immigrants are wonderful and perfect but only if they are struggling and oppressed.
until they own homes. then they are evil oppressors who are destroying society with their greed.
immigrants should just learn place and forever rent and be miserable and poor so they can joint the glorious proletariat revolution! not be evil greedy capitalists who want to provide for their kids!
immigrants should just learn place and forever rent and be miserable and poor so they can joint the glorious proletariat revolution! not be evil greedy capitalists who want to provide for their kids!
Immigrants can buy a home and live in it. There’s nothing exploitative about that.
If a person, regardless of their background, buys a property and makes profit off of charging rent for that property, the profit is extracted from the work that other people are actually doing. They’re leeching off of others. This is simple, it doesn’t depend on whether the landlord is a mom & pop landlord or if it’s a giant private equity firm. Every dollar someone earns that they didn’t work for is a dollar someone else worked for and didn’t get to keep.
you are applying immunity of criticism of a persons actions, based on what a person is.
Land lords owning more properties then they need taking them off the market causes systemic harm. at no point in that equation did their status as an immigrant or not, have any bearing on the action nor the outcome.
The number of properties is generally 1. You generally don’t need to live in more than one house. If you’re working in some kind of situation where that’s absolutely necessary because you’re staying in distant places for extended periods of time, you’d need some kind of special exception.
Once everyone (or pretty much everyone, barring people who desire to live as nomads) owns a house, we can talk about letting people own vacation homes.
what if a landlord buys up 1000 properties and rents them out below market rates, is that systematic harm?
If they’re making a profit, yes. If they aren’t making a profit, no, but they won’t be doing it for long unless they’re getting funding from somewhere.
yea…
most of the time the cost of rent is lower then there houses market rate, and it still didn’t change anything about artificially raising that said rate. you didn’t change anything about the problem at all!
Yes, this is Lemmy.
immigrants are wonderful and perfect but only if they are struggling and oppressed.
until they own homes. then they are evil oppressors who are destroying society with their greed.
immigrants should just learn place and forever rent and be miserable and poor so they can joint the glorious proletariat revolution! not be evil greedy capitalists who want to provide for their kids!
Immigrants can buy a home and live in it. There’s nothing exploitative about that.
If a person, regardless of their background, buys a property and makes profit off of charging rent for that property, the profit is extracted from the work that other people are actually doing. They’re leeching off of others. This is simple, it doesn’t depend on whether the landlord is a mom & pop landlord or if it’s a giant private equity firm. Every dollar someone earns that they didn’t work for is a dollar someone else worked for and didn’t get to keep.
you are applying immunity of criticism of a persons actions, based on what a person is.
Land lords owning more properties then they need taking them off the market causes systemic harm. at no point in that equation did their status as an immigrant or not, have any bearing on the action nor the outcome.
Bro they are being facetious to make a point
they either were facetious to make… no point. or were earnest. either way
who determines the number of properties?
what if a landlord buys up 1000 properties and rents them out below market rates, is that systematic harm?
The number of properties is generally 1. You generally don’t need to live in more than one house. If you’re working in some kind of situation where that’s absolutely necessary because you’re staying in distant places for extended periods of time, you’d need some kind of special exception.
Once everyone (or pretty much everyone, barring people who desire to live as nomads) owns a house, we can talk about letting people own vacation homes.
If they’re making a profit, yes. If they aren’t making a profit, no, but they won’t be doing it for long unless they’re getting funding from somewhere.
yea… most of the time the cost of rent is lower then there houses market rate, and it still didn’t change anything about artificially raising that said rate. you didn’t change anything about the problem at all!