• WisconsinLeftist [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    How do you argue against libs who make the argument of "well the landlords need to pay their bills too". I've tried to have this argument with my Mom and it's very difficult to get my point across because she doesn't see the landlord tenant relationship as parasitic. They always try to say that landlords take care of the property but we all know that landlords hire someone else to accomplish that and will generally do the bare minimum for tenants.

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      The landlord made an investment, and investments come with risk. An investment is not an entitlement to an endless stream of free money. Sometimes investments go south, and the investor gets fucked -- that's the free market in action. Don't like it? What are you, some kind of commie?

      On the other hand, only a barbaric, illegitimate government would force millions of its own citizens out onto the streets in winter, in a pandemic. And only a depraved, callous person would support that to artificially guarantee the returns on landlords' investments.

      • WisconsinLeftist [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        The usual response to this is that "the landlord manages the property and deserves to earn money". They consider hiring people to do the work to be work itself unfortunately.

          • WisconsinLeftist [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            That they pay someone else to hire people, or that they pay someone else to do the work of maintaining the property? Because my issue is that they consider paying someone else to do the work to be work itself because they're "managing" things.

        • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]
          ·
          4 years ago

          if the tenant doesn't pay rent, they don't lose the benefit of the landlord's (or more likely, their hired super's) managerial services; they lose their home. there's no way around it: landlords are leeches who want free stuff for nothing.

          • WisconsinLeftist [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            This is actually a nice point. They're not paying for the service, they're paying for housing.

            • shitstorm [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              4 years ago

              Honestly I think you're going at it from the wrong angle. Some people have been fortunate enough to not have to deal with a bad landlord before or have people close to them that are landlords. You won't get traction with these people by coming at them with "landlords are inherently coercive" unless they already resent landlords.

              Instead I think you need to hammer home that housing should be a human right, nobody should have to pay for housing. Homelessness kills people. America has more unoccupied homes than homeless people. We absolutely have the resources to house every person in the US, it is the morally correct thing to do. Evictions kill people. By not housing people, we are killing them. Get them on board with "nobody should have to pay for housing" and they will much more easily come to the idea that landlords are parasites.

              • WisconsinLeftist [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                Ok thank you, this is probably a good idea. I think there are a lot of people who will still object because they believe that someone deserves to make money off the homes, but it is probably an easier approach.

    • anthm17 [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      My bathroom is missing a towel rack and the toilet paper holder is a glued on replacement that’s falling off.

      I fixed one door by adding some shims and have another to do.

    • RNAi [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      4 years ago

      "Bitch shut up, people need somewhere to live"