How can people afford this? To meet the 3x gross income requirement you'd need an income of $14,995 * 12 * 3 = $539,820. At that point you might as well just buy a house instead of renting.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
818 points (98.2% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
1182 readers
953 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
The Palisades (where the largest fire is burning right now) house some of the wealthiest people in the country that just lost homes worth over $3 million on average. It’s scummy (maybe illegal?) to jack the prices up and these people are also rich enough to pay it, for the most part.
The other fires going on are a different story, but the address is near the Palisades without being in the danger zone.
Yet
The winds are over and it’s 5+ miles away, Marina del Rey catching on fire is not what anyone is worrying about right now.
Capitalism eating itself, rich people now homeless and can't afford new homes
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it’s marketed to people who had a home and lost it.
Because this isn't for individuals. Corporations rent houses like this. Movie studios, music labels, executive perks for the c suite, and more recently YouTube streamer companies. When you have clients that need to travel a lot it's offered as a perk for them to "live" in one of these fancy houses. Executives who only stay with companies for a few years are easier to recruit if they don't have to hassle with buying or selling a home during a relocation. Or in the modern times YouTubers who need to a fancy house to stream from for content.
Rental costs are expenses, owning is a taxable asset.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I've been looking for a new apartment the last three months. After Jan 1st all of them owned by a rentail company raised thier asking price.
Annual price increase is 35%. Who tf gets a 35% raise every year?
It's the corpo landlords causing the problem. My private landlord never did any of that.
Private landlords are about to get harder and harder to come by...it's about to be corpos all the way down. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html
I think a bigger threat than corporations buying single family houses is that there are certain types of housing that will likely never not be owned by a single entity such as the large apartment buildings with shared entry areas.
I think the YIMBYs need to start adding "ownable units of housing" to their list of things to look for when developing new housing structures. A lot of places in California are starting to build again, but they're building a lot of corporate-owned apartment buildings with hundreds of units that only help further consolidate the housing market.
My neighborhood did a mixed development model and I think that's the way it should go: some apartments, some townhouses, some condos. Stop letting a single company own the entirety of the new housing units you're building.
Corps should only be able to own apartment style housing. I'd be fine with more of them being built if we removed single family homes from the rental market.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
My private landlord never did any of that.
Mine did. 22% increase in the two years after the pandemic.
Damn, that sucks. Did you move?
We did, yes. We had been trying to buy a house for years, and that pushed us to get serious. It took another year to find something we can afford, and we had to move out of the city, but we bought our own house!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
In a capitalist society, raising prices on victims due to supply and demand is rational behavior.
The problem here is less with the landlord and more with the system we live in. It motivates everyone to have antisocial behavior.
Did you really just say don't hate the player hate the game
We can enjoy hating the player, but hating the game allows for change.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sartre seems to agree, kind of: "I was not the one to invent lies: they were created in a society divided by class and each of us inherited lies when we were born. It is not by refusing to lie that we will abolish lies: it is by eradicating class by any means necessary."
load more comments
(3 replies)
I agree that the system we live in is partially responsible, but it has never motivated me to be a piece of shit. People are still responsible for their actions.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I can't help but think from a scientific perspective that when a population is forced to fight for resources, aggression in that population also increases.
In the most basic terms, how would you expect a colony of mice to react in a scenario like this? A dwindling supply of food, along with a shrinking supply of shelter... I'd expect to see a steady increase in violence over time.
I can't see this ending well, and I certainly have felt a steady degradation of hospitality and compassion in the last decade or so.
Is there even a way to combat this? I feel like the cultural zeitgeist has been so polluted with individualism it's almost impossible to get the general public to agree to policies that don't directly benefit themselves.
Just build more houses and more multi-use buildings. Proper planning can solve this.
Don't we also need some regulation that prevents landlords from buying any new housing capacity that is created?
IMO there should be no landlords, housing can be rented from the government or purchased outright. Private landlords do it for profit, but government housing can be nice and affordable because the goal doesn't have to be profit, and the rent it does extract funds building new housing and maintenance.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I thought for a second this was the price to buy, that's how fucked the market is.
I live in a high cost of living area and still can't wrap my head around even the original price. That's nearly my ~~yearly~~ entire salary. What the fuck.
Edit: I meant nearly the entirety of my monthly income per month, so a year of rent would cost about everything I make annually. Before tax.
load more comments
(5 replies)
If anyone has access to a genie wish, might I suggest:
"I wish any rental that saw the rent on it raised by more than twice the inflation rate, once it is no longer occupied, would instantly burst into flames and burn to ashes in a way that damages no other rental unit."
Granted, landlords insurance pays for a new building and lost rent. Now renting it for even more money.
Maybe for the first few, but after awhile it would be common knowledge that raising rents too much magically causes building to burst into flames. Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts. If you deliberately burn your own house down, insurance isn't going to cover that. Plus every insurance policy would exclude coverage for this sort of entirely predictable and preventable fire.
Except when it keeps burning down due to the ongoing wish and is no longer insurance.
The fire just never goes out. Engineers eventually harness it for nearly limitless power.
Landlord still profits.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is why Luigi must be acquitted.
Wow I'm quite surprised the fires haven't affected that unit in particular
Sometimes fires like this flare up much later and in the weirdest places. Hopefully when noone is home.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
This is America! It's not a horrific tragedy with lives lost, many others seriously injured or afflicted with new long-term health problems, their most precious possessions reduced to ash, countless people being made homeless with absolutely no options for places to go... it's an opportunity!
load more comments
(1 replies)
To be fair this isn’t specifically a landlord thing. This is a capitalism thing. And it’s happening everywhere and every day. From your grocery store to your pharmacy to your university. The essence of capitalism is to exploit all opportunity for as much value as possible.
This is the system humans have chosen to live under. And zeroing in on the landlord isn’t productive.
load more comments
(11 replies)
How much you bet once those homes are rebuilt, it'll stay like this?
You remembering them will not inconvenience or affect them at all.
view more: next ›