I know it makes me an incrementalist neoliberal shill but hey if all landlords and owners are scum and it doesn't matter how low the rent you charge is or how high the wages you pay are then... The incentive you've created isn't really so much for co-ops as for owners to hide
-
Show this thread
-
Like my read of it isn't that it means most people with money will go "Okay, I will give up all my power and put the money into a co-op" or "Okay, I will just straight up give all the money away" It'd be "I'll just put my money in the bank or in a mutual fund like everyone else"
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
"It's not ideal but it's easy and comfortable and no one will even see it as a specific action on my part to single me out or yell at me for it I can just forget about it"
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Am I actually saying "Be nice to landlords so they'll have an incentive to be nice" Well, maybe I kind of am At the very least I'm saying there's a reason to make the distinction between better and worse landlords or bosses
1 reply 0 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
The counterargument is that by giving cookies to individual nice landlords you're enabling an overall exploitative system And I guess what I'm saying is... the system is fine with individuals becoming uncomfortable wielding that power, it's already evolved around that discomfort
5 replies 0 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Like our society is already shot through with mechanisms of abstraction, if you want to make money from the fact that people pay rent without ever knowing the people or making any decisions it's really easy, and the shame-based discourse just guarantees that system will grow
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
It's like the argument over small business I'm very well aware lots and lots of small businesses suck and are run by awful tinpot tyrants I still think it's worse for the country to have one giant faceless corporation be everyone's employer
2 replies 3 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
As I see it, the problem with landlording, and with capitalism in general is twofold—distributional, and coercive. The distributional issue is one of profit—where the value of residence exceeds the maintenance costs of the residence, there’s profit to be had…
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @lawnerdbarak
Sure, I get that, and that it's gross to have direct power like that over someone It's just that I think if you exert even a little bit of leftist analysis it's not all that less coercive to just be a homeowner, at least under conditions of scarcity
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak
Like, as Proudhon pointed out, and contrary to what ancaps think, obviously having it be my house at all is coercive Especially if the house is too big for me, I didn't really do anything to earn it and there's a crisis of homelessness everywhere
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Is it really that different to say "You can live in my house ONLY if you give me the fruits of your labor and obey my exacting rules" vs "No, you just plain can't come in my house at all, now perish"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak
landlords should be fighting for and advocating for universal basic income. i also think that 25-50% of your rent should be given back to you if you return the apartment exactly how you got it. because it's not like properties depreciate but rent is increased every year
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @avneetkaurdhami @lawnerdbarak
Well, properties do depreciate, that's assumed - in fact one of the reasons people want to be landlords is you get an automatic tax deduction for depreciation every year
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.