this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1262 points (96.9% liked)

Memes

45896 readers
1524 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_strike

When you get the whole building involve, it can be surprisingly effective.

the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn’t have the luxury of caring about things like this

You don't think a family of 3 cares when their rents double over five years while their wages barely budge?

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, I didn't say that. I said a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it and you're too busy making a point to pay rent.

This is true. So not sure what point any of what you said serves, though you're not wrong.

Also, my grandma lived inna building where 90% of the tenants did this, came together and made their demands and refused to pay rent all together.

They were all removed systematically.

Not saying it never works, but it's alot for the average working class American to risk.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it

Why do you think anyone can afford these homes?

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not arguing with you clearly you're just missing the point purposely or trying to strawman and move goalposts.

Obviously people can afford these homes or 100% of America's middle class would be homeless.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

you’re just missing the point purposely or trying to strawman and move goalposts

Reads like a Ben Shapiro rant.

Obviously people can afford these homes

Why would states need to implement a vacancy tax on speculative properties if people could afford them?

Seems to be an increasingly popular strategy for reducing homelessness. San Francisco could get 90% of its homeless off the streets with the country’s fiercest housing speculation tax, but landlords are already fighting it tooth and nail

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So the point you kept missing I'll throw you a bone man.

Someone can afford the home you're in. This "strategy" is only effective if everyone's on board. Otherwise a new family will be in there on the heels of your feet.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Someone can afford the home you’re in.

I've got half a dozen units on my block that are selling above the clearing price. They've been vacant for years. This is speculative real estate. The only people who can afford it are the developers and investors looking to accumulate housing stock on the gamble that someone will be able to pay the markup at some point in the future.

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We're talking about rentals, dude. If the families could afford to buy, they wouldn't need to pay rent.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We’re talking about rentals, dude.

We just had a major rental catrelization scandal, by which landlords collaborated to keep vacant units prices above the clearing rate to deny their tenants anywhere cheaper to move.