Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ilanaspax t1_j2nhp4h wrote

Reply to comment by kushNation141 in Has anyone been through eviction courts in the past year? by balaca40

If only there was another way for landlords to make money….unfortunately they have no skills so siphoning income off people who need a place to live is their only hope :(

−17

garth_meringue t1_j2oifif wrote

Their administrative and handyman skills that would fetch maybe a $25k salary on the job market totally justifies them lording over other people. Has absolutely nothing to do with being fortunate enough to have enough capital and be in the right time and place to buy at a housing market low that people today can't luck into.

5

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j2ogyxv wrote

Your idiocy and ignorance knows no bounds. Most of those "places to live" would not exist if those hated landlords didn't build and maintain them, in my case with those non-existent skills. I'd say move Communist USSR or China, but those places no longer exist, they found that Marxism didn't do a better job of housing people than Capitalism. Seems like Venezuela might be your speed.

4

glo46 t1_j2p2jya wrote

Most of these "landlords shouldn't exist" crowds are people with the fallacy that quality of life would increase if housing were free because they don't realize that the burden of preventing a building from collapsing on itself, or preventing themselves from freezing when the boilers go out in the dead of winter, or dealing with irresponsible tenants who destroy the property, or dealing with the tons of other maintenance issues that arise with property ownership, would all fall on their shoulders.

9

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j2p87cj wrote

They simply have no adult concept of economics. What I can't figure out is why no one expects farmers to provide for free the food they grow with labor and capital.

The best I can figure out is this is a "cultural memory" throwback to the medieval system when "landlord" meant literally the man who owned the land that you built your house on. He provided nothing and thus had no expenses, and likely inherited the land. Modern rental housing is a capital and labor intensive business. It's not magic. I'd love to hear the Comrades here explain exactly how they think it should work.

8

Ilanaspax t1_j2qp9n4 wrote

we just need Elon Musk to join this group chat and we got a real meeting of the minds over here 🤩

−2

glo46 t1_j2p00qj wrote

If they had no skills, how were they able to afford the property in the first place?

2

Ilanaspax t1_j2p1be7 wrote

Inherited wealth? Sheer dumb luck? Rich dad? Lots of ways to attain capital that isn’t through working hard and having skills otherwise there would be a lot more rich people.

You’re going to be disappointed to learn most wealthy people aren’t rich because of their innate talent and brilliant mind.

−5

glo46 t1_j2p36t4 wrote

I grew up in poverty, gained a skill, worked my ass off, made smart financial choices, and I'm now a landlord in JC. I also still have my salary job, and Im the one that does the standard maintenance around the building.

>Inherited wealth? Sheer dumb luck? Rich dad?

These are all the excuses that people believe in as a consolation as to why theyre not financially comfortable.

11

rbastid t1_j2q4p09 wrote

These people moaning are all those who would be given $1 million, and weeks later be poor. They need to give excuses why their own laziness, or their belief that everything should be easy for them, and that usually means demonizing others.

Outside of huge buildings, most Jersey city landlords are locals or people who worked their asses off in order to afford a house. Even if someone inherited the house, they did so from family members (probably parent) who also worked their asses off and were probably still too poor to move out of Jersey city, as anyone who made money Pre-2000s left and went down the shore.

And for these landlords they aren't raising rents to get rich, they're doing so to pay the huge taxes that help those aforementioned moaners get their bike lanes and $50k park fountains.

Hudson county isn't devoid of government housing, so these people could go see what happens when "eeeeeevil landlords" are out of the picture.

2

Ilanaspax t1_j2p9zt4 wrote

cool personal story!

What does any of this have to do with your question about how people can afford to buy property if they have no skills?

−4

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j2nvmtm wrote

The alternative is reducing the number of rentals and either people can afford to buy or go homeless.

I'd actually love it if cities made it more expensive for people in the top 20% income wise to rent. Making people have a financial investment in the place where they live, and be less mobile is good for cities. Their financial well being would be tied to the city's well being. Either get invested in the city you live in, or pay a tax.

That would be a game changer for city resources and planning. Lots more emphasis on long term sustainability rather than the current political game of just try to push the financial crisis off another year or two.

Not to mention getting rich people to rent less would free up rental inventory for those with less money.

−4

Ilanaspax t1_j2oiits wrote

I somewhat agree with you. One of the clearest indicators that developers and the city are working hand in hand strictly for profit with no regard for quality of life is the fact that everything being built in the name of “progress” are 600 sq foot rental apartments that guarantee no residents will stay in JC long enough to make any real change in the community. It’s a revolving door community where developers and politicians make money hand over fist with seemingly no one to answer to and they’ve got genuine idiots on here defending them.

People point to how expensive hoboken is to defend the non stop rental construction but the tables have definitely turned from ten years ago and I’d rather live in hoboken than downtown JC because there’s a semblance of community left. Downtown just feels like a giant soulless mall but with worse stores - atleast hoboken retains a shred of its character.

1

objectimpermanence t1_j2pmmad wrote

> atleast hoboken retains a shred of its character.

Are you taking about cultural character of architectural character?

I’m not saying Hoboken doesn’t have character, but it is much more culturally homogeneous than JC, even if you only compare it to downtown JC. Hoboken is overwhelmingly populated with upper middle class people, which is a group that you seem to abhor.

Hoboken has done a better job at historic preservation, but the tangible benefits of that success primarily accrue to wealthy property owners and landlords, which is another group of people you seem to detest.

5

Ilanaspax t1_j2qon08 wrote

Sorry to say you seem a bit obsessed and also to be projecting quite a bit onto me simply stating an opinion that hoboken at the moment seems less corny and tacky than downtown JC (an ironic turn of events if you’re remotely familiar with the region). A result of better city planning or simply less heinous faux luxury buildings due to it being a smaller city? You be the judge because I don’t really care to be honest.

Not sure where you got the idea that I hate wealthy property owners - I simply dislike those with a sense of entitlement that see nothing wrong with displacing long term residents but I can see how it’s easier for your brain to process rich person=bad instead of wrapping it around the bigger picture. Good luck with that 🙏

−1