NationStates

Valrifell wrote:

Dylar wrote:I mean I've been on unemployment since March when I was laid-off and I was making more money on unemployment (almost $800 a week) than when I was working at a factory making $13.50 an hour.

Unemployment benefits, to my knowledge, have been uncharacteristically good on account of how many people have to tap into them due to the, you know, global pandemic.

USS Monitor wrote:I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that are whining because they can't get paid more to sit on their ass watching Netflix than what I get paid to bust my ass in a hot grimy warehouse with no AC. There's part of me that knows mass evictions would be a problem, but there's also part of me that thinks to hell with all the people that have been sitting on their ass doing nothing while we got overwhelmed with more work than we could handle.

If they introduced a universal basic income instead of extending the unemployment benefit, that might be a good option to keep the couch warmers in their homes while still being fair to the rest of us.

But it needs to be done in a way that is fair to people who are still working.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Insofar as all those are even done (taking out the trash? really?) they all have a market value measured by what the landlord can employ someone else to do. Which quite often the landlord does.

Then there is profit on top. You're saying the landlord earns the profit, by the "work" of employing contractors to repair, etc.



Back in the real world: if the landlord couldn't make a profit by receiving rent and subtracting costs, they would sell the property.

It's a classic case of "returns on capital", exactly what you're scoffing at, and if it wasn't profitable they would sell. Unicorn your way out of that.

In this country, Most small landlords, especially those buildings with 6 units or less do that work themselves

Since economics seems fo be a weak point. Rent is what the tenant pays for those services, we call that income. The landlord either pays someone to do it or does it themselves. Those are called "expenses", which do not go away based on whether there is income pays or not.

If no one pays rent a rental building has no value and is not sellable as such.

All those expenses still have to be paid. If the landlord cant make money those buildings do not get repaired,

they become abandoned

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that are whining because they can't get paid more to sit on their ass watching Netflix than what I get paid to bust my ass in a hot grimy warehouse with no AC. There's part of me that knows mass evictions would be a problem, but there's also part of me that thinks to hell with all the people that have been sitting on their ass doing nothing while we got overwhelmed with more work than we could handle.

Uh-huh. And what about people who lost their job and can't get another one?

San Lumen wrote:I think this is all part of republicans plan. People can’t vote if they Don’t have an address

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:In this country, Most small landlords, especially those buildings with 6 units or less do that work themselves

Fine, they do the work themselves. Plumbing, electrical it's all good. Tenants can't sue when they're dead, right?

Since economics seems fo be a weak point. Rent is what the tenant pays for those services, we call that income. The landlord either pays someone to do it or does it themselves. Those are called "expenses", which do not go away based on whether there is income pays or not.

Since economics is my weak point, you think you can just lie to me? Rent is what the tenant pays for the services AND for use of the accommodation AND profit for the landlord. Do you seriously expect me to be believe that landlords do a straight deal on their personal services and are allowing the tenant to use the building for nothing?

If no one pays rent a rental building has no value and is not sellable as such.

For now.

All those expenses still have to be paid. If the landlord cant make money those buildings do not get repaired,

For now. And over time that is going to suck for the tenants. But for now, I imagine they're pretty happy with some lights not working, having to take out their own garbage, etc, in exchange for not paying rent.

they become abandoned

They only become abandoned when the landlord evicts the tenants. You don't think tenants are going to move out of a place they previously paid rent for, because now they can live there for no rent? That's crazy shit you invented to get to your conclusion of urban decay. Landlords are taking it on the chin, I admit, but landlords by definition have assets. If loss of part share in their asset is the price they have to pay, for the government-inflicted recession we're in, then tough luck for them. Others are suffering more.

The black and white image of urban decay was a nice touch Ethel, but the crippled argument leading up to it rendered it rather ineffective.

San Lumen wrote:I think this is all part of republicans plan. People can’t vote if they Don’t have an address

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I think this is all part of republicans plan. People can’t vote if they Don’t have an address

Democrats also generally want landlords to be able to evict people, they just try to be a bit less obviously horrible about making people homeless. The power of eviction is kinda a necessary part of having rental housing.

Buranda wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Uh-huh. And what about people who lost their job and can't get another one?

If you have a warm body you can get hired by Fedex, and make 1000 a week. Mind you'll be working 50+ hours.

USS Monitor wrote:I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that are whining because they can't get paid more to sit on their ass watching Netflix than what I get paid to bust my ass in a hot grimy warehouse with no AC. There's part of me that knows mass evictions would be a problem, but there's also part of me that thinks to hell with all the people that have been sitting on their ass doing nothing while we got overwhelmed with more work than we could handle.

If they introduced a universal basic income instead of extending the unemployment benefit, that might be a good option to keep the couch warmers in their homes while still being fair to the rest of us.

But it needs to be done in a way that is fair to people who are still working.

Kowani wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that are whining because they can't get paid more to sit on their ass watching Netflix than what I get paid to bust my ass in a hot grimy warehouse with no AC. There's part of me that knows mass evictions would be a problem, but there's also part of me that thinks to hell with all the people that have been sitting on their ass doing nothing while we got overwhelmed with more work than we could handle.

If they introduced a universal basic income instead of extending the unemployment benefit, that might be a good option to keep the couch warmers in their homes while still being fair to the rest of us.

But it needs to be done in a way that is fair to people who are still working.

Side note, the unemployment benefits being increased did not discourage people from working. I don’t know enough to talk about your warehouse in particular, but on average, most people haven’t been working because nowhere is hiring.

Purpelia wrote:

New haven america wrote:How you can live in a developed country that's a Welfare State and has dozens of social safety nets like UHC and the like yet you're willing to make the same arguments that The GOP makes against those systems baffles me.

Just a few days ago you were arguing that the US is corrupt to the bone and now you're preaching the messages of the ones responsible for said corruption.

How you got to that interpretation from what I wrote is beyond the pale. Like, seriously, are you drunk right now? This is not an insult by the way. I just can't see any other reason why you would interpret what I wrote in that way other than maybe that you literally refused to read the conversation preceding it.

I am making an argument against the guy who wants to abolish all private property.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Fine, they do the work themselves. Plumbing, electrical it's all good. Tenants can't sue when they're dead, right?



Since economics is my weak point, you think you can just lie to me? Rent is what the tenant pays for the services AND for use of the accommodation AND profit for the landlord. Do you seriously expect me to be believe that landlords do a straight deal on their personal services and are allowing the tenant to use the building for nothing?



For now.



For now. And over time that is going to suck for the tenants. But for now, I imagine they're pretty happy with some lights not working, having to take out their own garbage, etc, in exchange for not paying rent.



They only become abandoned when the landlord evicts the tenants. You don't think tenants are going to move out of a place they previously paid rent for, because now they can live there for no rent? That's crazy shit you invented to get to your conclusion of urban decay. Landlords are taking it on the chin, I admit, but landlords by definition have assets. If loss of part share in their asset is the price they have to pay, for the government-inflicted recession we're in, then tough luck for them. Others are suffering more.

The black and white image of urban decay was a nice touch Ethel, but the crippled argument leading up to it rendered it rather ineffective.

The whole point is what happens when tenante dont pay rent (look at the thread title) As you mentioned rent provides the money for the services. When the rent isnt paid those services are not provided.

It is not that difficult.

Purpelia wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:You're right, private property is the source of this issue and so many more. Everything (and everyone) is a either a commodity and/or a tool in a capitalist society

Private property is necessary though. Without private ownership over stuff people would be forced to share everything with everyone. And that is absolutely horrifying to no end given how bad people actually are. I mean, maybe if humans were actually good by nature that might work. But the very idea anybody would even contemplate such an eventuality is laughable.

Kowani wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that are whining because they can't get paid more to sit on their ass watching Netflix than what I get paid to bust my ass in a hot grimy warehouse with no AC. There's part of me that knows mass evictions would be a problem, but there's also part of me that thinks to hell with all the people that have been sitting on their ass doing nothing while we got overwhelmed with more work than we could handle.

If they introduced a universal basic income instead of extending the unemployment benefit, that might be a good option to keep the couch warmers in their homes while still being fair to the rest of us.

But it needs to be done in a way that is fair to people who are still working.

Side note, the unemployment benefits being increased did not discourage people from working. I don’t know enough to talk about your warehouse in particular, but on average, most people haven’t been working because nowhere is hiring.

Torisakia wrote:I secretly hope I get affected by this simply because if I'm homeless and have no official address I can use that as my excuse for not voting and it actually being something I can do nothing about.

Genivaria wrote:

Kowani wrote:Side note, the unemployment benefits being increased did not discourage people from working. I don’t know enough to talk about your warehouse in particular, but on average, most people haven’t been working because nowhere is hiring.

I walked a square mile around where I live (distance is a major factor for me since I don't own a car) and of the 40+ businesses around here most are still closed and maybe 1 is hiring part time.

Kowani wrote:

Torisakia wrote:I secretly hope I get affected by this simply because if I'm homeless and have no official address I can use that as my excuse for not voting and it actually being something I can do nothing about.

That’s not actually how that works.
Also, homelessness is a terrible situation that people shouldn’t be in.

Kowani wrote:Source

On July 31, approximately 25 million people across the U.S. will stop receiving weekly $600 federal unemployment checks. Under new proposals by Senate Republicans, those benefits would be cut by 43% and replaced with a reduced weekly payment of $200 through September. That could have serious repercussions for tens of millions of Americans who have counted on the $600 payment as a crucial financial lifeline amid the economic havoc wreaked by the pandemic across the country. On top of that, the Federal Eviction Moratorium has expired, placing renters with federally backed mortgages at risk of losing their homes. It is estimated that they account for just over a quarter of all U.S. renters.

Even though White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow has hinted on an extension, the provision's expiration has allowed landlords to file eviction notices, though they won't be able to push people out of their homes for at least another 30 days. Combined with the cut in unemployment payments, it is likely to create the perfect storm for U.S. renters. An analysis from global advisory firm Stout Risius Ross estimates that more than 40% of renter households in the U.S. are going to experience rental shortfall during the Covid-19 crisis with just under 12 million facing eviction over the next four months alone. Around 17 million are likely to be impacted throughout the pandemic.

The analysis is based on Household Pulse Data from mid-July and it found that some states will be hit harder than others. For example, West Virginia is estimated to have the highest share of renter households facing eviction at close to 60%. Tennessee, Minnesota, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana are all among the states set to be worst impacted with shares at 50% or higher. Elsewhere, Vermont is the state where renters will be at the lowest risk of eviction, though 22% of them will potentially lose their homes over the course of the crisis.

28 million people. The US is expected to see 28 million people out of their homes by October. 40% of all renters, expected to be unable to make their payments.

(Image)

Renters are especially vulnerable. About 36% of renters, who are more likely to work in industries devastated by the coronavirus, missed their July housing bill, compared to 30% of homeowners.

Liriena wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Rent should really be abolished, but we could at least suspend it as well as evictions for the time being.



In fact, there's enough housing in the U.S. for everyone, only because they're "private property" it would be a crime to enter them. We should let anyone in need into these homes.

Look, all I'm saying is landlords should get a real job like real Americans.

Shofercia wrote:Those numbers are way off: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/32-perc ... ments.html

Renters are especially vulnerable. About 36% of renters, who are more likely to work in industries devastated by the coronavirus, missed their July housing bill, compared to 30% of homeowners.

Presuming a 60-40% owner-renter ratio, and presuming that half of the homes are paid off, or soon to be paid off, that leaves 23.4% of Americans as being potentially homeless. Out of a population of 328.2 million, that's 76.8 million people, and that's before the nadir of the downshift economic spiral. If this isn't dealt with, by then end of 2021, as many as 100 million Americans could be homeless. So 28 million is incredibly optimistic.

We need to extend rent freezes and mortgage freezes and UBI until we have a cure for COVID-19. Yes, the $1,200 was the UBI I'm referring to, and it should be received by all US Citizens over 18 on a bi-weekly, or at the very least on a monthly basis. We should also have $600 for child support, per kid.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Liriena wrote:Look, all I'm saying is landlords should get a real job like real Americans.

What do you even think a landlord does?

-maintains the property
-pays the mortgage, taxes, etc.

If there are no landlords then suddenly the only thing keeping people occupied in lieu of high housing costs is gone. If people's preference is to pay a bit of money each month compared to shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars on a loan then you can see where landlords are beneficial. And after all, if I own a piece of property, why shouldn't I be able to rent it out? Most landlords aren't amazingly rich.

Torisakia wrote:I secretly hope I get affected by this simply because if I'm homeless and have no official address I can use that as my excuse for not voting and it actually being something I can do nothing about.