You contradicted yourself. Op can't get a starter home but the starter home he would have bought is held hostage by the "smol" landlord. Pick one.
You contradicted yourself. Op can't get a starter home but the starter home he would have bought is held hostage by the "smol" landlord. Pick one.
Then never in your life go to a fast food joint at 10 am on a Tuesday.
In terms of pure dollar amount, it should by adjusted by PPP. It should be a wage to live off of. I'm in engineering, a few years into my career, I am well paid but I should be paid more, relative to CoL. I should be doing very well even if I have a family not doing well because I don't have one.
Why don't we just take investor money and invest in it ourselves?
Others have already pointed out that the covid vaccine was publicly funded ergo the benefit should be publicly owned
If passive income you getting income without working then who's working without income.
This whole thread thoroughly convinced me of george's ideas.
As Adam Smith said
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You're just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the "I don't want to work until I die" should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
You're solution doesn't solve the thing you're trying to solve.
E.g.
There is a "mom & pop" landlord with just 10 properties. But they don't purchase anymore. Now there are 1000 such landlords. The landlords all incorporate and create a REIT that owns 10,000 homes. You have created a "megacorp" through just "mom and pop" landlords.
What is the difference?
The true answer is the abolition of landlords in favour of housing coops and community land trusts.
To prove a point to you I'll ask you a question.
What is the difference between the goal of small landlords vs REITs and "megacorps" represented by row 4 of the graph found here?:
https://www.smalllandlords.org/about-small-landlords/
The group is a small landlord group from my city.
If the renter doesn't pay for maintainance who does? Are you willing to run a monthly loss of $100/month or would raise rents to cover or even sell the property?
The solution is cooperative housing and community land trusts plus social housing.
Well .NET is dead now so I guess .COM and .ORG are dead too?
Where did the landlord get the starter home? What if the seller refused to sell but just rent out instead what would he do then?
I don't have a problem with the players necessarily, just the game.
I'm lazy so I invest because I don't want to deal with being a landlord. Anyone who chooses to be a landlord deserves no sympathy. They chose to be a landlord instead of investing. You can get easy R.E. exposure by just being R.E.I.T.s so any extra work is your problem. On top of that landlords expect extra respect for something that REITs do. It's all the same game so all should be looked down upon.
Wanting to play as a boot when the game rewards playing the boot is ok so long as you advocate against the boot. But a lot of these people glorify the boot and try to become one sooo bad and for that, all of them can have the death penalty on them.
In short, want real estate? REITs, do you want to become a boot? Invest. But most importantly of all, be a boot abolitionist. If you're a boot defender then you rightfully get criticism.
I think your saying doing something physical is better than through an app. It makes no difference. It's all the same. But I do agree more awareness needs to be had with REITs. The solution is not to go easy on landlords but rather to go hard on REITs.
I think they meant fee (without the 'r') wifi
I really, really want to see that Oreo meme you're talking about.
Also about not wanting to be tied down. I totally get it. You know what fixes that? Co-operative housing. Some links: https://campus.coop/ (Toronto) https://www.nasco.coop/ (North America) https://www.studenthomes.coop/ (United Kingdom)
These are housing cooperatives for the most mobile population: students. And you know what? No need for landlords what so ever, while still providing location mobility and the possibility of hiring an external management team or (using democracy) elect amongst yourselves. Again disproving your very point.
I really like housing cooperatives but we have way too few of them. As a young professional moving between cities it would be great.
What do you get from a landlord owning housing as opposed to housing cooperatives? (This is the [only] question I want you to answer)
I can tell you what you get from cooperatives that you don't get from landlords. You don't have to pay for an ROI for the landlord. That is it. Same maintenance costs. Similar price for home to start but better for the inhabitants.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is?
Not relevant, stop using billionaires as a shield.
One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
Again not relevant. To use your metaphore I don't want a space station and I don't want a hill. You on the other hand want a hill (and you being the king on the hill) but no space station. I say no to both.
Again I want that Oreos meme.
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
Well maybe it would be if people who "invest" in real estate don't oppose increasing or bettering social insurance. Those who are the biggest proponents of real estate investors are the biggest opponents of social insurance. Social insurance comes from general taxation of working people. Those people (like you) want to move the money working people pay to taxes for general social insurance and instead pay all that money towards rent that landlords (like you) control. You are literally moving money from general social insurance to your own pockets. And both young people and actual poor old people suffer. You do not oppose tyranny. You want to become the tyrant.
Another option is a Community Land Trust (CLT). Community owned land which is similar but under a different structure with a wider ownership structure. https://www.communityland.ca/ (Canada)
And guess what? With CLTs you can actually invest yourself if you don't live inside it, because a broader ownership structure and you don't have to be a landlord. Awesome!!! Oh wow!
Try it in your city! Here's one from mine https://www.oclt.ca/invest/ (Ottawa, ON, Canada)
I agree with not including gas. But not including nuclear is counter to the notion of being green. Nuclear does NOT produce carbon pollution and it is important to decarbonizing
Good point but the upgradability is important to
TBH in this case, it fits very well
I just say they have two parts to them. The working part and the owning part.
The working part works on the business and without it the business does not survive.
However the owning part is the part expecting an roi.
The goal of the small business owner is to separate the working and owning parts of themselves.
This fully happens when they hire employees, enough of them for themnot to work.
Then the small business owner is just an owner and their employees are the working class.
You need to have base power and either be nuclear or hydro and hydro is heavily dependant on the environment. So we should invest in both
For example Ontario is 60% nuclear, 20% hydro, 9% renewables and 11% gas about. So we should invest in both to eliminate natural gas.
China has the CCP not the PPC
Wow... 6 upvotes and 6 downvotes...
Absolutely. And you can get real estate exposure by buying REITs.
How did the big business become a big business?
I have literally seen a small business expand beyond my city and become regional over a couple decades. And probably will try to be national chains.
From a capitalist perspective. What's bad about monopolization? For big businesses to be big business they need to have success. Why do you want to break success? Why do you want to pick winners and losers?
I don't believe in any of that. I prefer distributed ownership and benefits.
If the consumers own their own stores through a consumer cooperative than they can set the prices for themselves. And hence don't need "competition". And since the shareholders would be the members (i.e. the consumers), in a consumer cooperative, then that means they'll benefit. No need to have any billionaire tyrant either local nor from a big box store.
I almost completely agree with your first and last points. I was trying to say if they provide the same product at the same quality and price try to prefer the co-operative. I say similar because, personally I'd give some leeway to the co-op. But there are limits and co-ops are businesses and if they give sub par products and services than we shouldn't buy from them.
The power is held by the owners. If it's a consumer co-operative it is controlled by the consumer and a worker cooperative is owned by the workers. So the end users of products or the ones who have jobs. It depends on how it's structured.
I somewhat agree with your last point. The big thing is ownership is wealth and control. If you control your store you get to chose the available options if someone else owns it it means someone else has control. So I'd rather I have control over it. Again with the previous thing. If someone else can do it sooo much better than I than I should someone's product.
But we have to be careful because you can lead to the problem with data and big tech. I use an alternative to Google Cloud that is a cooperative but I have to pay. But with Google I don't pay but loose my privacy. In that instance you have to determine what's more important, given what I need it for is comparable to what I need what is important and I chose ownership and privacy over having neither of those.
I agree. At the end of the day it's a business. But if two companies offer similar products go with the employee owned company.
The main thing about is decision making structure. Because employee or community owned stores are owned by the users. It means the end users have power over what is offered. As opposed to big box in which case it is non local non user shareholders.
Bourgeois = owning class
Proletariat = working class
If you get income from owning (stocks [dividends, capital gains], landlords [rent]) = owning class
If you get income from working (hourly wage, salary) = working class
I think that should work. What do you think?
Don't make your problems everyone else's.
You can just buy a REIT.
Imagine the contractor that works for a REIT. Should they get full rent because they broke their the same way as you? Or hourly, just like my roommate?
You get the rent because you're a landlord, not because you work hard.
If working hard on a property, instead of owning it, meant getting all of the high rents then the REITs' contractor should be collecting rents instead of the REITs but that obviously doesn't happen.
Don't defend landlording. Oppose it, you can still be one, but just oppose it.
Would you make the same if you sank all of your money in investments and work a second job as a contractor? Same story but different results?
If you had long term tenants and but they owned the property but contracted you? You would still work hard and be compensated for the work isn't that enough? If the work the justification for your rental income then why not just be a contractor instead of an owner? And better yet leave the owning part to the people who live there.
If it's better for customers and workers what's the problem (from a capitalist perspective)?
Do you want to punish success?
If small businesses become successful and grow do you want to purposefully stop them?
I always ask what is the difference between a small and big business and nobody gives a good answer.
Small business is always used as a shield to attack workers.
Genuinely, if they don't offer a innovative product, what's the point of "small business"? What's the point of a "small business" barber/retail store/grocer/etc. besides better prices?
When does a "small business" become a "big business"? And should we stop that from happening?
It seems to me that "small business" is just entitled people. If those same people became a "big business" they would want to crush their competition (i.e. "small business") look at Bill Gates/Steve Jobs against IBM.
The only thing that "small business" people want is for them to be the owner of a "big business". That's it.
If you actually care about distribution of ownership and wealth. You'd advocate for co-operatives, ESOPs and distributed ownership structures. Otherwise I don't care.
I literally don't care if something is owned by a small or big business. The obsession of small businesses is absolutely stupid. I only care if prices are low and wages are high. If that means only "big businesses" can provide that because of economies of scale, than good for them, companies should be rewarded for doing that.
If "small businesses" want to compete they should provide equity, there's literally nothing stopping that from happening.
There's a local barber shop that I go to and in my province the min wage was increased 50% while the prices have climbed 80% since I started going to them. But guess what, there still the best price/service wise so I go to them. The chains cost more than double plus taxes. And a lot of the local neighboirhood goes to them.
The only business that complain about labour laws especially laws like this that put heavier burden on larger companies are poorly run companies.
I see good business treating people good so when things like this comes up it shows me that business people will always push against progress.
The original press release from MIT news is here: https://news.mit.edu/2023/using-ai-mit-researchers-identify-antibiotic-candidates-1220
Paper the press release refers to: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/153216
The lab this is being worked on: https://www.collinslab.mit.edu/
The paper as listed on the lab's website: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c264953620b850c9fb03732/t/658331812865e60a33af40ea/1703096709558/nature_wong.pdf
The audacious project: https://www.audaciousproject.org/grantees/collins-lab
I think we should cultivate a habit of linking to the original material