Prunebutt

@ Prunebutt @slrpnk.net

Posts

55
Comments

2555
Joined

2 yr. ago

3w ago

i mean
Jump
Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

3w ago

Ich🐮😴😡iel

Klaro! Wenn ich auf dem Steam-Deck aber gerade Gyro-Steuerung für z.B. Pikmin 2 brauche, kann es etwas gedämpft, und/oder durch Wippen ersetzt werden.

3w ago

Communists vs Tankies on voting

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Can we just stop it with the strawmanning election memes, already?

It's been over a year
It's not like the online left would have turned the tides
I've yet to see a pro-voting meme that's not a strawman
There are currently things going on in the so-called US that are way more important and urgent than crying over an election
that happened over a year ago

3w ago

ich🗿🦾🤯iel

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Kannte ich bisher noch nicht. Zum Glück reicht mein Schulfranzösisch da noch aus. 😅

3w ago

ich🗿🦾🤯iel

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Framamemes?

PS: SPRICH

3w ago

Ich🐮😴😡iel

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Hauptsache, du schläfst ein.

Stimmt zum drölften mal das Schlaflied an

3w ago

Ich🐮😴😡iel

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Funktioniert doch in strandender Tod auch. 👍

3w ago

Ich🐮😴😡iel

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Bist du mein knapp zweijähriges Kind?

Soll ich dich in die Trage nehmen?

3w ago

Someone Went Crying to HRule

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Like, don't go snitching to HR.

But also: what's wrong with you for nagging your coworker if they don't want to exhaust themselves?

3w ago

Not that limit

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Just here to comment on the weird spreadsheet format (of that oooooold joke)

3w ago

Fuck Jews Free Palestine

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 3w ago

Your own fucking image states that antisemitism doesn't equal antizionism, dumbass.

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

Do you know the difference between profit and income for a personal landlord?

I was asking about the qualitatve difference, not the quantitative.

Effectively not much.

Citation needed. Im guessing that the minimum is more than a few hundred Euros a month net profit per rented out unit. That's nothing to sneeze at for one household. Especially considering how low effort one unit is (can't be more than a few hours a month).

It’s not just an investment for them, it’s a good chunk of their job and their income.

For private landlords: Definetly not. The needed labour for owning a unit is negligible in comparison to a full-time job.

They can rent their property at a rent lower than upkeep because they are gaining capital that they can eventually sell.

This might be an ideal but it contradicts with your statement below. And even if: At some point someone wants to make profit off the property. Your "argument" only kicks the bucket down the road until some buyer (and I wonder who can buy inflated house prices) will increase the rent for profit.

Rent-seeking is the most popular form of gaining income, since it requires no work (except for upkeep) and has virtually no risk, compared to a market.

Larger landlords can even do better due to the economy of scale for upkeep costs.

Those larger landlords want even more return of investment. Don't tell me you're so naive to think that no one wants to actually make money of the people with the least power in this dynamic: the tenants.

Unfortunately, landlords will often try to make the most and so maximize rent based on the market.

Aha! So now, we're leaving this ideal world of yours. Why do you think that's actually an anomaly of the system?

The market should balance this out (ie if being a landlord is so lucrative, more people should become landlords and that would increase the competition and costs would go down). But many people don’t want to figure out all the details, borrow large sums of money, take on the risk, take on the stress of managing tenants, etc. - which just shows the value added by the landlord is real.

You ignore that the housing market is very inflexible. People always need housing, so there is a natural demand, along with incredibly prohibitive costs of entry. People can't afford any homes (that's the housing crisis), because property values are through the roof, driving up rents! You act as if people are too "lazy" to become landlords, but most can't even afford their own homes!

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

IYou apparently had to unmake that whole discussion, huh? :/

All the best to you, @kameecoding@lemmy.world

I fould that discussion rather interesting. It's a shame you didn't. :/

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

If a co-op takes the loan, aren't they just becoming a landlord?

No, because the people living in these places own a share in the coop. It's distributing the load of repaying the loan on several shoulders and once it's payed off, the rent becomes basically only the upkeep (rather than a source of income for the owners... because the owners are the ones who pay the "rent").

And who does the work to organize it - are they paid?

Depends on how the coop manages it. But they could theoretically use part of the rent as payment for someone who manages the co-op.

Isn't that just like a landlord taking profit?

No, cause that's not profit. That's part of upkeep. Do you know what "profit" is (i.e the difference between profit and income)?

If you look at the government as just a collective of the people

I don't agree with that abstraction, but ok.

then there's no magical entity 'eating the risk' - it just means the people get screwed over and/or someone doesn't get paid for their work.

What are you talking about? Institutions aren't "magic". Risk of loss gets easier to manage if more people chip in. That's the whole reason why insurances exist. And why diversifying a financial portfolio is the best strategy for banks. Yes, some will not be able to pay back their loans. But you can buffer that with interest by the ones that do pay them back.

Yes, you can use a handyman to fix your roof, but you have to pay them. And if you can't afford to, you what - take more loan from the government which endlessly prints money?

And your alternative is that these people who can't afford a handyman (or fix the roof themselves) can afford rent? Do you think paying rent every month is cheaper than hiring handymen? And evensif it were like that: how would the landlord afford the handyman? Why would they rent out their property, if rent was lower than the cost of upkeep? Your scenario doesn't add up.

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

Who takes out this loan? The person who wants to live in the home?

Yup. Or coops.

What if they can't afford to pay it back?

What if someone can't afford rent? I'd rather see the government eat the risk than see people go homeless.

Isn't paying interest on the loan the same as paying rent

No, because if you pay rent, your rent becomes someone else's capital. If you pay off the debt, you invest in your own property.

except now you're stuck without being able to move

Who says you can't transfer the home to someone who buys in? That's an advantage of coops.

and no one else is there to fix your roof when it needs it?

Landlords usually don't do that. They hire handymen to do this, so why can't that be done by the person who lives there?

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

That sounds like an assumption and you know what they say about that.

I'd be happy to hear which country isn't currently capitalist. And the other thing is less of an assumption and more of a rule.

Who decides who owns the house though? Is it first come first serve? How is that not capitalism just with extra steps?

... the people who live there own it. Capitalism would require the ability to keep others from using the house while you don't use it. You wouldn't be able to sell the house/appartment.

If my family lucks into a place that becomes a highly desirable location how is that fair to generations coming after?

Your family requires a place to live, doesn't it? You're describing capitalism, btw. Why should your family be thrown out if they still need the house?

Also who paid for this house in the first place and how if not with the fruits of their labor, aka work ?

The community built it. Or it was already there (houses already exist, you know). I should have specified that I have a problem with wage slavery in order to pay some landlord in order to live somewhere. That's completely different than investing resources and labour to build a house.

You didn't answer the simple question of how you achieve this magical utopia where people don't have to work to avoid being homeless, you just said a bunch of nice theoretical ideas with no realistic way to implement them?

Give people places to live and let the community build housing based on need, rather than profit. Nothing magical about that. I'll specify again: I don't want to abolish doing mental/manual labour, but working for a boss so that they pay you a wage based on the profit they made on your labour: Wage slavery. And the answer isn't simple. Otherwise, we'd be living in this world already.

Okay, do you know what "need" is? Who decides what a need is?

The people do. I think doing so in consumer councils would be a good idea, but I'm not the arbiter of how to achieve this. Do you think that human needs are unknowable?

Do you need to live in the city you live in currently or do you want to live there? Because if it's centrally planned enjoy packing your stuff, you are going to bumfuck nowhere if you are not needed where you are, it's only fair.

Who saidanything about central planning?

Or imagine this, you live in this magic house that you got for free for 30 years, your kids move out and shit hits the fan, your spouse dies, well all of a sudden you don't really need that house do you? All those memories you have from there, well sorry, someone else needs that house more, time to move out to a housing you actually need.

Well, who says that I'd want to live in that place that's way too big for me now where everything reminds me of my dead spouse? Maybe I'd like to live with my kids, or they move in and I get a place in an outhouse. I'm sure the community and I'll reach a mutual understanding where they'll understand my needs/wishes and we'll reach some form of solution, beneficial to everybody. Is that so much of a stretch, given that I'm part of a community?

4w ago

Yet Another Video Player With Less Controls

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

They just said they only use GNU awk. 🙄 /j

4w ago

iron rule

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

Thanks for the earworm! /j

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

In a capitalist system, the government could print the money to give out a loan and destroy that money once the loan gets payed back to soften inflation.

But ideally, building housing shouldn't be done for profit, either. But I guess that would require capitalism to be abolished. Which would be - again - ideal.

4w ago

Rent is theft

Jump

Prunebutt @slrpnk.net 4w ago

It intrigues me now, how you would "fix" this and make it so that people don't have to work to have housing?

First things first: there are already a bunch of people who don't have to work for their housing. A big part of those may have to work for an income so that they can pay for upkeep. But get rich enough and that can get payed by dividends. Or they're landlords who get enough income from rent. Those rich people don't have to work at all for their housing.

we already have social housing in my country.

That's cool for the people who get it. But I'd be surprised if your home country has no homeless people and vacant housing at the same time.

We have universal healthcare, we have a bunch of social programs for people in need and we have automatic unemployment paid from social insurance. People on disability don't work, people's pension is covered by the state.

Do those people on social programs actually have a comfortable life, though? Or is it rather "too little to live, too much to die"? I'm quite sure that landlords still make a lot of profit from rent in that country.

What measures should we add to make it so you don't have to work for your home?

Introduce a usufruct model of owning, where the people who live in a home actually own it (either as a family home, or multiple homes owned by a coop). The important bit is that rent-seeking is abolished in housing. Then you might still need to work for upkeep, but that's a diminishino part of what people need to pay for rent, nowadays.

and if the election goes my preferred parties way, it will be fixed in the next cycle.

If your country is capitalist, I highly doubt that they will implement this. Profits are still required by capitalist states.

However all these things are being paid for, concrete doesn't pour itself, steel doesn't manufacture itself, building don't build themselves, so how do you propose we make it so that we don't have to pay for our homes?

I said "work as to not go homeless". You're bringing "paying" into it. There's already a lot of place to live. Ideally, I'd see a communist society where this kind of stuff is planned on the basis of needs, rather than being speculated on in markets for profit