The American Eviction Crisis: Countdown to Doomsday

[Purpelia]

1. Because what you wrote and what the GOP tends to screech about every other month or so if you even mention expanding The ACA or Welfare are the same things.
2. No, I don't drink because I like to stay cognizant when people make stupid fucking arguments that deserve to be ridiculed, like yours is deserving of.
3. Yes, and those arguments happen to be word for word the same arguments a lot of the GOP makes against any form of social safety net.

It is exceedingly rude from you not to have read the entire conversation to understand that I am arguing against a known and open anarchist that wants to abolish all private property as opposed to rudely assuming I was one of your american pundits. By responding without understanding the context of the discussion you made a fool of your self, wasted my time and insulted my intelligence. Furthermore you assumed I was an american, which in it self is a grievous insult to me.

[New haven america]

1. Because what you wrote and what the GOP tends to screech about every other month or so if you even mention expanding The ACA or Welfare are the same things.
2. No, I don't drink because I like to stay cognizant when people make stupid fucking arguments that deserve to be ridiculed, like yours is deserving of.
3. Yes, and those arguments happen to be word for word the same arguments a lot of the GOP makes against any form of social safety net.

1. It is exceedingly rude from you not to have read the entire conversation to understand that I am arguing against a known and open anarchist that wants to abolish all private property as opposed to rudely 2. assuming I was one of your american pundits. 3. By responding without understanding the context of the discussion you made a fool of your self, wasted my time and insulted my intelligence. 4. Furthermore you assumed I was an american, which in it self is a grievous insult to me.

1. It's extremely rude to make assumptions.
2. No, I was correctly acknowledging that you're a European who was making the same arguments a lot of the GOP tends to make while also benefiting off those social safety systems they're against. Almost as if conservatism is pretty similar regardless of geographical/political origin or something...
3. I have the perfect reply to this but the mods would get slappy slappy, so I'll just ask: Have you read your own posts?
4. Refer to points 1 and 2.

[Purpelia]

1. It is exceedingly rude from you not to have read the entire conversation to understand that I am arguing against a known and open anarchist that wants to abolish all private property as opposed to rudely 2. assuming I was one of your american pundits. 3. By responding without understanding the context of the discussion you made a fool of your self, wasted my time and insulted my intelligence. 4. Furthermore you assumed I was an american, which in it self is a grievous insult to me.

1. It's extremely rude to make assumptions.
2. No, I was correctly acknowledging that you're a European who was making the same arguments a lot of the GOP tends to make while also benefiting off those social safety systems they're against. Almost as if conservatism is pretty similar regardless of geographical/political origin or something...
3. I have the perfect reply to this but the mods would get slappy slappy, so I'll just ask: Have you read your own posts?
4. Refer to points 1 and 2.

1. Guy writes about abolishing private property.
2. I respond how this is a bad idea and why.
3. You rudely intercede.

There is no discussion to be had here. And given your history of doing the same in conversations with me I have come to believe there is nothing to be gained from engaging you in general. Therefore I inform you that I shall no longer do so.

[Fascist PRUESSENS]

This is it, everything will come tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down...

Unless the COVID vaccine finally comes and saves the world from the worst upcoming economic crash in history.

[New haven america]

1. It's extremely rude to make assumptions.
2. No, I was correctly acknowledging that you're a European who was making the same arguments a lot of the GOP tends to make while also benefiting off those social safety systems they're against. Almost as if conservatism is pretty similar regardless of geographical/political origin or something...
3. I have the perfect reply to this but the mods would get slappy slappy, so I'll just ask: Have you read your own posts?
4. Refer to points 1 and 2.

1. Guy writes about abolishing private property.
2. I respond how this is a bad idea and why.
3. You rudely intercede.

4. There is no discussion to be had here. And given your history of doing the same in conversations with me I have come to believe there is nothing to be gained from engaging you in general. Therefore I inform you that I shall no longer do so.

1. I never wrote about abolishing private property, again, making assumptions is extremely rude.
2. You didn't and probably won't anytime soon.
3. Public forum my sunshine.
4. Thank you for proving me right so quickly.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

1. Guy writes about abolishing private property.
2. I respond how this is a bad idea and why.
3. You rudely intercede.

4. There is no discussion to be had here. And given your history of doing the same in conversations with me I have come to believe there is nothing to be gained from engaging you in general. Therefore I inform you that I shall no longer do so.

1. I never wrote about abolishing private property, again, making assumptions is extremely rude.
2. You didn't and probably won't anytime soon.
3. Public forum my sunshine.
4. Thank you for proving me right so quickly.

The numbered points method of debate is quite honourable. But it does tend to lose the thread for us others.

It has quite dawned on me why I have an advantage on this forum. I'm not American, but I went to kindergarten in America (my parents were academics, my father had a scholarship) and the fascination with America has persisted my whole life. Perhaps potentiated by having a girlfriend in kindergarten ... anyway. No pedo. And it's my impression that Americans are a plurality but not a majority, except maybe in your summer. Still strangely I pitch my arguments to Americans. I don't feel bad about that. I have personal reasons.

I protected the nationality part of my internet anonymity for years. And frankly, I think it gave me an advantage in arguing against US Americans. Anonymity broadly is an advantage, I think we all down-rate opinions people, from countries we look down on.

I think Purpelia is using that advantage, of being an anonymous foreigner criticizing the US which they know a bit about. No disrespect to either of you, but it's not a level playing field.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

Upkeep of property, taking out the trash, complying with building regulation, routine building and maintenance, apt. Maintenance, Making sure the water, heat. And electrical are all functional and paid for, paying the income and property taxes generated by the property are not real work?

I love the fantasy land you live in. Pet a couple of unicorns for me.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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

Upkeep of property, taking out the trash, complying with building regulation, routine building and maintenance, apt. Maintenance, Making sure the water, heat. And electrical are all functional and paid for, paying the income and property taxes generated by the property are not real work?

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.

I love the fantasy land you live in. Pet a couple of unicorns for me.

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.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Furthermore, being a landlord is almost always a perk on holding property until it is worth more. Speculation.

[USS Monitor]

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.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

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.

If I have a house to rent, then I don't go to work,too.Now I am a capitalist,comrade.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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? What about people who still have their job but on reduced hours and (of course) reduced pay?

You have too much work? How about you volunteer to go part time?

[Galloism]

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? What about people who still have their job but on reduced hours and (of course) reduced pay?

You have too much work? How about you volunteer to go part time?

This falls under the “there’s no easy way to be fair to everyone” rule. Think about three groups of people:

1) Monitor and I, who are working our assses off.
2) People who are laid off and happy, making almost as much or as much as we are
3) People laid off and unhappy, furiously looking for work.

Any easy proposal to shore up 3, sans an infrastructure project to get them working, also helps 2, which irks 1 - because 1 is giving up something to get money, while 2 isn’t. This is unfair to 1. But cutting them out also impacts 3, who are acting in good faith.

[Ifreann]

This is just the normal operation of capitalism. If you aren't generating enough of a profit for your landlord, then out on the street you go. This is how the housing market is meant to work. A crisis? This is the system working as intended. The scale might be larger than usual, but this is a feature, not a bug.

I mean, can you imagine a world where anyone can just walk up to you and take anything. He is hungry so he just takes from your fridge. He is tired so he just sleeps in your bed. What are you to eat and where are you to sleep? Well go find someplace else. Take from someone else. Or worse yet live in some sort of communal hive. That literally sounds like hell to me.

When people talk about abolishing private property, they generally draw a distinction between private and personal property. Personal property is, obviously enough, stuff that you use personally. Your house, your fridge, your bed, your toothbrush. Private property is stuff that you can't use yourself, stuff that the whole community needs to use. Farmland, factories, roadways. When people say they want to abolish private property, they want to abolish private ownership of things like that. They want to make it so that things the whole community needs to use are owned by the whole community, and thus will be used to benefit the whole community.

And, relevantly, they want to abolish privatisation of personal property. Your house, under capitalism, may not actually belong to you. It may belong to a landlord, to whom you must pay rent, or it may belong to you in name only and the bank can come along and take it if you start missing mortgage payments. People who want to abolish private property want your house to belong to you and whoever else you may live with and no one else. They want landlords and banks to have no claim on your house, no power to tell you how you must live, and no power to evict you.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Uh-huh. And what about people who lost their job and can't get another one? What about people who still have their job but on reduced hours and (of course) reduced pay?

You have too much work? How about you volunteer to go part time?

This falls under the “there’s no easy way to be fair to everyone” rule. Think about three groups of people:

1) Monitor and I, who are working our assses off.
2) People who are laid off and happy, making almost as much or as much as we are
3) People laid off and unhappy, furiously looking for work.

Any easy proposal to shore up 3, sans an infrastructure project to get them working, also helps 2, which irks 1 - because 1 is giving up something to get money, while 2 isn’t. This is unfair to 1. But cutting them out also impacts 3, who are acting in good faith.

1. So long as they're being suitably paid, should be placated by the option of fewer hours
2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?
3. These people should have access to some of 2's work, and 2's some of 1's.

The distribution of work and wages towards the most economically productive workers, is a chronic problem which it seems has now become acute. High-skilled workers working over-time when they don't want the work and don't even want the extra pay, that's exploitation and implies even more dire exploitation of all workers below them on the pay scale.

[Dylar]

This falls under the “there’s no easy way to be fair to everyone” rule. Think about three groups of people:

1) Monitor and I, who are working our assses off.
2) People who are laid off and happy, making almost as much or as much as we are
3) People laid off and unhappy, furiously looking for work.

Any easy proposal to shore up 3, sans an infrastructure project to get them working, also helps 2, which irks 1 - because 1 is giving up something to get money, while 2 isn’t. This is unfair to 1. But cutting them out also impacts 3, who are acting in good faith.

2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?

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.

[Valrifell]

2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?

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.

[Galloism]

This falls under the “there’s no easy way to be fair to everyone” rule. Think about three groups of people:

1) Monitor and I, who are working our assses off.
2) People who are laid off and happy, making almost as much or as much as we are
3) People laid off and unhappy, furiously looking for work.

Any easy proposal to shore up 3, sans an infrastructure project to get them working, also helps 2, which irks 1 - because 1 is giving up something to get money, while 2 isn’t. This is unfair to 1. But cutting them out also impacts 3, who are acting in good faith.

1. So long as they're being suitably paid, should be placated by the option of fewer hours
2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?
3. These people should have access to some of 2's work, and 2's some of 1's.

The distribution of work and wages towards the most economically productive workers, is a chronic problem which it seems has now become acute. High-skilled workers working over-time when they don't want the work and don't even want the extra pay, that's exploitation and implies even more dire exploitation of all workers below them on the pay scale.

1. If they take fewer hours voluntarily, the government will not makeup the difference. Now they’ll just be working some and making less than those on benefits.
2. Lower middle class yes, like warehouse workers. Depending on your state and family situation, your weekly unemployment benefit is currently between $840 and $1820 per week. If it persisted in this state, that would be between $43,680 and $94,640 per year. And you don’t have to pay FICA on that (unlike wages), so it’s effectively 7.65% higher for what you take home.
3. 2’s don’t want 1’s. If they go back to work, they make no more money or, in some cases, make less. And 2 doesn’t have any work to give to 3.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?

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.

Really? I'm getting some government support (in Australia) but it's not quite like that. Depends on the State you live in?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?

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.

The first grant is running out of money.Next month, trump will probably make additional funding through a new bill.But Democrats want Congress to approve more money.Although I think it will be disastrous for the U.S. economy in the long run.But congratulations, because I really envy you.Because I also want to get a good relief fund while watching TV at home.

[Dylar]

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.

Really? I'm getting some government support (in Australia) but it's not quite like that. Depends on the State you live in?

Depends more on your living situation, I think. If I had dependents and were living in my own house or apartment, I'd probably get more. But if there wasn't a pandemic going on and I was still unemployed I'd only get ~$290 a week.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

1. So long as they're being suitably paid, should be placated by the option of fewer hours
2. Seriously, government benefits now are comparable to a middle-class wage? Really?
3. These people should have access to some of 2's work, and 2's some of 1's.

The distribution of work and wages towards the most economically productive workers, is a chronic problem which it seems has now become acute. High-skilled workers working over-time when they don't want the work and don't even want the extra pay, that's exploitation and implies even more dire exploitation of all workers below them on the pay scale.

1. If they take fewer hours voluntarily, the government will not makeup the difference. Now they’ll just be working some and making less than those on benefits.
2. Lower middle class yes, like warehouse workers. Depending on your state and family situation, your weekly unemployment benefit is currently between $840 and $1820 per week. If it persisted in this state, that would be between $43,680 and $94,640 per year. And you don’t have to pay FICA on that (unlike wages), so it’s effectively 7.65% higher for what you take home.
3. 2’s don’t want 1’s. If they go back to work, they make no more money or, in some cases, make less. And 2 doesn’t have any work to give to 3.

And yet, the unemployment rate isn't terribly high. Are the 1's taking on more work from the others, or is more work required for structural reasons ... and why aren't employers rationing out the work still available, to all their former employees?

[Galloism]

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.

Really? I'm getting some government support (in Australia) but it's not quite like that. Depends on the State you live in?

Notably, in the state with the lowest unemployment benefits in the union - which happens to be Arizona - the benefit is $840 per week. That’s equivalent to $21 per hour if you worked 40 hours.

All others are paying higher than that. Here’s a chart - add $600 to the final number, as that’s the federal unemployment bonus right now.

https://fileunemployment.org/unemployme ... n-by-state

Edit: just noticed Mississippi is $5/week lower than Arizona. So adjust down just a tad.

[Galloism]

1. If they take fewer hours voluntarily, the government will not makeup the difference. Now they’ll just be working some and making less than those on benefits.
2. Lower middle class yes, like warehouse workers. Depending on your state and family situation, your weekly unemployment benefit is currently between $840 and $1820 per week. If it persisted in this state, that would be between $43,680 and $94,640 per year. And you don’t have to pay FICA on that (unlike wages), so it’s effectively 7.65% higher for what you take home.
3. 2’s don’t want 1’s. If they go back to work, they make no more money or, in some cases, make less. And 2 doesn’t have any work to give to 3.

And yet, the unemployment rate isn't terribly high. Are the 1's taking on more work from the others, or is more work required for structural reasons ... and why aren't employers rationing out the work still available, to all their former employees?

The unemployment rate is terribly high, but only people who were laid off can collect unemployment. If you quit or are fired for cause you are not unemployed. I mean you are, but you aren’t.

[Ethel mermania]

Upkeep of property, taking out the trash, complying with building regulation, routine building and maintenance, apt. Maintenance, Making sure the water, heat. And electrical are all functional and paid for, paying the income and property taxes generated by the property are not real work?

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.

I love the fantasy land you live in. Pet a couple of unicorns for me.

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 they fell apart and you get the south bronx of the 1970's. Sane people do not want to go back to that