News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
As a landlord (with only one house) I do not understand why a landlord would raise the rent unless they need to. Think of it this way. If I charge $675 a month and the competition jumps their price to $1,000 a month, who is everyone going to come to?
I get the pick of the best tenants. Why would I raise the rent? Should note I live where I do not have to rent to the first person that shows up.
If the competition suddenly goes to $3,000 a month and I stay at $675, and I maintain my place so it isn't a shit hole, I'll have lines around that block of people wanting to rent. Why would I raise my rent unless I have to?
Have to raise the rent is defined as: my costs increase, so then I raise the rent the same amount.
You don't understand because you're not a sociopathic "line must go up, moar profitier to infinity and beyond" asshole.
People have this idea that movement through time is inherently progress. Even though, in some cases, it clearly is not.
I mean this in relation to "progressing" to feudalism and capitalism. "Progressing" to the next generation's political leadership.
You will get, among others, people who can afford $675 but not $1000. Compared to people who can afford $1000, people who can afford $675 but not $1000 are more likely to find themselves or already be in a precarious financial situation, which could mean missing rent payments. Compared to people who can afford $1000, people who can afford $675 but not $1000 are also more likely to suffer from mental illness as a consequence of their more precarious financial situation, which could mean neglected facilities, conflict with other tenants, pests and a host of other issues for you, the landlord.
You may be willing to both forego higher rent income and assume the increased likelihood of financial losses, and that would make you a good person, but not everyone is — at least not to the extent necessary to make that choice.
Given the housing crisis in many of our cities and towns, you likely already have loads of people ready to rent your property, with enough reliable tenants among them. More applicants won't benefit you, because you already have enough reliable tenants. What are you going to do with all the additional applicants? Screen each and every one of them to pick the very best one? One that is marginally more reliable than you would otherwise have found?
In fact, raising rent and prices often serves as a sort of ‘customer filter’. Instead of screening your applicants in depth, you can just check their financials and safely assume that whoever can afford a monthly rent of $3000 is also a reliable tenant.
You seem to assume a rental market made up of individual landlords. Although that is a reality in some places, most properties are rented by for-profit corporations. Such corporations compete against each other for capital; they need money from investors and investors want returns. Whenever such a corporation foregoes profit, another usually takes it and uses it to expand, often acquiring its smaller peers. Over time, this sort of natural selection yields the most ruthlessly profitable corporations.
The problem here is not that individuals make the wrong choice, but rather the framework in which they operate, the systemic incentives.
You do make some valid points there.
I appreciate the feedback.
😁 still going to undercut the competition as best I can
I and surely many others thank you for that. I didn't mean to criticize your goodwill; instead I wanted to stress that our housing crisis is a systemic issue and that fixing it is beyond our individual choices and requires policy.
No offense was taken. All good.
With policy changes. I've looked and I'm not sure how we write a policy /policies that aren't so screwed up that it just screwed everyone over.
How are you a landlord if you only own one house? Surely you mean two houses. Unless you rent.
Sorry should have clarified that, I have one house that I rent out. I own a different home that I live in. When I said one home, I meant I have one home for renting.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I think most of us would see that as having two homes, one of which you rent out.
Could own a two-family home. It's super common in my area for there to be one apartment downstairs and one upstairs.
Sorry should have clarified that, I have one house that I rent out. I own a different home that I live in. When I said one home, I meant I have one home for renting.
Oh, thanks for sharing. That's extremely rare in my experience. I only ever experienced it when I lived in Japan, in fact. Never have encountered that as a thing in the US, though I'm sure it happens here and there.
American landlords tend to live in their own single family house.