How Poor Americans get Exploited by their Landlords
Roland S.Pro Member
Investor · Bethany, OK · Member since 2014 · 31 posts · 23 votesHow Poor Americans get Exploited by their Landlords
Most Popular Reply
China, ME · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes
7y@Roland S. I stopped reading at MSNBC.
74 Replies
- Rental Property Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2013 · 85 posts · 146 votes7y
Originally posted by @Dennis M.:
Anyone who has objectively read his book “evicted” will understand this guy is a deranged liberal lunatic . In his eyes the helpless tenants will forever be victims held down by their evil oppressor landlords when the reality is if you study these folks you can see their bad repeated choices are actually what’s keeping them stuck in The system not the landlords .
Sadly there are people who prey on low income but that can be said for the poor as well . Many times I’ve seen panhandlers preying on middle class to buy booze and drugs while smoking a cigarette talking on a $900 phone . There is no shortage of people being taken advantage (or taking advantage )of in every income bracket and race.
Well said, it absolutely goes both ways.
We all know that there are "professional tenants" as well as "professional bust-outs" as we called them in the car business. These are people that know how to game the system in every way possible.
My wife and I are both 1st gen Americans from Slavic immigrant parents and grandparents. Our families accomplished so much in just being in this country for 35+ years with no English, money, etc.
I can't understand how people who are born in the states, speak English, went to school here, who choose to live their lives like this.
Oh well. I was raised to have more pride than that.
- Developer · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Roland S.:
It seems to me that the landlords are providing a service for people that need housing, not exploiting them....
If these professors become landlords in these war zone areas, I bet they will realize why landlords want to make $200/month+ cashflow per door with all the hassles they have to contend with.
These professors also did not realize in their "study" that the hard working middle class is the one who end up paying for the housing of the so-called "exploited" poor through subsidized housing.
What a waste of college education to write such a paper! Toilet paper is more valuable :)
- Rental Property Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2013 · 85 posts · 146 votes7y
I drove through East Cleveland on Sunday.
I would pay for the author's rent to just live in that area, let alone manage/own a rental in that area. I'm sure their opinion would be slightly skewed after that.
- Rental Property Investor · Red Bank, NJ · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
If I had to point to one industry exploiting the poor and middle class it would be colleges and universities, hands down.
If I had to point to one town/city in my state that would be the most unwelcoming and prejudicial of the poor it would be Princeton. In Massachusetts- Cambridge.
Me thinks though doth point ye finger in the wrong direction.
- 7yKristopher HanksPro MemberRental Property Investor · Davenport, FL · Member since 2016 · 593 posts · 382 votes
Regardless of what the article says, I am one that does not take advantage of the poor. I have tenants that use public assistance, and work. I respect that. It seems most do not work when they get public assistance. Just my point of view, not a statistical fact that I know of.
Their rent is $75 per month below the average rent of a similar house within a 1.5 mile radius, and my house was renovated before they moved in. I agree with those that have said that a service is being provided, and it needs to be paid for. A lot of low income families receive some kind of public assistance. So really, is it them that is being taken advantage of, or is the tax payer being taken advantage of?
- Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Roland S.:
It seems to me that the landlords are providing a service for people that need housing, not exploiting them....
Last year I was invited on a very liberal non profit radio show to do a panel discussion with some others about that fool's book. His viewpoints are insane. Here is a link to the show https://wcpn.ideastream.org/programs/sound-of-ideas/american-red-cross-hero-awards-evictions-landlords-perspective
- 7yMatthew Irish-JonesBusiness MemberReal Estate Agent · Buffalo, NY · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
This is the kind of thinking that leads to great ideas like rent control.
Irish Jones Realty4.947 Reviews - 7yKalyanii K.Pro MemberOR · Member since 2016 · 55 posts · 42 votes
Wow, interesting discussion. Let’s bump it up in the forums to hear more!
- Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Roland S. It is true that the rent to value of homes in poor neighborhoods is very high. Try talking about things like the 1% or 2% rule in any other developed country and you will be laughed out of town. It’s very true that if the poor could buy the same places they rent they would be better off. And to that extent profit margins are very high for landlords that do C and D properties. This doesn’t include stupid out of state investors. Often the profits are made by other people who used to
live in the same areas. The book Evicted talks about it in some detail. The problem is real but blaming it only on greedy landlords is not realistic either. The whole economic system is set up to exploit the poor.
I'm not so sure about the "buy the same places, they would be better off" argument. Maintaining a house costs money, and even though I rent B housing I have people who rent from me just because they can't/won't maintain a house, either because they don't have disposable cash, don't want the responsibility, or don't know what they are doing. In my town, the public housing looks and functions better than the low-income owned housing, because these people can't afford to make repairs or even perform basic maintenance.
There's some truth to your statement about the economic system, and your comparison to other developed countries, but it's not entirely accurate. We regulate the cost of water, electricity, and other utilities here in the US. We provide a safety net, bare bones as it may be, that reasonably prevents most sane people from living & dying on the streets. We don't have the public benefits of other westernized countries, but we also have avenues of upward mobility that don't exist in most of the rest of the world, industrialized or otherwise. I believe the key is finding a balance between all-out evolutionary capitalism, which Marx correctly notes will eventually lead to revolution/armed insurrection, and complete socialism in which society owns all means of production and determines all reward for effort, which will eventually lead to stagnation and apathy. What's the right balance? That's a political argument :) .
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
- Accountant · Hopwood, PA · Member since 2015 · 125 posts · 92 votes7y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
The ability to rise above the bottom 20% is far from very, very, slim. Even a study stating it's more difficult in the US than in other places abroad places raising out of the bottom 20% at greater than 50%. "A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html
I'd also argue that your proposed solutions would actually make the problem worse. Minimum wage laws greatly assist large corporations in eliminating competition. Every barrier to entry government creates assists the behemoth companies they refuse to break up. Government tends to make things worse the more they try to help. Which sectors of the American economy are experiencing the highest rates of inflation? Why those sectors that the government subsidizes the most, of course! Government tends to be the problem in most cases, not the solution.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Roland S. It is true that the rent to value of homes in poor neighborhoods is very high. Try talking about things like the 1% or 2% rule in any other developed country and you will be laughed out of town. It’s very true that if the poor could buy the same places they rent they would be better off. And to that extent profit margins are very high for landlords that do C and D properties. This doesn’t include stupid out of state investors. Often the profits are made by other people who used to
live in the same areas. The book Evicted talks about it in some detail. The problem is real but blaming it only on greedy landlords is not realistic either. The whole economic system is set up to exploit the poor.
I'm not so sure about the "buy the same places, they would be better off" argument. Maintaining a house costs money, and even though I rent B housing I have people who rent from me just because they can't/won't maintain a house, either because they don't have disposable cash, don't want the responsibility, or don't know what they are doing. In my town, the public housing looks and functions better than the low-income owned housing, because these people can't afford to make repairs or even perform basic maintenance.
There's some truth to your statement about the economic system, and your comparison to other developed countries, but it's not entirely accurate. We regulate the cost of water, electricity, and other utilities here in the US. We provide a safety net, bare bones as it may be, that reasonably prevents most sane people from living & dying on the streets. We don't have the public benefits of other westernized countries, but we also have avenues of upward mobility that don't exist in most of the rest of the world, industrialized or otherwise. I believe the key is finding a balance between all-out evolutionary capitalism, which Marx correctly notes will eventually lead to revolution/armed insurrection, and complete socialism in which society owns all means of production and determines all reward for effort, which will eventually lead to stagnation and apathy. What's the right balance? That's a political argument :) .
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
There's a lot of people that would agree with your argument, and it's a strong one. I agree with most of it. But upward mobility isn't a myth. I'm living proof of it. I grew up ridiculously poor - at one point we were homeless, and I lived long periods with no electricity, hot water, telephone, etc. Ate a whole lot of government cheese (pretty good!) and powdered milk (ugh). I was the first person in my immediate family to go to college; my entire family consisted of poor immigrants with a lower-class working man's mentality. Without any real family help or support I went from that to where I am now, which isn't Warren Buffett but it's pretty good. Along the way I made it all the way through a doctorate. I don't find myself particularly exceptional - I have a better than average intelligence level, maybe, but beyond that I'm pretty ordinary. What I did have was:
1. Intellectual curiosity
2. A strong work ethic
More than anything else I attribute my financial/other success to those two attributes. Those are attributes that can be fostered and ignited in anyone, regardless of class, and in the US that ignition can take you quite far.
I don't disagree that upward mobility is difficult, whether in the US or anywhere else. But I don't think we should mistake difficult for improbable or impossible. The vast majority of my own family has reached where they are (most unsuccessful) based not on our common upbringing, but on the choices they've made in life.
Skyline Properties - Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
The ability to rise above the bottom 20% is far from very, very, slim. Even a study stating it's more difficult in the US than in other places abroad places raising out of the bottom 20% at greater than 50%. "A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html
I'd also argue that your proposed solutions would actually make the problem worse. Minimum wage laws greatly assist large corporations in eliminating competition. Every barrier to entry government creates assists the behemoth companies they refuse to break up. Government tends to make things worse the more they try to help. Which sectors of the American economy are experiencing the highest rates of inflation? Why those sectors that the government subsidizes the most, of course! Government tends to be the problem in most cases, not the solution.
While I think you are on the right path in the first part of your post, the last part of it is a myth and needs to be stated as such. The greatest societies in the history of the planet, whether good or evil, became that way through strong public administration, i.e. government. Strong government in the US prevents unchecked capitalism which is not a formula for long-term wealth but instead a recipe for short-term collapse. I agree that there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences when it comes to government "help", and that there are an equal plethora of examples of intended consequences that benefit specific classes and create have/have not scenarios. That should not be confused with the fact that government, in the US and most other western nations, does in fact get it right more often than not (when the opposite is true, the society fails), and that there is nothing endemic about government interaction with society that creates more problems than it solves - quite the contrary. Man created government out of the abyss to counteract anarchy. Saying "government is the problem" is a quaint sounding phrase but in fact causes more problems than it solves because it encourages lazy, non-critical thinking.
Skyline Properties - Accountant · Hopwood, PA · Member since 2015 · 125 posts · 92 votes7y
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
The ability to rise above the bottom 20% is far from very, very, slim. Even a study stating it's more difficult in the US than in other places abroad places raising out of the bottom 20% at greater than 50%. "A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html
I'd also argue that your proposed solutions would actually make the problem worse. Minimum wage laws greatly assist large corporations in eliminating competition. Every barrier to entry government creates assists the behemoth companies they refuse to break up. Government tends to make things worse the more they try to help. Which sectors of the American economy are experiencing the highest rates of inflation? Why those sectors that the government subsidizes the most, of course! Government tends to be the problem in most cases, not the solution.
While I think you are on the right path in the first part of your post, the last part of it is a myth and needs to be stated as such. The greatest societies in the history of the planet, whether good or evil, became that way through strong public administration, i.e. government. Strong government in the US prevents unchecked capitalism which is not a formula for long-term wealth but instead a recipe for short-term collapse. I agree that there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences when it comes to government "help", and that there are an equal plethora of examples of intended consequences that benefit specific classes and create have/have not scenarios. That should not be confused with the fact that government, in the US and most other western nations, does in fact get it right more often than not (when the opposite is true, the society fails), and that there is nothing endemic about government interaction with society that creates more problems than it solves - quite the contrary. Man created government out of the abyss to counteract anarchy. Saying "government is the problem" is a quaint sounding phrase but in fact causes more problems than it solves because it encourages lazy, non-critical thinking.
A myth? Do you have any citations for that, or are you just discounting one person's opinion with your own? More importantly, if I want to work at a home improvement store 4 hours a week in exchange for a 10% discount, why does the government need to get involved and prohibit that voluntary exchange? If somebody is a stage 4 cancer patient and wants to try a new medication, why is that person considered a felon if that medication isn't FDA approved? Does the FDA take responsibility when a drug they've approved injures or kills it's users? I was in the military for 8 years, I've worked at the state's Department of Humans services for 3 1/2 years, and I've yet to find something government does more efficiently than their private sector counterparts.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
The ability to rise above the bottom 20% is far from very, very, slim. Even a study stating it's more difficult in the US than in other places abroad places raising out of the bottom 20% at greater than 50%. "A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html
I'd also argue that your proposed solutions would actually make the problem worse. Minimum wage laws greatly assist large corporations in eliminating competition. Every barrier to entry government creates assists the behemoth companies they refuse to break up. Government tends to make things worse the more they try to help. Which sectors of the American economy are experiencing the highest rates of inflation? Why those sectors that the government subsidizes the most, of course! Government tends to be the problem in most cases, not the solution.
While I think you are on the right path in the first part of your post, the last part of it is a myth and needs to be stated as such. The greatest societies in the history of the planet, whether good or evil, became that way through strong public administration, i.e. government. Strong government in the US prevents unchecked capitalism which is not a formula for long-term wealth but instead a recipe for short-term collapse. I agree that there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences when it comes to government "help", and that there are an equal plethora of examples of intended consequences that benefit specific classes and create have/have not scenarios. That should not be confused with the fact that government, in the US and most other western nations, does in fact get it right more often than not (when the opposite is true, the society fails), and that there is nothing endemic about government interaction with society that creates more problems than it solves - quite the contrary. Man created government out of the abyss to counteract anarchy. Saying "government is the problem" is a quaint sounding phrase but in fact causes more problems than it solves because it encourages lazy, non-critical thinking.
A myth? Do you have any citations for that, or are you just discounting one person's opinion with your own? More importantly, if I want to work at a home improvement store 4 hours a week in exchange for a 10% discount, why does the government need to get involved and prohibit that voluntary exchange? If somebody is a stage 4 cancer patient and wants to try a new medication, why is that person considered a felon if that medication isn't FDA approved? Does the FDA take responsibility when a drug they've approved injures or kills it's users? I was in the military for 8 years, I've worked at the state's Department of Humans services for 3 1/2 years, and I've yet to find something government does more efficiently than their private sector counterparts.
I was in the military as well. And have worked in local government for many years. You are cherry picking. For all the examples you can cite on why government *doesn't* work, I can cite equal examples of how government does work.
For example: Do you get an electric bill? I'm willing to bet that your electric utility can't just charge what the market will bear, because government has recognized electricity as essentially a "right" of civilization here and limits the rates and increases. Let's extrapolate that to water - does your water provider charge whatever the market will bear? How much would you be willing to pay for clean water? For that matter, what would be the private sector incentive to provide most of your water safety? Since you called out the FDA, let's work with them - how many people do you think might have died in a purely market economy? How about public defense, since you were in the military? What's the private sector counterpart that's more efficient?
For every person who claims to want to live without government interference, because government is so inefficient/ineffective, I give you Somalia.
Skyline Properties - Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
The ability to rise above the bottom 20% is far from very, very, slim. Even a study stating it's more difficult in the US than in other places abroad places raising out of the bottom 20% at greater than 50%. "A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html
I'd also argue that your proposed solutions would actually make the problem worse. Minimum wage laws greatly assist large corporations in eliminating competition. Every barrier to entry government creates assists the behemoth companies they refuse to break up. Government tends to make things worse the more they try to help. Which sectors of the American economy are experiencing the highest rates of inflation? Why those sectors that the government subsidizes the most, of course! Government tends to be the problem in most cases, not the solution.
While I think you are on the right path in the first part of your post, the last part of it is a myth and needs to be stated as such. The greatest societies in the history of the planet, whether good or evil, became that way through strong public administration, i.e. government. Strong government in the US prevents unchecked capitalism which is not a formula for long-term wealth but instead a recipe for short-term collapse. I agree that there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences when it comes to government "help", and that there are an equal plethora of examples of intended consequences that benefit specific classes and create have/have not scenarios. That should not be confused with the fact that government, in the US and most other western nations, does in fact get it right more often than not (when the opposite is true, the society fails), and that there is nothing endemic about government interaction with society that creates more problems than it solves - quite the contrary. Man created government out of the abyss to counteract anarchy. Saying "government is the problem" is a quaint sounding phrase but in fact causes more problems than it solves because it encourages lazy, non-critical thinking.
A myth? Do you have any citations for that, or are you just discounting one person's opinion with your own? More importantly, if I want to work at a home improvement store 4 hours a week in exchange for a 10% discount, why does the government need to get involved and prohibit that voluntary exchange? If somebody is a stage 4 cancer patient and wants to try a new medication, why is that person considered a felon if that medication isn't FDA approved? Does the FDA take responsibility when a drug they've approved injures or kills it's users? I was in the military for 8 years, I've worked at the state's Department of Humans services for 3 1/2 years, and I've yet to find something government does more efficiently than their private sector counterparts.
At the risk of taking this off course, I happen to be an expert in the FDA example you used (I work in the medical device industry not for the FDA). First, the FDA only regulates the companies. So the company selling (or even giving away) the cure gets the felony. The doctor is regulated by the state, they would get the license pulled and in only the most egregious cases get a criminal charge. The person taking it is not guilty of any crime. And as for why we care, because it was tried the other way. As little as 100 years ago there were no regulations on medicines and devices and that did not work so well. Bad people sold Bad Things to Desperate people. The picture below is a device where you inhale radon gas and the lead hat was to keep all the radiation inside you so it can "heal" you. Notice the 1940/50 clothing. Simply put the person with stage 4 cancer has to be protected from themselves and others...there is no "right to try". Especially when after they are taken advantage of they will demand better regulation
Rent control has been conclusively proven not to work. But there are parts of the government that work better than the private sector. National Defense, Treaties, Trade, banking regulation, and yes medical devices/drugs, etc. You may not like them all, and we all know they dont work perfect, but regulation is better than an unregulated market solution.
- Accountant · Hopwood, PA · Member since 2015 · 125 posts · 92 votes7y
Originally posted by @John Nachtigall:
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Jon Behlke:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Well said. I would argue that we are too far on the end of evolutionary capitalism. Actually its not even that. Its closer to a corporate fascism where the major companies own the government and laws are made for their benefit. There is an exploiting class. Its the lobbyists that fight healthcare reform and minimum wage and labor laws and consumer protection laws and predatory lending laws etc etc that stack the system not only against the poor but also most average americans. I say this with the perspective of living abroad for large portions of my life and interacting with people from al over the world. I would challenge your upward mobility myth. Actually the chances of someone born in the bottom 20% to rise above that threshold is very very slim. Same with the declining middle class who are paycheck away from homelessness and cant find $400 for an emergency. Some of this can be chalked up to personal choices but not all of it.
The ability to rise above the bottom 20% is far from very, very, slim. Even a study stating it's more difficult in the US than in other places abroad places raising out of the bottom 20% at greater than 50%. "A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html
I'd also argue that your proposed solutions would actually make the problem worse. Minimum wage laws greatly assist large corporations in eliminating competition. Every barrier to entry government creates assists the behemoth companies they refuse to break up. Government tends to make things worse the more they try to help. Which sectors of the American economy are experiencing the highest rates of inflation? Why those sectors that the government subsidizes the most, of course! Government tends to be the problem in most cases, not the solution.
While I think you are on the right path in the first part of your post, the last part of it is a myth and needs to be stated as such. The greatest societies in the history of the planet, whether good or evil, became that way through strong public administration, i.e. government. Strong government in the US prevents unchecked capitalism which is not a formula for long-term wealth but instead a recipe for short-term collapse. I agree that there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences when it comes to government "help", and that there are an equal plethora of examples of intended consequences that benefit specific classes and create have/have not scenarios. That should not be confused with the fact that government, in the US and most other western nations, does in fact get it right more often than not (when the opposite is true, the society fails), and that there is nothing endemic about government interaction with society that creates more problems than it solves - quite the contrary. Man created government out of the abyss to counteract anarchy. Saying "government is the problem" is a quaint sounding phrase but in fact causes more problems than it solves because it encourages lazy, non-critical thinking.
A myth? Do you have any citations for that, or are you just discounting one person's opinion with your own? More importantly, if I want to work at a home improvement store 4 hours a week in exchange for a 10% discount, why does the government need to get involved and prohibit that voluntary exchange? If somebody is a stage 4 cancer patient and wants to try a new medication, why is that person considered a felon if that medication isn't FDA approved? Does the FDA take responsibility when a drug they've approved injures or kills it's users? I was in the military for 8 years, I've worked at the state's Department of Humans services for 3 1/2 years, and I've yet to find something government does more efficiently than their private sector counterparts.
At the risk of taking this off course, I happen to be an expert in the FDA example you used (I work in the medical device industry not for the FDA). First, the FDA only regulates the companies. So the company selling (or even giving away) the cure gets the felony. The doctor is regulated by the state, they would get the license pulled and in only the most egregious cases get a criminal charge. The person taking it is not guilty of any crime. And as for why we care, because it was tried the other way. As little as 100 years ago there were no regulations on medicines and devices and that did not work so well. Bad people sold Bad Things to Desperate people. The picture below is a device where you inhale radon gas and the lead hat was to keep all the radiation inside you so it can "heal" you. Notice the 1940/50 clothing. Simply put the person with stage 4 cancer has to be protected from themselves and others...there is no "right to try". Especially when after they are taken advantage of they will demand better regulation
Rent control has been conclusively proven not to work. But there are parts of the government that work better than the private sector. National Defense, Treaties, Trade, banking regulation, and yes medical devices/drugs, etc. You may not like them all, and we all know they dont work perfect, but regulation is better than an unregulated market solution.
Last thing I'll say about our tangent, for every quack device you point to from 80 years ago, I can point to fake lists at the VA that cost the health of an unknown number of veterans.
Specifically as it relates to real estate however, and government intervention into the housing markets, if low income housing were really the cash cow that this "study" seems to indicate that it is, wouldn't the larger corporations be in this market? Instead, the overwhelming leader in the market is the government themselves as low income housing is such an unattractive market that there are insufficient landlords willing to take on these properties even when the government subsidizes the cost to the tenants. It is highly unlikely that the markets in housing are acting directly opposite to the way they'd act in any other sector given similar parameters. Chances are much higher that the authors have an agenda to push.
- 7yColleen F.Pro MemberInvestor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
The problem with research like this is it doesn't look at the root cause of the issue. It finds an association between two things and draws a conclusion, which may or may not be correct. Then someone develops a program to address the issue. It is hard to evaluate these programs so it is not systematically done. When it is done, like they do with section 8, it is evaluated on keeping people housed. Is that really the root of the issue?
It isn't a choice in this country government regulation or not, we have regulation, in my opinon we should aim at efficient and effective regulation. What do we want to achieve? For the FDA first it was good enough to have safe medications now we require effectiveness data too, because we did not want charlatans selling potions. In housing first it was free market, then we added project housing, then vouchers to subsidize private housing and rent control, where do we go from here?
At the root of affordable housing there are two components the cost of the housing and the income someone is willing/able to dedicate to paying for it. This article criticized the cost and the idea of profit. Is that the real issue? I don't think so. No more then I think the solution is less landlords or more section 8.
- Springfield, VA · Member since 2019 · 74 posts · 77 votes7y
1. For those interested in reading the paper the article's based on, it can be found here:
http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1086/701697
2. The paper gives a good summary of the research into low income neighborhoods and historical landlord behavior from a sociological and urban planning perspective.
3. Their (broad and unspecific) finding is interesting:
Three important implications flow from this finding. First, initiatives to
promote home ownership in distressed communities could go a long way toward
decreasing families’ housing cost burden, since in those communities
rents are considerably higher than mortgage payments. Because relatively
high rents in low-income communities are not necessary to meet all expenses,
opportunities to expand home ownership programs in distressed neighborhoods
appear promising. Second, if landlords in poor neighborhoods are
up-pricing their rental units to adjust for possible risk, then policies or products
could be designed to mitigate that risk and lower housing costs. For example,
renters could buy into subsidized insurance pools to cover landlord
losses and prevent eviction, ensuring that risk among poor renters is shared
but not felt as acutely. Third, initiatives designed to expand affordable housing
that do not directly confront profit seeking among landlords may prove
ineffective. For example, studies have shown that landlords in low-income
neighborhoods overcharge housing voucher holders,making the program less
cost-effective and therefore limiting its reach (Desmond and Perkins 2016).
Public policies aimed at easing families’ rent burdens should be grounded in
a firm understanding of property owners’ business practices.4. I agree with the bolded portion above (emphasis mine) although I doubt I would come to the same policy conclusions as the author. Any public policies designed to improve the lives of those in low income neighborhoods that does not account for the costs and risks that landlords face is unlikely to work as intended.
5. Most important-- sorry for posting this without formally introducing myself to the forum. I'm still new, have a lot to learn, and will be participating in the next few months as I get ready to invest. At this point in my journey I'm personally inclined to agree with Michael Becker's rule number one-- don't invest in the hood. Great discussion. Thanks for letting me participate.
- 7yAnthony GaydenPro MemberRental Property Investor · Omaha, NE · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Directly from the article, the entire study is based on a faulty premise:
"Desmond and Wilmers invoke the definition of exploitation by the brilliant late Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright, who updated Marx’s theory of class for modern knowledge economies. Wright defined exploitation as occurring when a dominant and more powerful group enriches itself by excluding a less powerful and more subordinate group from a key productive resource, like technology, machinery, or land."
If anyone is being excluded, it is voluntary exclusion. I'm not aware of any laws or other legal impediments that prevents virtually anyone living in one of these rental properties to buy a property and become a landlord themselves. I wouldn't argue that there may be some de facto discrimination in some areas (i.e. difficulty getting a bank loan or financed within certain areas, aka "redlining"), but there are too many examples of people that knew that RAF @Alexander Felice's claim of "Broke is a choice" is true - many of them right here on this board - for this hypothesis to be true. @Anthony Gayden comes right to mind.
Some of the other claims are probably correct - more profit in the poor areas than wealthier areas - but the foundation for those results are shaky. As already noted, I doubt the higher costs of operation were taken into account by the author's 'study'.
Redlining no longer exists and that much is a fact. Banks only see one color ($$GREEN$$).
I know some people who use discrimination as an excuse for why they are unable to buy a home, get a loan, or succeed in life. The truth is that rather than making excuses, people need to focus on the factors they do control.
Pay your debts, fix your credit, and save up a nice down payment. Don't try to buy a house that you can't actually afford. Study and compare lenders and mortgage types. If you get denied at one lender, go to another, or visit a mortgage broker who can help you look at multiple lenders.
Most importantly, take personal responsibility for your financial situation and stopping making excuses.
- Rental Property Investor · Central U. S. A. · Member since 2013 · 296 posts · 149 votes7y
The article entitled, “How poor Americans get exploited by their landlords,” is pure liberal progressive socialist clap trap.
One of the premises behind the article is the wrongheaded concept of "equality of outcome." Under this proposition, everyone should have the same outcome in life. The only possible reason why people of color face more evictions than other groups of people is discrimination.
The article is also based upon the racist idea that group justice is more important than individual justice. All people of color must be endowed with special rights and entitlements to protect them against the perceived inequality forced on them by other groups of people. In truth, individuals have rights that accrue to them as individuals; not as groups. There are consequences because of individual action. If you don't pay your rent, you get evicted.
In pursuit of equality of outcome, truth is a secondary value to the liberal progressive socialist. Truth doesn't matter; only the narrative matters. The narrative is more important than the truth. Again, the only permissible reason (and the narrative) why people of color face more evictions than other groups of people is discrimination by other groups of people.
Finally, in order to achieve fairer world, liberal progressive socialists believe that it is permissible to use force at times. Government compulsion. If only our liberal progressive socialist overlords were permitted to impose laws and regulations protecting special groups of people, then we would finally have equality of outcome. We would all be reduced to tenants beholden to the government for housing. This perverted thought is anathema to freedom, equal opportunity and the idea that the real purpose of government is to protect those rights that we already have as individuals. Rights do not come from government.
- 7yDan ShelhamerPro MemberRealtor · Mesa, AZ · Member since 2015 · 163 posts · 99 votes
So unjust that some of my renters are living for free from the government, while I have to pay to maintain the property.
- Investor · Reno, NV · Member since 2017 · 66 posts · 39 votes7y
This topic has hit a nerve! Reading through all the comments I get the impression that this has become a political blog. Facts do not seem to matter any more. I can tell you they do to me. Individual experience like the one I mentioned before with the dope growing renter burning the house down change my investment behavior and undoubtedly the involved landlord's. The rest is just intellectual speculation. Every time humans create a law it has unexpected consequences! If we could predict how our species future behavior, Wall Street would be the road to riches. Is the glass half full or half empty: 50% is my answer.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.