The American Eviction Crisis: Countdown to Doomsday

[Aclion]

How are we just going to give people houses and apartments? How long will they have no mortgage and no rent?

What do you mean, "How"? You just give them they key. Don't you own anything in your life that you were just given and didn't have to pay for? What the fuck is there to understand?

Where the home that key is to came from and how you expect it's construction and maintenance is going to be paid for. You talk as if homes just exist and are waiting for society to distribute them.

So let me get this straight: the US Government was actually dumb enough to require landlords to provide housing to tenants, while not providing any compensation or relief for the landlords, but also while bailing out the stock market with trillions of dollars?

Correct. Basically the attitude was to pass the cost of the shutdown onto the smallest demographic possible and ignore any possible consequences.
Well not so much the bailing out of the stock market. They bailed out employers in exchange for them not laying people off and causing a recession.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A few weeks ago I received in the mail a colon cancer test kit. There's a sheet of biodegradable paper, which goes in the toilet before you poop. There's a tiny spatula to take a sample of poop, which goes into some gel in a little vial. That goes in the reply-paid envelope and you mail it. In a few weeks you get told you probably don't have colon cancer. This happens every 5 years after the age of 50. It costs nothing, it's free.

Maybe you don't get such gifts from your government. Unless you consider the right to vote to be a thing of value ...

And I'm pretty sure you would have been given things for free, from private enterprise.

I think I got a toaster from a bank once when I opened a savings account. But I didn’t really consider that “free”, but an up front earning for opening an account.

I think of that as free. You could keep the toaster and never use the account. Though you did a bit of "work" filling out a form, so maybe it's a super cheap toaster?

[Ethel mermania]

Kind of, in the US at least, it depends in terms of the lease agreement. Some are structured in such a way that other expenses (IE utilities, repairs, taxes) aren't billed to the renter either through rent payments or additional fees.

Either way, this trope I'm seeing on this thread that landlords are somehow "parasites" is kind of annoying (not singling you out at all, just making an observation).

Landlords provide no useful service to their tenants. This is obvious when you consider that people who are not renting do not hire "landlords". If you own your own house, you wouldn't hire someone to take your mortgage payment and pass it to the bank, you would just make the payment to the bank yourself. You wouldn't hire someone to pass the taxes you owe to the tax man, you'd just pay your taxes. You wouldn't hire someone to go and in turn hire an electrician for you, you would just hire an electrician. Anything that a landlord does for their tenants is something that those tenants could realistically do for themselves without the landlord.

And landlords are different from businesses providing other kinds of rental services. Everything else people rent is something they only want or need for a limited period of time, and the service provider keeps a stock of that available for people to use for a few hours or days or whatever it is. But people who are renting somewhere to live, they're not in town for just a week, they're living in that place for years. They're renting a house, not because they only need to live there temporarily, but because they need to live there for the foreseeable future and can't afford to buy. And one of the reasons they can't afford to buy is that someone who only needed one place to live went and bought two or three or a thousand and is renting out what they're not using.

---

That doesn't account for any time between renters, or any time when a renter quits paying. Plus, at least ideally, renters are essentially paying to have flexible living and not be tied down to a specific location for years. You pay a bit extra for flexibility. It is unfortunate when that turns into paying to rent a place forever because you don't have the credit to buy a home.

I wonder if you would find anyone willing to pay the same kind of money for the same kind of flexibility when they own their home themselves. Pay a monthly fee, indefinitely, for someone who will facilitate you moving out whenever you want. Kind of like a real estate agent, except instead of only hiring them when you want their expertise, you hire them constantly. Doesn't sound like something anyone would sign up for.

From what I have seen as a CPA outside of rent controlled urban areas, most landlords when you have a steady tenant in the unit often you are just hoping to cash flow even. Very often landlords are kicking in their own money to cover these costs. As long as what you're kicking in is < the principal portion of the note payment then you are still building equity in the real estate (or to say it another way, the landlord only needs the tenant to cover mortgage interest + repairs + taxes etc to be in the black, at least for the months it is rented). Rarely do you make a bunch of cash from operating rentals. You're typically just building equity in the real estate slowly over years.

If there's so little money in taking big chunks of other people's wages then maybe they should stop being landlords and get a job of their own.

The idea that a long term solution to the COVID housing problem is just to is just to prevent evictions and force landlords to eat the loss of revenue for months is a fantasy.

It would be silly to just prevent evictions. You should prevent the commodification of housing entirely.

The idea that these landlords would evict millions of people so that the units could sit empty is also fantasy. They will take something over nothing.

There are already more empty homes in the United States than there are homeless people. Objectively, nothing is preferred over something in many cases.

The banks are going to have to take a hit on these loans, the landlords are going to have to take a hit, and, yes, the people who are living in rentals are still going to need to find a way to pay something for their housing. We don't need (and can't afford) to spend billions of our grandchildren's future labor to bail out today's banks, landlords, tenants, and homeowners from having to negotiate a way to get through this IMO.

So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

So much wrong, so much misunderstanding of reality.

Housing does not grow on trees. Someone has to pay to create the building, someone has to maintain it. Someone has to pay the taxes on it.

My little pony is not a viable economic system. I wish you would stop pretending it is.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

My little pony is not a viable economic system. I wish you would stop pretending it is.

It's called Equestria. Showing that you know nothing about My Little Pony or economics.

You can of course opt out. If you'd rather slave away for years paying double for your new house by taking a mortgage, you are of course welcome. I can't speak for Ifreann, but if I were the leader I'd see that people like you are rewarded with a tax holiday!

But no free pony for you. I am not confident that a cat who knows nothing about ponies, could properly care for one!

[Aureumterra]

Isn’t this a repeat of what happened during the Great Depression?

[Aclion]

So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

Cue massive housing crisis as literally no one builds housing anymore.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

On a more serious note, I wonder if Ifreann would consider a compromise. People do have to pay for their "free" house, but perhaps only half market price. And instead of taking a loan with a bank, they would just pay the government weekly, from when they move in (or perhaps within a year, to account for unemployed etc) until ten years or so later when they fully own the house. "Interest" would be no more than inflation, it would be an "interest free loan".

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

Cue massive housing crisis as literally no one builds housing anymore.

That proceeds no faster than population growth. Can easily be coped with by modest new housing construction by government.

Though there will have to be an initial spike of building to accommodate the currently homeless.

[Ifreann]

What do you mean, "How"? You just give them they key. Don't you own anything in your life that you were just given and didn't have to pay for? What the fuck is there to understand?

Where the home that key is to came from and how you expect it's construction and maintenance is going to be paid for. You talk as if homes just exist and are waiting for society to distribute them.

Because that is exactly the situation. There are an estimated 1.5 million empty homes in the United States.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Isn’t this a repeat of what happened during the Great Depression?

Sort of, although in the 1930s it was more of a mortgage crisis, and the wartime economy ten years later can be attributed to lifting the economy back up

During the Great Depression the hardest hit demographics were Italian and Irish Americans, though

[Ifreann]

So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

Cue massive housing crisis as literally no one builds housing anymore.

If only there were some way that society could fund construction projects without a profit motive. Like if there was some kind of public fund that everyone paid into that was then spent on things that served the public good.

[Ethel mermania]

My little pony is not a viable economic system. I wish you would stop pretending it is.

It's called Equestria. Showing that you know nothing about My Little Pony or economics.

You can of course opt out. If you'd rather slave away for years paying double for your new house by taking a mortgage, you are of course welcome. I can't speak for Ifreann, but if I were the leader I'd see that people like you are rewarded with a tax holiday!

But no free pony for you. I am not confident that a cat who knows nothing about ponies, could properly care for one!

Real world ponies, much like buildings are expensive to keep and maintain. But that doesn't seem to matter to lots of folks. Fantasy land is a beautiful place, and free ponies and beautifully equipped free housing would be lovely to have, but the real world keeps intruding. Lawns have to be kept, buildings n3ed to be maintained, and stalls for ponies still have to have shut shoveled out of them.

[Aclion]

Cue massive housing crisis as literally no one builds housing anymore.

If only there were some way that society could fund construction projects without a profit motive. Like if there was some kind of public fund that everyone paid into that was then spent on things that served the public good.

If you're asking the people risking their lives to pay to build you a house because you wont work then you can fuck right off.

[Ifreann]

If only there were some way that society could fund construction projects without a profit motive. Like if there was some kind of public fund that everyone paid into that was then spent on things that served the public good.

If you're asking the people risking their lives to pay to build you a house because you wont work then you can fuck right off.

Again, 1.5 million empty houses in the US. And who exactly do you imagine would be risking their lives to contribute to the public purse?

[Aclion]

If you're asking the people risking their lives to pay to build you a house because you wont work then you can fuck right off.

Again, 1.5 million empty houses in the US. And who exactly do you imagine would be risking their lives to contribute to the public purse?

Literally the person you are speaking to right now.

[Liriena]

If only there were some way that society could fund construction projects without a profit motive. Like if there was some kind of public fund that everyone paid into that was then spent on things that served the public good.

If you're asking the people risking their lives to pay to build you a house because you wont work then you can fuck right off.

I know that not understanding material reality is kind of a necessity for conservative ideology, but you have to be willfully ignorant to pretend that everyone (or most people) who currently face eviction or have no stable housing are just "lazy" and refusing to work.

The working poor exist, dude. They arguably make up the majority of the poor.

[Libertarians]

That doesn't account for any time between renters, or any time when a renter quits paying. Plus, at least ideally, renters are essentially paying to have flexible living and not be tied down to a specific location for years. You pay a bit extra for flexibility. It is unfortunate when that turns into paying to rent a place forever because you don't have the credit to buy a home.

I wonder if you would find anyone willing to pay the same kind of money for the same kind of flexibility when they own their home themselves. Pay a monthly fee, indefinitely, for someone who will facilitate you moving out whenever you want. Kind of like a real estate agent, except instead of only hiring them when you want their expertise, you hire them constantly. Doesn't sound like something anyone would sign up for.

You can't own your home and be free to move in a year. If you own a home, you are rooted down. That does not work well for young people. In fact, I would say contrary to the popular narrative it's a bad idea to buy a home in your 20s, partly because I did so and got burned, but if there is even a chance you're going to move in like 3-4 years you should be renting. You will never save enough to justify paying a RE agent to sell your house. You will make your payment every month and get less out at the end than you paid down on the house.

So yes, I think people would pay extra month to month to have the freedom to move. As I said, I bought a house and then got an opportunity for a 23k raise about 120 miles from where I was. I took it, and obviously that worked out for me. But I still would have been better off to have rented originally instead of bought, because I was stuck with a house that I would have to take a loss to sell.

From what I have seen as a CPA outside of rent controlled urban areas, most landlords when you have a steady tenant in the unit often you are just hoping to cash flow even. Very often landlords are kicking in their own money to cover these costs. As long as what you're kicking in is < the principal portion of the note payment then you are still building equity in the real estate (or to say it another way, the landlord only needs the tenant to cover mortgage interest + repairs + taxes etc to be in the black, at least for the months it is rented). Rarely do you make a bunch of cash from operating rentals. You're typically just building equity in the real estate slowly over years.

If there's so little money in taking big chunks of other people's wages then maybe they should stop being landlords and get a job of their own.

Most do. As I said, a good chunk are kicking in their own money so that money is coming from somewhere else. A lot of landlords are doctors/lawyers/accountants/etc by day. Like I said, I have that one rent house I got stuck with. It is what it is.

And besides, it is not that it is little money. It just isn't cash flow. You can be profiting and losing cash flow. A big chuck of landlords or real estate people in general are doing so.

I'm frankly too rooted in knowing the inner workings and numbers of my client's rental operations to engage seriously in the hysterics of needing to seize the property and give it to these hard working folks. We are living beyond our means to the extreme. This crisis has reveled a huge problem in how we live, but it isn't that 30-40% of our income goes to putting a large physical structure around us. Nor will we ever, short of socialist work camps, create housing for free. It's massively expensive and risky to build homes, and until we can 3D print the whole damn thing it is going to be the biggest cost people pay.

[Ethel mermania]

If you're asking the people risking their lives to pay to build you a house because you wont work then you can fuck right off.

I know that not understanding material reality is kind of a necessity for conservative ideology, but you have to be willfully ignorant to pretend that everyone (or most people) who currently face eviction or have no stable housing are just "lazy" and refusing to work.

The working poor exist, dude. They arguably make up the majority of the poor.

Blind lecturing the seeing again I see.

[Liriena]

I know that not understanding material reality is kind of a necessity for conservative ideology, but you have to be willfully ignorant to pretend that everyone (or most people) who currently face eviction or have no stable housing are just "lazy" and refusing to work.

The working poor exist, dude. They arguably make up the majority of the poor.

Blind lecturing the seeing again I see.

?

[Aclion]

If you're asking the people risking their lives to pay to build you a house because you wont work then you can fuck right off.

I know that not understanding material reality is kind of a necessity for conservative ideology, but you have to be willfully ignorant to pretend that everyone (or most people) who currently face eviction or have no stable housing are just "lazy" and refusing to work.

The working poor exist, dude. They arguably make up the majority of the poor.

Fedex is hiring warm bodies at 17/h starting(19 after covid bonus). It's not the only one. Nearly all the essential industries are facing a labor shortage right now. Come on in.

[Juristonia]

I know that not understanding material reality is kind of a necessity for conservative ideology, but you have to be willfully ignorant to pretend that everyone (or most people) who currently face eviction or have no stable housing are just "lazy" and refusing to work.

The working poor exist, dude. They arguably make up the majority of the poor.

Fedex is hiring warm bodies at 17/h starting(19 after covid bonus). It's not the only one. Nearly all the essential industries are facing a labor shortage right now. Come on in.

What part of "working poor" did you think meant "looking for work" exactly?

[Ifreann]

Again, 1.5 million empty houses in the US. And who exactly do you imagine would be risking their lives to contribute to the public purse?

Literally the person you are speaking to right now.

I'm pretty confident that this pandemic will prove to be temporary.

---

I wonder if you would find anyone willing to pay the same kind of money for the same kind of flexibility when they own their home themselves. Pay a monthly fee, indefinitely, for someone who will facilitate you moving out whenever you want. Kind of like a real estate agent, except instead of only hiring them when you want their expertise, you hire them constantly. Doesn't sound like something anyone would sign up for.

You can't own your home and be free to move in a year. If you own a home, you are rooted down. That does not work well for young people. In fact, I would say contrary to the popular narrative it's a bad idea to buy a home in your 20s, partly because I did so and got burned, but if there is even a chance you're going to move in like 3-4 years you should be renting. You will never save enough to justify paying a RE agent to sell your house. You will make your payment every month and get less out at the end than you paid down on the house.

So yes, I think people would pay extra month to month to have the freedom to move. As I said, I bought a house and then got an opportunity for a 23k raise about 120 miles from where I was. I took it, and obviously that worked out for me. But I still would have been better off to have rented originally instead of bought, because I was stuck with a house that I would have to take a loss to sell.

If this flexibility is so valuable then why are people not paying to get it when they do own their house? Why is there no service that you could have been paying for that would allow you to move immediately despite owning a house?

Incidentally, this is another thing that could be solved by the decommodification of housing. If a house is something to live in, something we provide to everyone, not something that's bought and sold, something we socialise the cost of providing, then when you want to move 120 miles away, you could just give away your house to someone who wants to live in the area you're leaving and move into the house of someone who's leaving the area you want to move to. You don't have to spend months or years negotiating with buyers, you trying to get the most money and them trying to spend the least money. You would only need to pack.

If there's so little money in taking big chunks of other people's wages then maybe they should stop being landlords and get a job of their own.

Most do. As I said, a good chunk are kicking in their own money so that money is coming from somewhere else. A lot of landlords are doctors/lawyers/accountants/etc by day. Like I said, I have that one rent house I got stuck with. It is what it is.

And besides, it is not that it is little money. It just isn't cash flow. You can be profiting and losing cash flow. A big chuck of landlords or real estate people in general are doing so.

I'm frankly too rooted in knowing the inner workings and numbers of my client's rental operations to engage seriously in the hysterics of needing to seize the property and give it to these hard working folks. We are living beyond our means to the extreme. This crisis has reveled a huge problem in how we live, but it isn't that 30-40% of our income goes to putting a large physical structure around us. Nor will we ever, short of socialist work camps, create housing for free. It's massively expensive and risky to build homes, and until we can 3D print the whole damn thing it is going to be the biggest cost people pay.

There are 1.5 million empty homes in the US. And America is an immensely wealthy nation, you've spent trillions on wars in the Middle East, you could easily afford however many new houses you might need if you were a little bit more sensible about how you spend your money.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Thankfully my family and I don't rent. Unfortunately there's a very real chance that if one of us loses our jobs or can't work for whatever reason, the utilities get turned off.

[Plzen]

The NHS has many problems and some of them are very serious, but it’s still better than the actively burning disaster they have over there in the US. I have complete confidence that the State guaranteeing citizens’ right to have a roof over their heads and doing so at the public expense will be a similar improvement over the status quo.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The NHS has many problems and some of them are very serious, but it’s still better than the actively burning disaster they have over there in the US. I have complete confidence that the State guaranteeing citizens’ right to have a roof over their heads and doing so at the public expense will be a similar improvement over the status quo.

It seems like we like to maximize misery on this side of the pond.