1296
submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 51 points 1 month ago

Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point because the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn't have the luxury of caring about things like this thanks to the broke ass system we all reside in.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_strike

When you get the whole building involve, it can be surprisingly effective.

the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn’t have the luxury of caring about things like this

You don't think a family of 3 cares when their rents double over five years while their wages barely budge?

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No, I didn't say that. I said a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it and you're too busy making a point to pay rent.

This is true. So not sure what point any of what you said serves, though you're not wrong.

Also, my grandma lived inna building where 90% of the tenants did this, came together and made their demands and refused to pay rent all together.

They were all removed systematically.

Not saying it never works, but it's alot for the average working class American to risk.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it

Why do you think anyone can afford these homes?

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 4 points 1 month ago

I'm not arguing with you clearly you're just missing the point purposely or trying to strawman and move goalposts.

Obviously people can afford these homes or 100% of America's middle class would be homeless.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

you’re just missing the point purposely or trying to strawman and move goalposts

Reads like a Ben Shapiro rant.

Obviously people can afford these homes

Why would states need to implement a vacancy tax on speculative properties if people could afford them?

Seems to be an increasingly popular strategy for reducing homelessness. San Francisco could get 90% of its homeless off the streets with the country’s fiercest housing speculation tax, but landlords are already fighting it tooth and nail

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago

So the point you kept missing I'll throw you a bone man.

Someone can afford the home you're in. This "strategy" is only effective if everyone's on board. Otherwise a new family will be in there on the heels of your feet.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Someone can afford the home you’re in.

I've got half a dozen units on my block that are selling above the clearing price. They've been vacant for years. This is speculative real estate. The only people who can afford it are the developers and investors looking to accumulate housing stock on the gamble that someone will be able to pay the markup at some point in the future.

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago

We're talking about rentals, dude. If the families could afford to buy, they wouldn't need to pay rent.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

We’re talking about rentals, dude.

We just had a major rental catrelization scandal, by which landlords collaborated to keep vacant units prices above the clearing rate to deny their tenants anywhere cheaper to move.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

It is virtually impossible to work individually against landlords. Instead, form or join a tensnts' union. And maybe some orgs opposed to landlordism.

[-] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

They're describing a job in that scenario too lol.

Yes, people lose their shit once they stop doing their job lol. Landlords in their version are effectively building mechanics and paper pushers keeping their property above board so people can live in it. Most of them I knew all had jobs outside of it too because it doesn't pay the bills lol.

Yes, it would be phenomenal if they dropped all their extra money into the stock market like your average person but they diversified or put it into equity instead since they didn't trust stock or had houses willed to them.

I get when people talk about slumlords, or giant corpos. But I've had to quote it before that the lionshare of them are people like I mentioned above with corpos buying out more and more in recent years because they're just as poor as everyone else.

Meanwhile even the most liberal people on here get baited thinking they're scum. Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.

Unionize. Reform land and property ownership. Vote in as many Progressive > Democrats to help make that happen. Vote yes on school ballot measures even if you get taxes. Run for government yourself if you loathe who represents you. Grassroot campaigns are hard as hell with a huge uphill battle, but poor people aren't excluded from government.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.

Landlording isn't a job.

[-] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, they're not going to suddenly gain $50k+ cash for a down-payment to replace their home. Yes, a mortgage should be cheaper than rent but a renter probably can't save an extra 3 year's worth of rent to put it down.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1296 points (97.0% liked)

Memes

45536 readers
208 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS