Strikes

[Deleted User 887]

show us that you can get the order right, and we'll get you that raise.

Even the smartest of extremely successful wealthy people make mistakes at their job/s.
It's not just the low wage "imbeciles".

[ousdahl]

^^^


I was gonna respond with something like, stop threatening to replace the position with high school kids and maybe folks will take the job more seriously

[PhDhawk]

I've noticed the mistakes too.

I don't blame the workers directly. I think most of these places are understaffed, and composed of mostly new employees, the guy who has been there 6 weeks is training the new people.

Not seeing how paying less solves the problem.

It's funny when the market favors the employee then we don't like the free market. I see this as just being part of it. It's like when a housing market favors the buyer instead of the seller. Or like how right now you can get a lot of money for a used car.

[TDub]

"Did you take any steps to progress toward your goals Qus? Or just gonna sit and bitch while waiting for Robin Hood to come along and hand you a bag of cash"

You are way past your invitation on this line.

you dont get decide anything for me or for anyone but yourself pal. I'll use it as long as its relevant and as long as QDahl keeps posting the same shit and memes over and over.



ive also never been looking for an invitation from you....so, all good on that..did I forget to RSVP?

[ousdahl]

Here or the landlord thread?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epnekk/ ... -landlords

Berlin Backs Referendum to Seize Properties From Mega Landlords

Up to 240,000 properties could be expropriated from landlords, after voters overwhelmingly backed a nonbinding referendum aimed at tackling the housing crisis in Germany's capital

[TDub]

are you advocating that the government go around seizing assets forcefully from rightful owners?

[Deleted User 863]

are you advocating that the government go around seizing assets forcefully from rightful owners?

Slippery slope

[TDub]

are you advocating that the government go around seizing assets forcefully from rightful owners?

Slippery slope

its not even a slope....its a fucking cliff

[jhawks99]

are you advocating that the government go around seizing assets forcefully from rightful owners?

Like trump's boarder wall, right?

[TDub]

are you advocating that the government go around seizing assets forcefully from rightful owners?

Like trump's boarder wall, right?

I dont recall advocating for that either

[TDub]

I'd also argue that seizing housing is different than seizing border land. but yes both are wrong.

[jhawks99]

are you advocating that the government go around seizing assets forcefully from rightful owners?

Like trump's boarder wall, right?

I dont recall advocating for that either

I didn't think you did, but imminent domain is used a lot here. This doesn't seem to be all that different.

[ousdahl]

I just posted an article. I didn’t advocate for anything, but apparently a majority of Berlin voters did.

It just applies to mega landlords (owning 3000+ units), and is only a referendum that’s nonbinding, so it’s not like anything will happen just cuz it’s the will of the people.

But like any policy decision, it’s a matter of balancing competing interests. Here, they’re apparently trying to balance the opportunity for mega landlords to buy up housing like any other commodity, with the interest of housing their citizens.

Bear in mind, some folks think housing should be handled like less money-making scheme for mega landlords and more of a basic fundamental right in a developed society. And if that’s what a majority of voters decide, why shouldn’t it?

My next question was gonna be, “would something like this ever fly in Merica?”, but I’m afraid too many temporarily embarrassed millionaires would rather argue for some corporation’s right to get rich, than for their own right to not be homeless.

And yea I don’t know the details of exactly how such a referendum would be practically implemented. Could it be some kinda antitrust something?

[Deleted User 863]

I don't think "owning a home" is a fundamental right.

[Deleted User 89]

owning a home and having a roof over your head aren’t necessarily the same

i don’t think anyone is entitled to their own 3br/2bath home with picket fence and two-car garage, but i do think some level of socially-supported community living is reasonable for the wealthiest country in the planet to provide for those less fortunate

i also think it’s reasonable to ask our governments (state and local) to use the tools they have to ensure that “housing” affordability remains...uh, affordable to all levels of the local community. said another way, it’s absurd that locals/townies can quickly get priced out of the market due to coastal transplants. and that goes for rent and mortgages

[ousdahl]

Yea.

It’s not a question of whether “owning a home” is some guaranteed right. (Unless illy meant that comment as a criticism of landlords, which I don’t think he did)

Berliners want fair and affordable access to housing for their citizens. The interest is not necessarily in citizens owning themselves, but in simply having roofs over their heads.

and it seems this whole mega landlord model is less about providing housing and more about monopolizing the market.

[Deleted User 863]

owning a home and having a roof over your head aren’t necessarily the same

i don’t think anyone is entitled to their own 3br/2bath home with picket fence and two-car garage, but i do think some level of socially-supported community living is reasonable for the wealthiest country in the planet to provide for those less fortunate

i also think it’s reasonable to ask our governments (state and local) to use the tools they have to ensure that “housing” affordability remains...uh, affordable to all levels of the local community. said another way, it’s absurd that locals/townies can quickly get priced out of the market due to coastal transplants. and that goes for rent and mortgages

Agree with your first 2 parts.

The last part i struggle with. Locals aren't entitled to what they don't own more than "transplants". And trying to deter transplants from a given area also impacts the locals who already own there by not allowing them to realize the upside of their property value increasing as the area experiences higher demand.

[Deleted User 89]

owning a home and having a roof over your head aren’t necessarily the same

i don’t think anyone is entitled to their own 3br/2bath home with picket fence and two-car garage, but i do think some level of socially-supported community living is reasonable for the wealthiest country in the planet to provide for those less fortunate

i also think it’s reasonable to ask our governments (state and local) to use the tools they have to ensure that “housing” affordability remains...uh, affordable to all levels of the local community. said another way, it’s absurd that locals/townies can quickly get priced out of the market due to coastal transplants. and that goes for rent and mortgages

Agree with your first 2 parts.

The last part i struggle with. Locals aren't entitled to what they don't own more than "transplants". And trying to deter transplants from a given area also impacts the locals who already own there by not allowing them to realize the upside of their property value increasing as the area experiences higher demand.

not what i said, but not surprising that you’d put words in my mouth

it’s fine if you don’t agree, but i’m of the opinion that governments can do more to ensure that affordable housing is a thing...zoning restrictions and the like

[ousdahl]

' Locals aren't entitled to what they don't own more than "transplants" ' seems like a good way to whitewash a local culture, no pun intended.

it also seems like it could apply both in the short run (here come the Starbucks), and in some bigger picture - in many ways it's a problem as big and old as imperialism itself.

And as property values and demand increase, yeah maybe some local owners are pleased. but maybe some other local owners are upset, cuz they don't wanna move but face increased pressure to sell, plus the new neighbors are assholes. Maybe more locals yet are pissed that their rent went through the roof, again no pun intended...ok fine so pun intended this time, cuz good luck getting the landlord to fix that roof.

and, oh boy, here comes the homelessness! capitalists have conditioned us to think it's a personal failure, but a lefty would argue it's more so a policy failure.

[Deleted User 863]

' Locals aren't entitled to what they don't own more than "transplants" ' seems like a good way to whitewash a local culture, no pun intended.

And as property values and demand increase, yeah maybe some local owners are pleased. but maybe some other local owners are upset, cuz they don't wanna move but face increased pressure to sell, plus the new neighbors are assholes. Maybe more locals yet are pissed that their rent went through the roof, again no pun intended...ok fine so pun intended this time, cuz good luck getting the landlord to fix that roof.

The majority of americans own their primary residence. 65%ish to be exact.

If you don't own property in an area you're not entitled to that area. That's just reality. Being born somewhere doesn't entitle you to that area anymore than the next person (i am sure instead of genuine discussion you'll insert a witty comment about native americans or gentrification here).

Areas experience growth. Other areas experience population decline. Should all people be required to stay wherever they're born? I certainly don't think so. Should we make it hard for people to live somewhere other than where they're born? I certainly don't think so.


And sorry, i don't have sympathy for "renters" who move to an area with an incredibly high cost of living and then complain they can't afford anything where they live. I'd love to take all my beach vacations to Greece and the Maldives, but since i can't afford it i go to Florida instead. People have to learn to live within their means. Even if that means leaving an area they like.