Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have feared this would happen, and it's pretty much here.

The "this" is the wealthy buying up all rentable property, and raising rents until disposable income is close to 0% for many people.

In the past, I had a jobs that entailed collecting rent from tenants--and I hated the job. This is what bother me the most; I hated going to the door, or unit(mini-storages), and asking for that huge chunk of money each month. In every case, the family, or person was at the complete mercy of the Landord. I never met a Landord who didn't look for a reason to raise rents.

These Landlords knew the pain their rate increases would cause, and would hire guys like me(poor and needed a job) to do their dirty work. I think what bother me the most is when market rates went down--so many Landlords let their property sit idle until the market picked up.

I don't know the answer other than Landlords should get morality implants? I didn't mean to high jack stegosaurus' comment--I just don't like to see this imprisionment taking place so nonshalonant, like it's just business? It's not just business. Your business is affecting people lives on a very personal level.

It comes down to I don't want to live in a society that's so bifurcated. I see it happening and I don't like it. The disparity of income is here; I just can't keep acting like making money off the struggling, and dependent is copacetic!

(I used the word copacetic because when I was in school, I worked at a mini-storage. My manager who lived on the premises, with his wife, was the nicest guy. I saw how he struggled financially. Copacetic was my manager's favorite word. Whenever, I use it I hope he is doing well. I remember the look on his face when he had to tell people being close homeless, the owner is raising rents again. I'm even in denial. There were many people living out of their cars, and putting their few possessions in the units--they were homeless. Anyway, stay out of mini-storages if you can. I saw so many people put their stuff in and never get it out. They couldn't part with their stuff, and became perpetual tenants. Those were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones were already homeless.)

Good night people!



Yeah, while I generally support the freemarket, something as finite and important as property to live in shouldn't be at the mercy of it.

Near London we're living in a world where middle earners just 20-30 years older than us were able to get property at resonable prices, sit on them, and now someone earning in the top 1% will struggle to buy anything decent.

Further to that, the only property taxes we have here are council tax. Remove all the funiture from your property and leave it empty and you don't need to pay this. I'd argue that's backwards and what we should really be doing is taxing on levels based on empty, rented and living in, with taxes being prohibitly expensive to sit leaving a house empty.

Of course, being 40 and above has had left you with ample oppertunity to milk the status quo, so you're not voting for this and neither are those who inherit from it.


Most of what people put in mini-storage isn't worth even one month's rent on the unit. You're better off taking the stuff to the dump, and then re-buying it in the unlikely event you'll ever need it again.


People tend to have a hard time, when faced with a decision that contains two bad choices. Making the least bad choice, even when necessary, causes a lot of mental anguish and there's a strong desire to concoct a fictional third choice that magically absolves everyone from guilt.

We know from varying urban policy around the world that not raising rents is in many ways worse than raising rents. If the rent becomes too disconnected from market pricing, the shock of any dislocation is life ruining. Dislocation is always going to happen, buildings get sold, they need to get torn down, accidents render it uninhabitable etc. Better to have the rent raised gradually so people can proactively make decisions to alter their circumstances than for it to happen all at once.

Those landlords weren't suffering from a morality deficiency, they simply recognized that you're often confronted with hard choices in life and it's best to remain unsentimental about making the least bad one.


This is something I don't fully understand.

How can bailiffs live with themselves? 99.9% of the time their job involves taking from the poor to give to the rich. The justification is some shaky concept of 'legal ownership' which is often just codified exploitation.

I would rather end myself and my family than do that sort of job. You are a direct agent of evil. Your actions cause massive anguish towards the poor and barely even move the needle for the owners.

What led to you taking the job in the first place? Had to feed the family? (Another reason we need to institute a basic income - a system that can force people into doing bad things just to eat is broken...)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: