try not being poor and homeless +58 karma
[OP] I'm sorry -58 karmareddit in a nutshell
They're not even poor! The two of them together almost make 100k a year!!
100k a year... and homeless??? What the shit is going on with this country?
For some reason all the local city subreddits are absolute cesspools of fascist pus-drooling ghouls coming as close as they can to dropping a hard R without getting banned
All the landlord types out there gravitate towards local/city subreddits.
The thing that gets me is that every response OP is making is being downvoted into oblivion, and then I click on them expecting them to be him making excuses or cussing people out and it's just... him saying thank you and politely explaining that none of them have bad credit scores?
This just further cements the fact that I need to get the fuck out of this state. It's no wonder I'm so lonely, all of my neighbors are soulless ghouls.
You know you’re the bad guy when honesty and kindness starts sounding like hostility and sarcasm.
It’s impossible because you’re trying to get a 2 bedroom apartment off of only 2 financial contributors. Tell your cousins to get a job or live elsewhere.
it's impossible because you think that working and making what would be a decent living anywhere else should even cover the cost of one bedroom, get real kiddo
All the smug dipshits telling them how cheap it is in the midwest (or further inland in CA) makes my blood boil. Yes, move to south dakota, then you can be in basically the same situation, but making so much less money that the lower rent barely fucking matters
It’s impossible because you’re trying to get a 2 bedroom apartment off of only 2 financial contributors. Tell your cousins to get a job or live elsewhere.
What do these kinds of people expect a couple with a child to do lol? Welp, she can walk and talk now - pretty sure she can go work in the Amazon warehouse at this point.
The utter fucking insanity of saying "your problem is you're looking for a living space intended to house 2 people with only 2 incomes"
Reminds me of the
redditors that will find a house online in rural Arkansas and say that if you're homeless you should go there, never asking why the house is priced at 40k.That's the same argument people on here make about how there are 3 homes in the US for every homeless person.
That's actually counter-argument to the absurd notion that the reason there's so many homeless in the US is a lack of housing
I think that's because most people omit the very important "in places where people want to live" which makes it a lot more valid.
the 3-5 vacant homes for every homeless person stat is true both nationally and when confined geographically to hot markets like LA.
Thousands of units are held off the market in Los Angeles. Although normal vacancy occurs when units are waiting for new residents to move in, tens of thousands of units in Los Angeles are being withheld from the housing system for other purposes. Over 46,000 units are held in a state of non-market vacancy—more than one for every unhoused person in Los Angeles. Many thousands more units are withheld from the housing system by landlords listing them at high rents that keep them vacant long-term. This is a real issue with significant implications for addressing the housing crisis. Many of these units are kept vacant by owners seeking to profit by speculating on the increase in property value, returning properties to the market only when rents are high enough for their liking.
there are absolutely vacant homes where people want to live, it's just that capitalists are using them as a speculative investment to goose property valuation and rents.
I don't disagree that these units exist, but the report you mentioned only discusses one point in time, which doesn't give much context. If you look at the historical data from the census (8 and 8a) rather than just one year of it, you'll see that the vacancy rates have been basically steady in LA, never moving by much more than a percent (excepting 2008) since 2005.
I'm sure we both agree that the homelessness crisis has intensified over the same timeframe, but if the vacancy rate isn't changing, I find it hard to accept as the cause.
Obviously it is unjust for there to be those who have two (or more) homes in a place where many have none, but if we're talking about systemic changes that need to be pursued, more housing seems like an obvious one that can produce more units than just things like a vacancy tax or even requisition (not that those should not be pursued). And your report advocates for that too, specifically pointing out land speculation or land held vacant by the city.
i posted that not to advocate for that project, but to point out that, yes, in fact, there are plenty of vacant housing units where there are people who want and need housing. not just in northwest Arkansas and the other places liberals like to characterize as places "no one wants to live".
my point is, there is already highly desirable housing in HCOL areas purposely kept vacant to serve the material interests of a wealthy rentier class seeking to extract more and more from the working class.
building more housing without addressing vacancy is wasted effort. those speculators with net worth/lines of credit already ballooned by vacant housing will continue to buy up whatever percentage of new housing will allow them to maintain or increase the power of their position. the solution to the housing crisis will require several lines of attack against the material interests of rentiers, but the existence of more vacant housing than homeless people remains a salient point.
Do you think that building more housing will cause the percentage of non-market vacancies to increase? I expect that number is pretty inelastic wrt supply for a given area and you can consider it a measurable inefficiency of the market.
So if we assume that rate is static at roughly 3% for LA, to me it seems that getting that number down to 2% or less is the real wasted effort. There need to be more homes. Whether 97 or 99 of every 100 new units built enter the market doesn't seem like it's worth focusing on over just getting those 100 new homes built in the first place.
By all means, if vacancy taxes or more radical measures get passed to get those non-market vacancies available I'm all for it, I just feel like non-market vacancies are orders of magnitude fewer than the number of homes not built for other reasons (zoning, land speculation, etc).
My main point being that when people make the argument "there are enough homes in desirable places to house every homeless person" it's usually deployed as ammo for the further argument that new housing construction is unnecessary, or that new market-rate housing construction is unnecessary, which I disagree with.
It isn't, though, because vacancies have high rates in every locale.
goddamn lizards
"I hate to break it to you, but you are unattractive renters. Sounds like you need to lose some baggage, and by baggage I mean pets and family members."
- guess your grandparents should have moved here in the post-war housing boom with a job working for an aerospace contractor, where they could get a 5 bedroom house for $35k like mine did. then your parents should have spent the 80s and 90s buying up shitty rental properties to gift to their kids as passive income. you need to earn your place here
Lmao. Literally every comment chain descends into people bragging about commuting for hours daily. What is wrong with Californians.
Sorry hunny, but if you want to live in the community you were raised in then you'll need to stop smoking, murder your pets, abandon your family, and spend >12 hours a day working/commuting.
Unfortunately people are complacent about it. I've known a ton of people who've lived all over the inland empire and are willing to drive 2ish hours a day to work in LA just because they want their own house with a lawn.
I've known someone that lives as far as apple valley and works in Pasadena and makes this trip both ways 6 days out of the week. It's insanity.
they literally just triggered all the smuglord buzzwords at once by mentioning smoking, living with family (ew gross multi generational living what are they peasants?), calling their current place a crack house, etc. If they phrased this all differently the replies would be 100x more sympathetic (but still full of liberal smuglordness I'm sure)
Threads like that genuinely have me here like "no, I don't have any kind of solidarity with white moneyed up amerikans, when the collapse comes, I'm going to laugh in their faces and make the new scrubby life they inherit as miserable as fucking possible." I don't even want to uplift the mfs any more. I just want getback.
If we turn the entirety of Orange County into a re-education center we won't even have to relocate them
Okay but that coast is too nice for an education center we should move them inland
They can go to Temecula. Actually maybe not, that area is kind of nice too.
Edit: fine, I’ve settled on Hemet
Next thread: why are all the stores/restaurants/literally any actual business that’s not my bs $300k emails job not able to find enough workers??? No one wants to work anymore 😠 😠
Redditor ghouls: "if you wanted a place to live you shouldn't have gotten pets or started smoking".
To be clear, all of these people should be in reeducation camps to learn the basics of empathy and humanity.
These people need to be beaten to within an inch of their lives.
s are even more 
than 