Readit News logoReadit News
carom commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
pasabagi · 4 years ago
My main argument is that when you have a limited quantity of something, like radio spectrum, it's normal to have a public conversation about how this should be divided - and ultimately, it's a democratic decision about who gets what, why, and for which uses.

Land should be regulated this way, but it isn't, because of the hangover (in europe) of medieval norms where landlords were essentially gangsters extracting protection money, or (in america) the essential abundance of land available for the taking[0].

If you have an expanding frontier, a fixed quantity (land) behaves like a growing quantity, so there isn't the intense pressure for land reform you got in europe. Except now, the land is all taken, so the regulatory regime which worked for a growing supply of land becomes increasingly dysfunctional, leading to problems with homelessness and tenant impoverishment, where people are paying increasing quantities of their income (50% +) to landlords, not because those landlords provide them with a good service, or because the landlords have high costs, but because it's their only choice.

[0] Obviously, the first nations population massively lost out in this.

carom · 4 years ago
I guess, either way, you need a system that addresses supply and allocates housing fairly. I believe the free market can do that. Saying no land ownership doesn't really address who builds more housing, what incentive do they have, what restrictions are there, who gets to live where. Sure, if you could replace it with a system where the government builds as dense as is safely possible to meet demand, then held a lottery for who got to live there, and those tenants were forced to relocate every 3-5 years to give other people an opportunity to live there, I guess I'd be on board with that.

My hesitation is that would be a total rewrite, and we have a system that works pretty well where we could remove some market distortions and have it working really well. Remove residential zoning restrictions and landlords will build, there is incentive for it. So much of LA is zoned for SFH+ADU, and your neighbors will sue you if you get creative. There is no room in the zoning code for low end housing. I read about these men's hotels [1] and I don't think you can build something like that anymore, something that addresses a need at a price point people can afford. It sounds crass but we need tenements, so someone who is barely scraping by has a bed, an address, and a shower.

There is nothing besides legacy rent control units at the $500/mo price point in LA. There should be. We shouldn't rely on rent control, where we privatize the costs of a social problem and give landlords a huge incentive to get people out. We should just build some livable shit.

1. https://newrepublic.com/article/161808/ewing-annex-hotel-hou...

alert0 commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
pasabagi · 4 years ago
My main argument is that when you have a limited quantity of something, like radio spectrum, it's normal to have a public conversation about how this should be divided - and ultimately, it's a democratic decision about who gets what, why, and for which uses.

Land should be regulated this way, but it isn't, because of the hangover (in europe) of medieval norms where landlords were essentially gangsters extracting protection money, or (in america) the essential abundance of land available for the taking[0].

If you have an expanding frontier, a fixed quantity (land) behaves like a growing quantity, so there isn't the intense pressure for land reform you got in europe. Except now, the land is all taken, so the regulatory regime which worked for a growing supply of land becomes increasingly dysfunctional, leading to problems with homelessness and tenant impoverishment, where people are paying increasing quantities of their income (50% +) to landlords, not because those landlords provide them with a good service, or because the landlords have high costs, but because it's their only choice.

[0] Obviously, the first nations population massively lost out in this.

alert0 · 4 years ago
>leading to problems with homelessness and tenant impoverishment, ..., paying increasing quantities of their income

I see all of these as problems with zoning. I could also rant about rent control but it has a much smaller effect compared to the prevention of construction and density.

carom commented on The myth of the myth of the lone genius   rogersbacon.substack.com/... · Posted by u/mpweiher
handrous · 4 years ago
Came here to call out the same selection of examples as really weird for the purpose of making that point.

Newton and Darwin for the reasons you cite—and if two arrived at the same breakthrough at almost the same time, does one dare imagine that a dozen or more others weren't damn close, despite the fraction of a percent of the global population had, or has, the upbringing, inclination, and freedom to even approach the problem in the first place? Hell, does one even dare imagine that a thousand nobodies hadn't had the insight that would have led them straight to that breakthrough much sooner if only they'd had the background and environment to recognize it as significant, follow through to prove it, and gain publicity for their discovery? Surely not.

Aristotle, well, shit, everyone whose independent work survives from antiquity looks like a lone genius, but that's obviously, in part, because so little survives and because attribution is so sketchy. With Aristotle in particular it's not even clear how much was his work is his, directly, and how much was the work of his "school", developed over years or decades by many people, if we're talking about particular insights or inventions, and not sheer overall-importance of a person.

I know less about the environment around Einstein's breakthroughs but given the rest I'd be surprised if the author actually managed to pick a good example, for his purposes.

carom · 4 years ago
>does one dare imagine that a dozen or more others weren't damn close

I think about this in the computer security industry, and my conclusion is that no, they were not. You do this in depth research on a niche topic. You submit it to an industry conference with 1000 attendees, 100 people attend your talk, 10 have the background understanding for it, and it is relevant to 1 other person's work.

There is a surprisingly finite number of people working on certain problems. I am working on a hypervisor for binary instrumentation right now. It is because a single person streamed themselves building one over the course of a week. [1] How many other people watched the hours of video and were inspired to undertake such a project? I know of 1 other. The community is small, but let's extrapolate that to 5 people.

I am not saying we are working on something so revolutionary, but on a rather niche problem, there are less than half a dozen people working on it. We also have other obligations in life like work, school, or personal relationships. So it is likely there will only be 1 or 2 applications fully realized.

Could someone else do it? Absolutely, but very few are motivated on such a specific problem. They may have an interest in some other topic instead.

1. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSkhUfcCXvqHsOy2VUxuo...

alert0 commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
joecot · 4 years ago
My alternative would be to establish a land trust to manage the apartment building. Then you can provide housing for 3 other families without also making a profit off of them. Here's an example of a Land Trust: https://www.sawmillclt.org/

The argument is often as you say, that Land Lords add value by giving housing where people couldn't otherwise afford to live. And this is undercut by two points:

1. The landlord isn't the essential part there. If the point is to provide housing without having to buy, that's easily done with land trusts and co-ops. The only downside is that there isn't a Landlord to make a profit, but it's better for society as a whole.

2. If landlords didn't buy up properties for the purposes of turning around and renting them, the property values would be lower because there wouldn't be as much demand on the market. Then a decent portion of the people you're talking about not being able to afford to live there ... would be able to afford to live there.

alert0 · 4 years ago
I appreciate the reply, I hadn't seen these before and I'll do some more research on them.

My initial reaction is how does this address the issue of developing more units in dense urban environments? For example, if we convert all multi family dwellings in LA to CLTs. Housing is more affordable and no residents are being displaced. Now more people want to move to LA. Who builds housing for them?

They would be required for compete over an extremely limited number of SFHs. Unless the CLTs had a provision that every Nth year, they would be torn down and redeveloped for greater density, this sounds like it would cause a city to completely stagnate. That Nth year clause would really go against the non-displacement goal. It could be sustainable if a city had zero growth, but for desirable metro areas that are mostly developed, that is not the case.

Market rents cause healthy turn over. There are other ways to address affordability, such as addressing wage growth, removing density restrictions, or expanding Section 8. Non-profit landlords would just further distort the system by not addressing systemic needs that require capital.

alert0 commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
pasabagi · 4 years ago
1. I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city.

2. I make housing available to 3 other families

This is the point - the second sentence does not actually follow from the first. The person who built the building, either the actual builders or the investors, make it available. At this point, it is a normal service-provision kind of relationship you see across the economy.

Except, with landlords, it isn't that they provide the building. It's that they provide the land. The land is parcelled out in a manner which, at best could be compared to if we just gave rights to parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to whichever radio stations started pumping waves into it first. Of course, in reality, land ownership is usually rooted in much more brutal and sordid stories in America.

So you essentially end up with a class of people who take no risks, provide no service, and add no value, employ nobody, and often literally do nothing.

alert0 · 4 years ago
>The person who built the building, either the actual builders or the investors, make it available.

The person who owns the land makes it available by deciding to rent to people. The person who owns the land can decide to tear it down or not rent to people.

>take no risks

Real estate is not a risk free investment. It would be much more popular than bonds (when interest rates aren't near zero) if it was.

>provide no service

Maintaining the property in a habitable condition is a service. Maintenance expenses are why a large number of people choose to rent instead of buy when staying somewhere short term.

>add no value

Making housing available in desirable locations for less than the cost of a SFH is adding value. It can reduce people's commute or put them in neighborhoods they want to live in. If that land was instead covered in SFHs (which seems to be the implied ideal for the "landlords should not exist" crowd) the number of people who could live there would be significantly reduced.

>employ nobody

Landscapers, plumbers, electricians, roofers, property managers, cleaners, inspectors. In the case of new construction, a lot more people.

>often literally do nothing

Ha. I wish.

alert0 commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
nlitened · 4 years ago
Sell it at a loss to somebody who does better risk assessment of their leveraged investments?
alert0 · 4 years ago
The comment is about landlords being predatory, not about an underwater investment.
alert0 commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
dntrkv · 4 years ago
Because the government put in place an eviction moratorium. Why do the landlords have to pick up the tab? If there was no moratorium and the landlords had the ability to evict, I would agree with you. But in this case, the government forced them to house people so they should pay up.
alert0 · 4 years ago
This is a similar situation to rent control, it privatizes the costs of a social problem.
alert0 commented on California will pay off all past due rent   politicalwire.com/2021/06... · Posted by u/MilnerRoute
pasabagi · 4 years ago
This is crazy. Everybody expects to lose money in natural catastrophes - except, for some reason, if you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord), you're entitled to a bailout, for what purpose exactly? What's the human harm that happens if some banks repossess a few over-leveraged rental properties? Compared to the millions who have lost jobs, school years, their health, etc in the pandemic? Making landlords whole should be the last thing anybody is spending money on.
alert0 · 4 years ago
>you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord)

I never really understand this. Let's say I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city. I make housing available to 3 other families in a place they could not afford to own. What is your alternative? I should tear down the apartments and opt to live in a single family home? How does that help anyone?

alert0 commented on U.S. workers are among the most stressed in the world, new Gallup report finds   cnbc.com/2021/06/15/gallu... · Posted by u/sharkweek
tester756 · 4 years ago
>Work identity is also a thing. Where you kinda become what you do for a living. Which is bad.

lol

I've seen once a video called something like "a day of googler"

and I was shocked that "average day" was hanging out with your coworkers after the work

don't get me wrong, it's not like we dont do it here (poland), but it's from time to time, even when we have insanely good relations with eachother

it's 16:00 on the clock and that's it - cya people tomorrow.

I hope the video was not reflecting reality well?

alert0 · 4 years ago
It wasn't like that at all when I worked there. Quite the opposite, people were very quiet so we could do focused work, we did our work, then went home. We usually ate lunch together. Many of my coworkers had kids to go home and take care of. No one was looking to hang around. I'm sure it varies throughout the company though.
alert0 commented on U.S. workers are among the most stressed in the world, new Gallup report finds   cnbc.com/2021/06/15/gallu... · Posted by u/sharkweek
linguae · 4 years ago
Unfortunately if the OP is located in California, there are very few places left in the state where one can purchase a home for just $300k; these are generally places in the southern half of the Central Valley (e.g., Fresno, Bakersfield) or places in the far north of the state (e.g., Chico, Redding). Sacramento, my hometown, is no longer cheap; last I checked the average price for a home there was around $440k, and homes in Sacramento's nicer suburbs tend to average in the $500k range (and homes in Sacramento's walkable core are even more expensive).

There are out-of-state alternatives where $300k is doable such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Houston, but if the OP is a lifelong Californian like myself, then moving to another state may be quite a change.

I'm in a similar situation as the OP. I currently rent an apartment in a coastal area near Silicon Valley that I love. I can afford to purchase a place up to about $425K based on my income, savings, and DTI, but $425K isn't enough to purchase anything near commute distance from Silicon Valley, and while I could have afforded Sacramento two years ago, the pandemic-era rise of prices in the Sacramento area have priced me out of the neighborhoods I want to live in. Thus I still rent.

alert0 · 4 years ago
You can afford condos on both sides of the bay.

u/alert0

KarmaCake day3057February 13, 2015View Original