Why the fuck does that person get bigger scraps from the King’s table! Fuck him!
ITT: The 99% fighting over the scraps that the 1% leave behind, whilst doing their best to fuck over one another.
Fuck me for wanting financial stability, I guess.
Comment on Damn y'all fucking love landlords don't you
rothaine@lemm.ee 1 year agoI think the reason is “I don’t want to have to work until I die” actually.
Investment property is one of the few remaining ladders of social mobility. Does it suck that it doesn’t extend down far enough? Yes. But removing it as an option just further widens the gap between the billionaires and everyone else.
Where’s that meme with the oreos
Alteon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
twopi@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
rothaine@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Your argument assumes there’s no utility in renting, which is simply not true. A house is a PITA to maintain; stuff breaks all the time. Also, moving when you own the place is much more difficult, and some people value the flexibility of being able to hop from one part of the country to another. If we rewind 12 years, back before rent prices and housing costs went batshit insane, it was a perfectly reasonable option to rent instead of own, even if you could afford otherwise. Rent was basically paying for the service of not needing to maintain a building and not locking yourself down.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is? One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
And yet again, owning housing does not indicate wealth in a “normal” housing market, so your supposed rent/own class division isn’t even true. Very wealthy people can still be renters. Or do you think “landlords” can afford to rent a penthouse in Manhattan?
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
twopi@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
I really, really want to see that Oreo meme you’re talking about.
Also about not wanting to be tied down. I totally get it. You know what fixes that? Co-operative housing. Some links: campus.coop (Toronto) www.nasco.coop (North America) www.studenthomes.coop (United Kingdom)
These are housing cooperatives for the most mobile population: students. And you know what? No need for landlords what so ever, while still providing location mobility and the possibility of hiring an external management team or (using democracy) elect amongst yourselves. Again disproving your very point.
I really like housing cooperatives but we have way too few of them. As a young professional moving between cities it would be great.
What do you get from a landlord owning housing as opposed to housing cooperatives? (This is the [only] question I want you to answer)
I can tell you what you get from cooperatives that you don’t get from landlords. You don’t have to pay for an ROI for the landlord. That is it. Same maintenance costs. Similar price for home to start but better for the inhabitants.
Not relevant, stop using billionaires as a shield.
Again not relevant. To use your metaphore I don’t want a space station and I don’t want a hill. You on the other hand want a hill (and you being the king on the hill) but no space station. I say no to both.
Again I want that Oreos meme.
Well maybe it would be if people who “invest” in real estate don’t oppose increasing or bettering social insurance. Those who are the biggest proponents of real estate investors are the biggest opponents of social insurance. Social insurance comes from general taxation of working people. Those people (like you) want to move the money working people pay to taxes for general social insurance and instead pay all that money towards rent that landlords (like you) control. You are literally moving money from general social insurance to your own pockets. And both young people and actual poor old people suffer. You do not oppose tyranny. You want to become the tyrant.
Another option is a Community Land Trust (CLT). Community owned land which is similar but under a different structure with a wider ownership structure. www.communityland.ca (Canada)
And guess what? With CLTs you can actually invest yourself if you don’t live inside it, because a broader ownership structure and you don’t have to be a landlord. Awesome!!! Oh wow!
Try it in your city! Here’s one from mine www.oclt.ca/invest/ (Ottawa, ON, Canada)
rothaine@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Found this one: starecat.com/…/rich-man-to-worker-careful-mate-th… Basically the same idea as the Oreo one.
I have never before heard of a housing cooperative. Seems like a neat idea.
I don’t understand what you mean by “using them as a shield”, and I assure you they are very relevant.
And your plan for dealing with the people in the space station is…attacking your fellows on the ground?
I am not, nor have I ever been, a landlord. My mother does rent out half her house now that her kids have moved out. She’s hoping to retire before 70, but I guess that makes her a “tyrant.”
Also, my mom does not oppose bettering social insurance. Or really anything. I can barely get her to vote. She just plays her cards as dealt.
But you know who does oppose social insurance, and who actually drafts the bills, and buys the politicians, and creates the propaganda? Blackrock Capital. Billionaires.
The class war is the only war. Stop the friendly fire.