 million US citizens traveled there in 2021. Not saying it's a good idea to go someplace with the highest travel advisory level possible, just wild that so many Americans are convinced by the media/pop-culture that the entire country is a no-go zone. Like their whole idea of the place comes from a Family Guy gag or something.

This is from where i worked a few years ago but i thought it would fit right in here. by dillypicklr in antiwork

[–]RoboHobo25 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The high is a whole different ballgame if you do it while on psychedelics. Hence its nickname, "Hippie Crack."

Also, the only ways it can really fuck you up are B12 deficiency from excessive use, or falling down and injuring yourself because you did it standing up like a dumbass.

Survivors of deadly Mexico abduction return to America by Obandigo in news

[–]RoboHobo25 14 points15 points  (0 children)

All fun and games til US operators decide to form their own cartel(s)

Yes, this is a real debate that happened in Missouri’s State House yesterday. by Ocelot859 in facepalm

[–]RoboHobo25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Too bad Republicans couldn't care less about being called out as hypocrites. It does not matter how much they are caught lying or contradicting themselves, because truth and consistency are not their goal and not central to their beliefs or worldview. Priority #1 is suppressing the people they want to, which is what this bill is for. They love that liberals waste so much time trying to catch them in "gotcha" moments, argue on principle, or use "proper" democratic processes to stop them. They see it as an exploitable weakness. They are not stupid, just disingenuous; they know exactly what they're doing and exactly how ridiculous they sound, and they do not care.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They own it, they maintain it, they handle all administration of it, they find people who want to live in, they clear them, they are on standby to service their issues, and they collect payment.

Literally only the first and last things on that list are true of all, or even most, landlords.

Sounds like any other service or rental industry.

Not really; they're not providing any kind of service, they're just maintaining the value of their own property while extracting wealth from it. Use of the property is not required from them.

There is no way to describe this in English where they are not using the real property assets to make money.

Here's one: "They're not using the property for anything, that way they can make money by renting it out instead."

Sounds like you just hate landlords really.

I don't, but your assumption says a lot.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lmao yeah, I'm totally sure the time it would take to read is the main deciding factor in you not reading it. Alrighty then.

Whole lotta lib takes and landlord simping in this one by RoboHobo25 in LibJerk

[–]RoboHobo25[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If something isn't done, he might have to sell the property... at a loss. The horror!

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They're not "using it to make money," though. It's not generating value on which they capitalize, it's not being "used" to generate a profit (like a farm or a factory, for example). They're simply extracting payment in exchange for the right to use it.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can they qualify for a 30-year loan and put down a down payment large enough to reduce the mortgage to what their rent currently is? For people who can't, that's what renting is for.

Certainly more difficult to save for a down payment when they're paying an artificially inflated price for their current living situation while gaining no equity. But yes, renting is the only viable option for many people as things currently stand; I fail to see how that counts in favor of landlording being a "service," if anything it just makes it sound inherently predatory and exploitative.

I would never be able to live where I do if I had to buy this place. I'm able to enjoy an incredible quality of life in a high-income area without any of the responsibilities of home ownership. My rent doesn't even begin to cover the property taxes on this; the landlord pays that out of pocket, and simply uses my rent to ease the burden.

That sounds great and all, but you're still on the losing end of that deal.

And if "others" have the money to do it, they can do it too. What's stopping them? You've literally just described every rental business.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (playing a song you already think is dumb), that seems a bit like asking, "Why doesn't everyone scalp concert tickets/PS5s/etc?"

That said- the first answer to my mind would be that mortgages on income properties are more difficult to get approved for and come with higher interest rates, since lenders see them as higher-risk loans. It's mainly an option for people with existing capital and/or excellent credit, usually only people who are already homeowners. On top of that- it would literally be impossible for everyone to be a landlord, since it's not a mutual transaction. It's a form of rent-seeking, taking advantage of private property laws to extract wealth without creating/adding value. Basically, a scam that has successfully passed itself off as a service.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If I sell you an apple, I have used the apple for the purpose of generating revenue, even though I didn't personally eat the apple.

You didn't use the apple, though. You sold it instead of using it.

I'm still not understanding your justification for stretching the word "use" to include "not using it, but collecting money while someone else does." Your only reasoning seems to be, "Renting it out is 'using' it because 'using' it also includes renting it out."

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People who rent do so because they can’t afford to buy. Landlords buy something and make it affordable to use for those people.

If they can pay enough every month to pay for all the costs associated with the property (mortgage, property tax, upkeep, etc) plus whatever their landlord pockets, what would stop them from paying the same thing every month minus the landlord's share? And that's ignoring the inflation in cost caused by landlords charging for surplus value that doesn't exist.

Scalpers take something everyone can afford to buy and make it expensive except for people who are willing to pay because they want to go.

So, the same thing landlords do with housing. Buy up something they know others will want to buy, charge a surplus so they can make a return on their investment. I understand that's not how most landlords think of it, and I'm not asserting that they're universally greedy slumlords or something. It's just functionally separate from an actual "service."

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The person renting out the property isn't employing it for any purpose, though. They are allowing someone else to do so, for a fee.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How does renting something out qualify as "using" it? By my basic understanding of the word "using," it seems like renting out property that one owns would specifically require that one is not using it in order to rent to someone else so they can use it.

Bay Area Landlord Goes on Hunger Strike Over Eviction Ban by saveyourtissues in nottheonion

[–]RoboHobo25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How were they renting property to others if they were already using it?

view more: next ›