[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

what is your alternative? Government run Housing hasn't exactly prove to be paradise either.

I'm not proposing an alternative. Given that the overwhelming majority of society is based around the idea of private land ownership, implementing an alternative would also be problematic.

The point of bringing this up was not to say that we should get rid of landlords. It was generated in response to the idea that the working poor are deserving of criticism for demanding higher wages. I chose a group of people who aren't poor, yet who siphon money from society while providing little to no value in return, and asked the group why they don't receive criticism.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I think you're just moving the goalpost as you clarify your position. At first it was all landlords, now it's people who inherited property from their family, in certain areas of the country with a skewed market, that don't renovate when needed... etc.

I enjoy these discussions because it helps to clarify my position and thoughts, but in those cases I wasn't shifting anything. Many are bringing up landlords as the person who is managing the property, or the person who bought the property and erected the building. I would agree - to a point - that calling such people "parasites"is unfitting. Yet I would also point out that in the vast majority of cases the buildings were built long ago and the only "investment" occurs as one person or group sells the property to another. I've been trying to bring up different scenarios in an effort to get people away from what seems to be a particular notion about what a landlord is.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I really don't complain about people on welfare.

Those comments weren't directed at you, but at kyp275. To be fair, he didn't complain about welfare recipients. I pre-empted it, but he didn't go there.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Further, your hypothetical story just doesn't mesh with what I've seen in reality.

It meshes with what I've seen in reality. You and I both have nothing more than anecdotal stories to offer in this regard, though, which ultimately proves nothing more than that both instances exist. But let me try to tie it all together with this:

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Rents are definitely determined by their market (based on good ole' supply and demand).

I don't disagree that "supply and demand" comes into play, but look at the bigger picture (particularly why I started into this whole line of discussion in response to kyp275). What makes a particular location desirable? Usually there are two factors: how nice it is, and convenience. Convenience specifically relates to proximity to work. The middle class and higher can afford to live farther from their jobs, but the working poor have much less flexibility. That's strike one against the poor (and this is more directed at kyp275's lack of sympathy for their demands for higher wages). The second issue is what I mentioned before: there is a huge potential for unequal bargaining power between the tenant and the landlord. This balance is likely to be healthy in places with low population densities, but it is skewed in favor of the landlord in places with higher population densities. Places with high population densities - urban centers - tend to be places with the most job opportunities. There's a second strike against the poor.

Most of that line of argument wasn't what you were responding to, though. You were brought into the conversation over the calling out of landlords as parasites. While I am not opposed to the idea that people would receive compensation for going through the effort to secure a site and erect a structure for others to live in, I view what happens after as parasitism. If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided?

Originally Posted by kyp275

Uh, was he supposed to spend his money to purchase the property for you to live on for free?

Would the land not have existed before he purchased it?

Originally Posted by kyp275

Living wherever you want is not a right, it's something you have to earn. Live with parents, get some roommates if you have to, housing is not exempt from the "live within one's means" rule.

"Living wherever you want" is not the issue. See what I wrote above regarding job location, supply and demand for housing prices, and the negotiating power of renters and landlords.