• @Olgratin_Magmatoe
    link
    English
    9
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Ticket scalpers don’t provide tickets, GPU scalpers don’t provide GPUs, and landlords don’t provide housing. Owning isn’t providing a service

    A non-market co-op would better suit you. It’s still renting, just without the leech on your paycheck.

    Here is an example in practice:

    https://www.wesa.fm/development-transportation/2022-05-16/how-an-old-housing-model-could-help-pittsburghs-affordability-crisis

    All housing should be like this, or outright owned by the user.

    • @FarmTaco
      link
      -18 months ago

      they do provide all those things, but they dont produce them. with this logic, grocery stores also do not provide food.

      • @Olgratin_Magmatoe
        link
        English
        38 months ago

        Correct. Grocery stores do not provide food. They instead provide a service, moving and storing food until such time as you buy it. They are a buffer, a cache in the food transportion network.

        Farmers produce food.

        Landlords do not produce or provide housing. Construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc provide housing.

        • @Euphorazine
          link
          -18 months ago

          That same logic applies to landlords though. They don’t provide housing, they provide a service. They provided the capital for the construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc.

          Insurance and taxes are forced as part of typical mortgage payments because otherwise people wouldn’t pay them. Coordinating repairs and hiring out those jobs is also part of the service.

          Part of the problem is that rent is more expensive than a mortgage. Another problem is that a majority of rentals are owned by corporations that cartel to have ever increasing rental rates. Rent increases aren’t tied to anything except they can raise the price on a whim.

          If you mortgaged $200k at 3% in 2020 you had a house note of $850. That same house would require a $350k mortgage at 7.5% is $1400. The landlord has the same house note on the same property but is charging rent like they just bought the house last week.

          • @Olgratin_Magmatoe
            link
            English
            38 months ago

            They don’t provide housing, they provide a service.

            Owning isn’t a service.

            They provided the capital for the construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc.

            No, the bank did that when they gave the landlord a mortgage.

            Coordinating repairs and hiring out those jobs is also part of the service.

            That’s a property manager, not a landlord. Nine times out of ten, that property management is being handled by a low level worker, while the rich company owner owns everything and extracts the wealth for themselves.

            Another problem is that a majority of rentals are owned by corporations that cartel to have ever increasing rental rates. Rent increases aren’t tied to anything except they can raise the price on a whim.

            Exactly, they’re leeches.

      • @Olgratin_Magmatoe
        link
        English
        48 months ago

        Yeah, you would be a crappy landlord

        “Yeah, you would be a crappy leech”

        I ain’t got a problem with that. I have no desire to exploit others.

        and if you wouldn’t provide any service to me

        You seem to be confusing maintenance, utilitiy management, and other actual services and therefore actual jobs with landlording, which is not a service.

              • @Olgratin_Magmatoe
                link
                English
                5
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                It’s just as “totalitarian” either way. It’s esentially the same system without the surplus being taken out of your pocket.

                In a landlord system:

                • You pay $2000 a month. Of that, $1500 goes towards mortgage. Another $200 goes to maintenance, utilities, etc. The landlord pockets $300 for himself.

                • You have no choice but to rent from a landlord, buy housing yourself, or be homeless

                • Eventually the landlord pays off the mortgage, and pockets the additional $1500 for themselves because it’s “market rate”. Your rent remains at $2000/month.

                • The landlord dictates the rules of the building. You cannot get rid of a tyrant landlord except for moving, which isn’t free, easy, or time convenient

                In a co-op:

                • You pay $1000 a month. Of that, $800 goes towards mortgage, far less because it is no longer a speculative investment. The remaining $200 goes to maintenance, utilities, etc. There is no landlord, the collective collectively owns the housing. Nobody pockets any money for themselves.

                • You have no choice but to rent from a co-op, buy housing yourself, or be homeless

                • Eventually the co-op pays off the mortgage and your rent then drops to $200/month.

                • You vote for who is the manager/council of the building(s), which is almost always a tenant themselves. It’s generally not a full time job usually single digit hours, and they are compensated. If the manager/council become tyrannical, you vote them out.

                You have a clearly better system available, both in terms of your freedom and your wallet. And the better option isn’t the landlord. They’re all too happy to use your paycheck to buy another yacht or private jet.

                And this isn’t fantasy, non-market co-ops do exist. Look at the above link about Pittsburgh.