Except I don’t have to go to a concert. If I don’t have shelter I’m pretty fucked.
Yup! Both are leeches on society, but one is sucking from the jugular and the other is sucking from an extremity. That being said they are both sucking the same blood.
I really have no empathy for the scalper problem.
Don’t go to the concert.
If anything the artists could charge more, seeing as some people will already pay scalper price. They’re doing they’re audience a favor by charging so much less than they’re willing to pay.
The argument isn’t meant to make scalpers seem worse, it’s to demonstrate how illogical it is to treat houses the same way as tickets
Scalpers aren’t even bad.
Just having some self-control and refusing to buy at what you see as an unreasonable price would make their entire business model invalid.
If someone is willing to pay $3,000 for a Taylor Swift ticket, or $1,000 or more for an early PS5, that’s what they’re worth.
Then why don’t you buy your own fucking house if it’s so easy.
Umm cause I lack generational wealth? I’m in my 30’s and almost every person I know that owns a home has done so with the help of their daddy or mommy’s money. 🥱
See, this is what gives scalpers the moral edge over landlords to me. Scalpers are largely working class people using money they earned to do something arguably unethical. Is it kinda lame? Are they losers? Yeah, and again it’s arguably unethical. But are they complicit enforcers of generational wealth and power divides? Are they, as a group, one of the primary forces siphoning wealth and power from the poor and working class to those who already have wealth and power? Nah. They’re just uncreative opportunists. Scalpers create a gulf of immorality between you and recreation to their own benefit, not between you and necessity to the detriment of society at large. So yeah, scalpers>landlords in my estimation.
Was just drawing parallels, i wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment that scalpers arent anywhere near as bad as landlords in the grand scheme of Capitalistic exploitation. Its just a great analogy of how you can most of the time turn a safe profit if you have the cash to flip a commodity. The issue is housing shouldnt be treated as a commodity.
…who said it was easy?
It is easy, if you can get a mortgage.
I currently pay less than $2k a month on my mortgage. A 1 bedroom apartment near me is about $1.8-2.5k and a 2 bedroom is $2.5-3.5k a month. People aren’t lazy and not buying houses because it’s so fun to live in an apartment, they are doing it because they can’t get a loan.
The only difficult thing about buying a house is the hours of paperwork and surprise costs that make no sense.
Because scalping drives prices up? Pretty straight forward
And if you own a house that is being flooded, just sell the flooded house and move you fucking idiot.
“Sell their houses to who, Ben?? Fucking Aquaman?!”
There it is. What a dumb argument the post has. It’s like people who get mad at people complaining about skyrocketing food prices. We all have to eat! Greedy corporations are just exploiting that…
Then buy a home in a lower cost of living area. There’s government grants to assist with down payments and closing costs.
My first house, that I bought about 5 years ago before you start calling me a boomer, was a HUD foreclosure. I was only required to do 100 dollars as a downpayment.
Buying in a lower cost of living area is easier when you don’t have to consider things like school districts for children, availability of public transportation to get to work, or even safe walkable areas to get groceries.
Yes, it turns out that high demand for real estate in certain areas leads to higher prices because of a finite supply.
You might have to look at different areas and consider the differences. I’d love to live in a penthouse downtown, but I’ll settle for my 1600 sq foot home in the suburbs.
“You might have to look at different areas and consider the differences.”
Always, but there are certain factors that aren’t so pliable. Getting a loan based on your income at a stable job means that you need to live within a reasonable area to continue to access that job. Six years ago when I was looking for a house I could have moved to a lower cost of living area, but that would have meant a 90 minute commute or changing jobs (at which time would have been an irresponsibly risky move.) Another factor was the question of changing school districts, and custody arrangements with the kids father. I wasn’t, but I know some who are restricted by custody agreements where they are required to live in certain districts or within X number of miles of the other parent. People in those situations don’t get to shop around and find other areas to live.
People who buy a house today are quite literally paying double for the same house that they would have 5 years ago due to the federal reserve increasing the interests rates to ‘fight inflation’ same selling price for thr house accounted for they are paying double the mortgage because of the increased rates.
Mortgage rates have returned to an average range. Still lower than they were in the 90s.
Your payment isn’t doubled because of rates, it’s because of high demand areas.
Thats untrue, it isnt because of the demand (News flash there is always demand for housing) it is because of the increase in the intrest rate of the loan. Monetary policy trying to reign in inflation that isn’t actually inflation, but corporations taking profits at exorbitant levels while the average citizens can barely make ends meet.
Man, I’m a loan officer at a bank. I know a lot more about this than what you do. Interest rate increases are squeezing all levels to decrease spending across the board. Banks are beginning to cut back lending to businesses.
And demand for housing ebbs and flows. Things skyrocketed during Covid because of a lack of supply. There’s actually been decreases in pricing at this point.
You must be a few crayons short of a full box, you just admitted prices are decreasing, yet folks who buy a house today will effectively pay almost double on their monthly mortgage rate because of the increasing interest rates, which have nothing to do with housing demand and everything to do with fighting inflation, which was caused by keeping the rates at effectively zero to prop up Obama’s bull economy that 45 ran into the ground.
A few thousand dollars of decrease doesn’t offset the doubling of prices that happened during Covid. You should consider asking for specifics instead of trying to do a witty insult.
Rates weren’t effectively zero prior to Covid. They were too low, yes, and should have been higher, but the bottom fell out during Covid.
several bootlickers are typing
Landlords = Property scalpers
Landlords do provide services: property maintenance and not having to worry about selling the place when you leave. Are landlords paid way too much for these services? Hell yes. That’s more an issue of inadequate supply though, in my opinion.
Similarly, ticket scalpers provide a service, but not to concert goers. Scalpers absorb risk on behalf of the venue/performer. That’s why venues, who could absolutely shut down scalpers, don’t. Still scummy as hell, but don’t absolve the venue of guilt too.
Bruh the water fountain in the gym at my apartment complex has been broke for over a year, with 2 different owners who have both refused to fix it lmao. They provide a service that should be a human right, and i fail to see how increasing the supply would mediate this exploitation of something people need to survive. Lol
Ours just has a sign that says “taken offline due to covid” and the gym was down for maintenance for a month and they only fixed one out of like seven issues.
These broken items have been broken for three years but the leasing office claims maintenance is done every six months.
If there were more available units, you could leave and go to one with better maintenance. There’d be actual competition between landlords to keep tenants.
Not ideal, obviously, since moving is a pretty big life event. I’m not saying increasing supply is the solution to every problem with landlords. Being allowed to withhold partial rent if common elements are broken would probably be a better solution in this particular instance.
Bruh I’m in a rent controlled unit, i had to jump through a shit ton of hoops to get approved for, I ain’t goin Knowhere till I no longer qualify for this unit. What you are recommending is the equivalent of a bandaid solution for a wound that needs a tourniquet…
With competition, other units will be cheaper. Units will be rented for production costs. Competition is not a bandaid but the solution.
Lmao you can’t be serious?! Where is this competition right now and why aren’t they completing currently competing?
There are many obstacles like complex building codes, limited supply of building sites, credit requirements or limited public transport. Reduce them, respectively increase public transport, and more people have an opportunity to spend their money on real estate with the expectation of profits.
Spending.money on real estate with the expectation of profits is the problem in all of this.
Housing should not be an investment
Landlords derive profit from owning a scarce resource, not from providing any services.
A property maintenance worker does the same thing but is paid for their time like any other working class individual.
This is why you can have a terrible landlord just like any good one. It’s not the quality of the landlord that’s the problem, it’s the exploitative relationship. Just like how slavery is bad despite their being “good” slave owners that didn’t beat their slaves: it wasn’t the treatment of the slaves that was the problem, it was the ownership of human beings.
It is literally a hold over from the Feudalism that was the status quo before Capitalism was the status quo. Every new social order holds reminants of the previous hierarchical powet structures thats why Landlords are called landLORDS they are a different class from the workers who’s paychecks they rely on to pay the mortgages to their fiefdoms.
All the big venues near me have moved to non-transferable tickets.
So… how would you describe eliminating competition so that there are no other ticket scalpers. Oh, and you also need regular concert tickets to survive.
THAT’S how they’re different, and how giant corporations who buy up properties and single-family homes and then jack-up rental prices (that they also own) are not “providing a service”, but further enriching themselves.
Economically they are, both activities are rent seeking
There are some pretty significant differences, but you do you.
And since I noticed the disingenuous responses to the other person saying this already, I’m excited for people to respond to this comment by fallaciously assuming I indicated either of these was better or worse than the other. I said they’re different.
“omg two related concepts are not 100% the same.” --edgelord.
Helps them stay in their disingenuous safe space where they can avoid critical thinking at all costs.
Care to explain how they are different, I’m not saying being a landlord and a ticket scalper are the EXACT same thing. Im saying they are both Parasitic on society. The onus is on you to prove they are not both parasitic, if you disagree with this meme. Go ahead!
A landlord is more like the original box office than a scalper. A scalper is more like someone renting a place to put it on airbnb. This goes against the anti landlord circle jerk though so it will get downvoted.
Thats a decent parallel actually, since the box office is selling tickets to an act that creates the value. They profit off the talents labor. Similar to how landlords profit off of the labor of whoever built the house they are renting. It ultimately comes down to the necessity to abolish private property.
Box offices which are currently being consolidated by corporations and setting up markets for the scalpers to sell their tickets where the box office takes a percentage of the resale.
Still waiting…
Those ticket scalpers and land lords are providing an economic service to you by taking the risk that they miss the show or have to pay their own mortgage! It’s a very useful service for you!
That doesn’t make sense
What don’t you understand?
How the mechanisms of Capitalism encourages one to buy up resources they did nothing to create, and profit off of the labor of others while contributing nothing to improve our society.
Ding ding ding
So, a landlord that purchased land, had a home built and maintains said home, while paying insurance and the mortgage on the property isn’t improving our society by providing housing to those who don’t have the means to do all of this?
Yes. The only reason they are able to do that is because they have money. They arent building homes though, they are buying up existing starter homes and renting them at twice the mortgage rate and building a portfolio of houses they rent, taking thoze homes out of the market for potential homebuyers indefinitely. Literally being leeches and freeloaders off of the labor and wages of folks they priced out of home ownership, by making it harder to buy a home.
Lolololol
If you think the majority of landlords built homes with the kindly intention to rent them I have a bridge to sell you. Most independent landlords are renting out old, half decrepit houses they bought on auction and “refurbished” (poorly, with substandard materials and usually by themselves, not using skilled contractors), and many landlord companies are owned by non-native entities that siphon money from our economy to their own countries while jacking up rents and keeping the working class as poor as possible.
He’s landlord or an aspiring landlord.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Well for once scalpers sell tickets, and landlords rent out housing.
Soo ticket scalpers are better than landlords is what youre saying? Because id rather own something than rent something…
Housing is a need. Tickets are a want. Both are scalpers.
Because id rather own something than rent something…
What do you own when you buy tickets from a scalper? Unless used for the specific event, it’s just a piece of paper. And once the specific event is over, it becomes worth less than a piece of paper. The event itself is over within hours.
So its the same. You have to pay again and again to use it. But housing is a basic need.
I’m saying they’re not the same thing.
They are both parasitic, thats the point of the meme r/whoosh
Don’t woosh me just because your meme is retarded.
Its ok, its not your faulth that your material conditions allowed this meme to go over your head like a jet liner. Thanks for your engagement tho! It really helped explain the context of the meme, if critical thinking waz easy everyone would do it. Lol
Imagine getting so tilted by a meme that you drop a slur
Landlords sell access to an apartment or house temporarily during a specific time at inflated prices. Ticket scalpers sell access to an event venue or stadium temporarily at a specific time at inflated prices.
deleted by creator
For the analogy to work there’d have to be some prior market of housing that landlords buy up the second the market opens, and then “resell” (nevermind that renting is more than “access to housing”). That’s not really how it works though.
And to add on the “the second the market opens” part - landlords can buy houses even before they are fully built and liveable which is not really an option for a person with no house because such an investment leaves you with no place to live and no money (mostly).
Eh… what do you think happens when you buy your first house while living in an apartment? Over here anyway you can’t just up and leave, you’ve got a contract to rent the apartment until a certain date and the house you want might not be available on that specific date… I was paying both my condo and my apartment for four months when I first bought…
Lmao do you live under a rock?
I’m not saying all landlords do so but what you described happens quite often. Landlords buy a property when they already have a place to live in and then rent out said property to someone who has none. And now said someone can’t own a property because there’s none on the market as all are bought out so all what is left to do for those people is to rent. It’s an oversimplification of course and there’s a lot of nuance to it but the general message still stands - if a person with a house buys another house to rent it out then one less house remains to be bought for people with no house.
And there are investment groups with billions of dollars buying tens of thousands of homes, competing with other investment groups.
The housing market for rental properties doesn’t just exist. It is is explicitly financed by the profit motive of renting, e.g. as real estate securities for the well-off upper middle class, or more likely, huge real etate companies. Now maybe there are some parts of the world where building companies just throw up houses and landlords scalp them off (suburbs in Australia I think) but I don’t think that’s the case in general.
The “housing market” shouldn’t exist thats the point that is going over your head like an airplane. Lmao.
Both are people taking up resources at perceived lower prices and trying to make a profit off of the artificial scarcity they’ve created.
It only makes sense to those who are illogical.
People love to hate what they don’t understand. People have been hating other people and things they don’t understand for thousands of years.
Why does lemmy want to make renters homeless so badly?
Because I’d rather be putting money toward owning my current residence than renting it.
But the bank says I’m not allowed.
And you’re likely not allowed because your landlord helped create a housing market that so cooked you can’t enter it.
People owning homes they don’t need doesn’t making housing more accessible for everyone else. If you understand math, this makes sense.
Hurr durr landlords bad, let me live on your property for a penny even though you had to spend money to create the acquire the property in the first place!!
Are you against roads?
Do you use the sidewalk without paying a fee to a private entity that helped develop it?
Housing doesn’t have to be a scarcity market. I don’t anyone is complaining about people who own a house, but people are complaining about companies and individuals who own 10,000 homes.
Ummm more like “scalper buys ticket first and now you can’t, then charges way more for it.” And “landlord buys houses first, now you can’t, and they charge more to live in it than you would have if you were able to buy it yourself.”
They’re pretty much the same
Not all landlords are scumbags, but there’s a cliche for a reason.
How about we compromise on paying them the cost of entering the land into production. Just cut out the “unearned income”.
Nobody creates real estate, unless you’re talking about those artificial islands in Dubai.
Got it, the buildings we live in are naturally created by the shifting of tectonic plates👌
Oops, I used the wrong word. I guess that means I’m an idiot.
LAND is land is not created, and landlords are charging rent largely based on the value of the land even though nobody made. Ownership of land is kind of bullshit anyway. It only came to be owned because at some point sometime took a piece of unclaimed land and convinced people around them that it belonged to them. All subsequent transfers of the property are therefore illegitimate as well.
If you feel that ownership of land is “kind of bullshit” feel free to live in in a traveller always being on the move.
I don’t support excessively inflated rent but the fact that some people here genuinely believe that renting out a property is equivalent to scalping or that landlords don’t deserve to get paid for investing capital in the “land” which they’re renting is the funniest shit I’ve read the whole day.
Whoooooosh.
Believing something is bullshit does not obligate me to protest it in ways that are harmful to my well being.
I cannot opt out of the consequences of everyone else believing ownership of land is a legitimate concept. Choosing not to make use of land other people claim to own is acknowledging land ownership just as much as buying or renting property is. And I don’t want to be shot or arrested for trespassing.
Go live on an inhabited Island and create a whole nation of bums like you there
Man you are working really hard to miss my point. Either that or you’re incredibly dense.
A penny is too much.
So everyones labor should be free for you to take then? How are you not the parasite for wanting others to build, maintain and fund a place for you to live?
People should pay mortgages, not rent, you pillock.
What’s holding you back from taking a loan and paying mortgage instead of rent? Risk aversion?
I can think of two reasons but I doubt this is exhaustive…
Most people don’t have enough capital to make the down payment. When one person has no savings, they’re irresponsible. When most people have no savings, it’s poorly designed policy.
In addition, the option of being able to rent out a house increases its value, which makes mortgages more expensive than they otherwise would be (with no rents).
Bad credit and no money
🏆 Here is your award for most disingenuous comment! Congratulations for your total lack of ability to understand that others have different Material Conditions than yourself!
Then the problem is not that the practice of renting exists, but wealth inequality. Which we fully agree on, especially since several mechanisms are at work that further the gap between the rich and the poor. These all should be addressed.
I never said that bahaha Gotta love being called a parasite for not wanting to have your blood sucked by a leech. OMG THAT LEECH DID WORK TO ATTACH ITSELF AND YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT?!? YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP ALL YOUR BLOOD?!? SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING A LEECH WOULD SAY, SUS AF…
You said yourself that a penny is too much. What’s lower than a penny and not free?
You literally are here arguing rent should be free…so yea grow up child.
