Lazy moochers : memes

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Landlord said to me "property tax has gone up. This is my only form of income. Will need to increase rent"

Told him "yeah, everything has gone up and my paycheck is still the same".

Like, these types of relationships are so parasitic. This is the "nice" mom and pop style landlord too that every liberal seems to want to give a pass too.

Sure, are they less bad than the big corporate faceless landlords? Yes. But the entire relationship is the problem.

They get to justify forcing me out of my home because the value of the house that they own WENT UP.

That's why their property tax is more. They literally own something that is more valuable and making it further impossible for me to ever buy a place of my own.

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

*2/3 of the tiny portion of the value someone creates that their boss actually lets them keep

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Its not the first time I've heard this, but I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. The product I produce only has the value it has, because a lot of people work to make it so. And a huge part of that is managing costumers, understanding them prioritizing they requests and managing a team. If my workgets sold for 100 I would only be able to sell it at 50 because I do not have the costumer relationship

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The labour theory of value is completely compatible with everything you just said.

10 workers do 1 value worth of work on product, whether that be manufacturing, shipping, logistics, marketing, so on

boss pays them 0.5 value each

boss sells for 10

boss lives off the stolen 5 value

I am posing this in the most abstract simple way possible. Obviously in an actual supply chain, many bosses would be stealing different amounts of value all throughout the process, as each worker added value to the final product over time.

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are assuming that bosses do nothing. They add value. Not all of them, but in general they do. At my work place we pretty much begged my boss to please hire someone between him and us to manage tasks. Because my boss adds value Ina bunch of ways but he was so busy he could spare the time for the things we needed him so year long projects failed.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Management is labor, sure. It all adds to the collective labor expended necessary for producing a widget, say, 1 hour of cumulative labor expended through dead labor (the percentage of tools used up) and living labor. Let's put constant capital at .5 hours, and variable at .5 hours. The value of the widget is 1 hour of socially necessary labor time, and it is sold for this price on the commodity market when supply meets demand.

Where do profits come from, then? From living labor. The price of the commodity labor-power is regulated around the average cost of subsistence. A worker may only need to truly work for 3 hours in a day to produce their social consumption, but they are paid for those 3 hours as spread out over 8, 9, 10, etc. hours. The difference between paid hours and the unpaid hours forms the surplus value extracted, which is the chief component in profit (though not the same).

That's an oversimplification, but the point is that ownership adds no value. Management and administration can, but not ownership alone. It is only ownership of the constant capital that the owner entitles themselves to the profits, participating in a Money -> Commodities(means of production + labor power) -> Production(combination of MoP and Lp) -> Commodities' (greater value than original commodities) -> Money' (greater sum of money than originally fronted, fresh for the surplus to contribute to subsistence of the capitalist as well as expanded production). This is just a Money -> Greater Money circuit, which exponentially grows, the only action being buying and selling from the owners perspective (and this is often automated by having others do it).

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I didn't read it all. But I think we agree. The problem is owners. Not bosses. People who get to do nothing and still get paid

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then I think you should reread @glimmer_twin@hexbear.net's comments with that understanding. We all agree that management is a necessary part of the social production process, but that it is ownership that entitles people to stealing from the working class.

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I now understand what they mean, but I stand by my coment because it does seem to blame bosses. It's just a matter of wording

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeh I’m coming back to this thread late, but I have conflated “bosses” and “owners” (or more technically “capitalists”, or more specifically “people who do nothing except sit back and watch their portfolio increase” lol).

I actually thank you for this comment chain, because it’s reminded me to choose words more specifically and not just assume everyone’s on the same page when it comes to terminology. Of course every workplace needs people to manage it, even if there were no individual owners!

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

managing costumers, understanding them prioritizing they requests and managing a team.

All of which is also being done by employees who are being paid less than they produce.

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What do you think a boss does? They are also employees.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Not at the top.

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We don't have an instance stance on landlord apologia, but maybe we should make one, based on the number of people from other instances defending these mooching rent-seeking parasites.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

i hope you do; seeing it is a depressing reminder of how much americans think that exploitation like this is okay and even more depressing to see people exploited like this want to perpetuate it.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You know what's the fastest way to make landlords disappear? Ask about some broken shit around the house that they are required by law to fix. Radio silence for months guaranteed. Until the next rent increase of course.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

For a lot of them, they don't even care if there's tenant turnover, especially if its a high-demand area. There's no incentive to fix a broken AC; the tenants already signed the year lease. They can get to it next year when its time to clean up the place for the re-listing.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

How do people still argue that landlords are useful and necessary?

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

The people saying that are usually hoping to become landlords themselves.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

My parents own multiple rental properties and completely straight face told me it's a charity cause they rent to people who can't afford homes.

Meanwhile I'm engaging with my mutual aid group every week handing out about 400 meals, and survival gear for people who can't afford anything.

Glad their fucking charity has turned enough profit to pay off the rentals, their main home, and their vacation spot though. /s

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

By being landlords or personally knowing landlords.

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I swear my uncle is a good landlord. Keeps prices low, I swear he doesn't rip off his renters. He would never do that.

If there were as many good landlords as I have heard this story we wouldn't have any problems Kyle, sit the fuck back down.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Assuming this comment isn't ironic: there is no such thing as a good landlord. Landlords are parasitic middlemen who live by leeching off the value created by workers. They contribute no value whatsoever.

This is admitted even in mainstream economics, its termed rent-seeking.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

there is no such thing as a good landlord.

Okay, I'll bite. I just bought a 4-bed/3-bath (actually 4 bathrooms, but bathroom math made it "3-bath") because we are a family of four in an expensive tourist spot and wanted a guest bedroom for family and visitors. It just so happened one bed and a 3/4 bathroom is in an attached 1-bedroom apartment with its own kitchen and living room.

So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can't sell it separately. So the choice is be a landlord, or don't offer housing (I suppose I could make it an AirBnB and make even more money, but this area is already fucked for housing for that reason).

So if there is no such thing as a good landlord, what would you recommend in a situation like this? Let someone live there for free? Then they'd be costing me money. Don't rent it out? AirBnB?

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can't sell it separately.

If you don't need that space, then you might as well sell it and let another family make use of it instead.

Yours is not a unique situation; a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out, and they have a lot of extra rooms and space they no longer need. Its the right decision anyway, as you're now free to be more mobile, and get rid of all the years of accumulated junk.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Please use gender neutral inclusive language, instead of landlord, use the gender neutral term, landleech.

[–] godlessworm@hexbear.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lazy moocher doesnt even begin to describe what this class of parasitic pieces of dog shit are. there are no words to even describe them. they’re a cancer, a plague, they need to be eradicated.

i can not imagine thinking in my brain that i should just get a free house that someone else has to pay for by getting a real job just because i was able to secure a loan and they werent

[–] tankfox@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

so if nobody will rent to you because renting is evil and you STILL can't get a loan, where do you live? I think you kind of glossed straight over the unable to get a loan part which is going to poke them either way. Free house doesn't exist.

[–] godlessworm@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[–] tankfox@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you can't get a loan to buy a house, what makes you think that will change if there are no rooms for rent?

For real though not understanding how loans work at all is on brand for you guys, If you want to go back to the days when everyone could own a house why don't you go attack the zoning laws that make houses so expensive and survivable, then we can go back to shanty towns that burn thousands and crawl with disease but hey everyone can own their own no loan hovel right?

[–] godlessworm@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago

dude you are literally arguing against a point nobody made because you’re too stupid to follow anything and now you’re crashing out to defend landlords

lmfaoo. rofl.

[–] TheCompliantCitizen@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Owning 1 extra property and renting: Okay

Owning apartment complex and renting: Okay

Owing millions of single family homes and duplexes and rent hiking/price hiking the entire market: not okay

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Owning 1 slave: Okay

Owning a dozen slaves: Okay

Owning hundreds of slaves: not okay.

/s obviously

/uj

Of course slavery and landlordism aren't identical in every respect, but they both are based on a parasite class doing no work, and extracting labor value from people who do. Large-scale vs small-scale doesn't make landlording any more ethical.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago

Do you have a problem with public housing or are landlords okay when it’s the state?

[–] ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 months ago

I wish people here understand this. It costs money to buy property, and so effort needed to be applied into buying one was done beforehand by being good with money. Rich people don't need to go through this, and should rightfully be criticized.

Memes

Rules: