You run into a problem that you need to mitigate for this to work: qualifying for a mortgage.
A landlord can rent to you for a year–or less–and they assume the risk of you not paying and needing to evict you. Their income verification can be a lot more loose as a result. A bank is going to be in a relationship with you for 15-30 years; they want to be pretty sure that you’re going to be able to meet your financial obligations for that whole time period. As a result, they’re going to be quite a bit more strict about proof of income, etc.
Renting can be cheaper, too; a tenant isn’t on the hook for repairs to a unit, but when I need a new roof in my house, or the water heater goes out, I get to pay every penny of that myself. Yeah, the mortgage is cheaper, but just because you can afford the mortgage doesn’t mean that you can afford everything else that goes into owning a home.
You also get into weird and perverse tax and zoning incentives that can make it difficult to build any kind of affordable housing; Dems say they want affordable housing, right up until someone wants to put it in their neighborhood, then they start acting like Republicans.
Yes, the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem. But it’s not quite as black and white as it often seems.
Dems say they want affordable housing, right up until someone wants to put it in their neighborhood, then they start acting like Republicans
In my experience, this isn’t the case unless someone (sometimes Republicans, sometimes just politicians) try to put ALL the affordable housing into specific neighborhoods for selfish reasons, or the place the affordable housing is going doesn’t have jobs because someone actively avoid putting them in the places with jobs because “them poor people are criminals and will hurt business”.
New Bedford, MA was a great example. It was an open secret that MA acted to ship a high percentage of projects and Section 8 to New Bedford. It’s also an open secret that budgeted commuter rail plans to New Bedford kept getting cut despite the rail running to the rural ass-crack of Western Mass, creating a job-starved desert of one of the otherwise most established economies in the state. Solely because somebody didn’t want people in affordable housing to have mass-transit access to most of the state.
I don’t blame “The Dems” for that. Neither should anyone. This isn’t NIMBY, this is “Let’s put them all in your back yard. Then put more in your back yard. Then keep it coming. Then burn the bridge. Aren’t I doing good?”
It really is the Dems on this one. Esp. in MA, which has a Democratic supermajority. And California, and New York, and Illinois. All of those things you are saying are problems are problems created by Democrats, in Democratic-controlled states, because wealthy Democrats don’t want to live near poor people.
I’m not saying Republicans are better; Republicans absolutely have a “fuck them poors” attitude, and the Dems are at least claiming to want to treat people decently. But Dems aren’t following through with what they say they want to do–affordable housing for all–while Republicans are definitely following through with their promise to fuck everyone that isn’t already in the top 10%.
BTW - section 8 should be great for a landlord. You are guaranteed payment on the 1st of every month, and you can still initiate eviction if the tenant is trashing your property or doing crime. But most landlords that aren’t slumlords generally hate that shit, because they don’t want poor people living there even if they’re getting their money. It’s stupid and short sighted.
I’m not sure you understand how Massachusetts politics works (or perhaps any local politics). I can’t speak for the other states with in-depth knowledge, but boy can I school you about Massachusetts.
Federally, we’re a deep-blue state, but that’s just not all of how it works at the state level. With a few exceptions we usually have a Republican governor. Yeah, the rest of the US like to call them “RINO” because the’re not on board with the craziest shit the alt-right has to offer. Most (if not all) of these changes happened under Romney and Baker, both Republican. Of note, none of these changes I’m talking about have ever shown up in a bill in legislature. They’ve all be driven by the executive action upon the mandate. That is, they fall on the governor. Who was Republican.
…and yet, I didn’t say it’s The Republicans, either. Democrats could’ve stepped in by passing laws preventing that behavior. We didn’t because our Democrats like to keep peace with our Republicans and, frankly, because the Democrats don’t care enough to involve themselves in the HOW as long as subsidies are happening.
But Dems aren’t following through with what they say they want to do–affordable housing for all
Again, I can only speak for MA. With one very recent exception (and excepting the recent excessive price spikes), MA does fairly well with providing affordable housing for all as long as it’s outside of Boston. But I think I wasn’t being entirely clear. I am mostly talking about Housing Project availability. Section 8 is, as you suggested, up to the landlord. It’s worded to allow people to live basically anywhere, even in the heart of Boston, with a limited income.
BTW - section 8 should be great for a landlord. You are guaranteed payment on the 1st of every month, and you can still initiate eviction if the tenant is trashing your property or doing crime
From family experience, the issue is that “trashing your property” can cost you years of profits or even force you to sell the building. I’ve had family deal with the notorious “cement in the toilet” meme for real. People really do it and it really costs a massive amount of money to handle. Home and landlord insurance does not cover intentional damage by tenants. We’re talking up to $15,000 damage just because they’re mad you’re evicting them.
Most landlords don’t care about “not wanting poor people” with Section 8. They care about having judgement-proof tenants who can cause damage and never be held accountable due to being poor. They also have to meet certain building code and quality standards that non-section-8 landlords don’t! There’s a LOT of non-section-8 rentals in New Bedford for this reason. No, they’re not trying to gentrify Durfee Street, I promise you that!
There’s two sides to the section 8 coin. Side 1 is that the rent is slightly above-average and some of it always shows up on time. Side 2 is that the rest of it is often late, overall risk is higher, and then you actually can’t be a slumlord. I mean, look at the list of rules. Everyone I know living in New Bedford apartments have (checks list) shitty or broken HVAC, decaying building foundation, crappy interior stairs, pest issues, flaking paint, etc. Not only can landlords get away with a lot of that (and worse) normally, but Section 8 includes annual and spot inspections for all of them.
I don’t fault the state making these demands, but it leads to a lot of people not registering their rental with Section 8, for reasons that have nothing to do with Poor tenants (and in many cases BECAUSE they’re going to have poor tenants who won’t pitch a fit about a not-to-code apartment). I’ve rented from places that would have failed Section 8. And I kept my mouth shut.
In Illinois you didn’t have to ‘register’ for section 8 (I believe it was called ‘housing choice’), but it’s been a long time ago. (I owned a house that had two apartments; I lived in one, rented the other out.) Most tenants are functionally judgement-proof, unless you only rent to upper-middle class people. Sure, you might get a judgement against them, but that doesn’t mean you’ll ever see a penny of it. As far as not being a slumlord, I have absolutely no tolerance for landlords that don’t want to keep properties in good repair, full stop. Yeah, it’s expensive to replace a roof, but fuck you, that’s why you’re taking in rent.
Most tenants are functionally judgement-proof, unless you only rent to upper-middle class people
This is fair on large damage numbers, but you can often squeeze someone making $40-50k/yr if they owe you $5-$10k in malice-caused damages… but more importantly, for that kind of damage, you’re talking about small-claims court. You don’t need a lawyer, just time, and “they poured concrete into the toilet - here’s my bill” is the kind of open-and-shut case small-claims court thrives on.
As far as not being a slumlord, I have absolutely no tolerance for landlords that don’t want to keep properties in good repair, full stop
100% agree. But even super-renter-friendly states do little to hold landlords accountable. If you want to be a slumlord, you can be a successful slumlord. Tenant holds you to task with the state? You don’t renew the lease. There’s ways they can fuck with you if they know better, but often they don’t. From someone I’m involved in a lawsuit with (can’t give details), slumlording is a no-brainer as a numbers game. 100 slum apartments, get sued once a year, huge win.
Yeah, it’s expensive to replace a roof, but fuck you, that’s why you’re taking in rent.
Fuck yes. I’m not a huge fan of the whole “all landlords are evil” tankie rhetoric, but boy do I sympathize with them on the specific topic of slumlords.
They don’t assume the risk? The moment I don’t pay by the third they are threatening to evict me. They charge rent that covers their monthly mortgage payment and then some. It’s the same shit. The place I rent now is owned by progress and it’s 50/50 it seems what they cover. On top of that I have to clean it all (professionally now , that’s new) when I move out. When I moved in the place was 1700 and now it’s 2400. There’s so much risk they’re taking in renting me a place , charging rent , but not getting anything back for it.
They’re threatening to evict you, yes. But actually evicting you, in at least some states, can be challenging. I know someone that rented out his entire home (long story), and got paid about three months of rent before they quit paying. It took him nearly two years to get them out. (Last I knew he was suing the agent that vetted them; apparently there was collusion, and the tenant has done this multiple times before.)
The flip side is that if you quit paying your mortgage, it’s also going to take months or years to get you out of the house, but then the bank has a piece of real estate. Banks don’t want to own real estate; that’s not their business. They’re not set up to buy and sell real estate. Foreclosing on a house costs a bank a lot of money.
Renting can be cheaper, too; a tenant isn’t on the hook for repairs to a unit, but when I need a new roof in my house, or the water heater goes out, I get to pay every penny of that myself. Yeah, the mortgage is cheaper, but just because you can afford the mortgage doesn’t mean that you can afford everything else that goes into owning a home.
Don’t worry about that, landlords have figured that out. There’s a new 500 unit apartment complex that is currently being built in the Philadelphia suburbs that is taking applicants for units at the affordable price of $3500 per month.
A roof that fails on a 500-unit apartment complex will be cheaper to replace per unit than the roof an a single family home. Same with a water heater that serves multiple families rather than a single family. Honestly, it’s a good argument for communes, but communes have their own set of social problems, since it can be hard to get people to take responsibility for shit unless you go into it with the same kind of contract that you’d have when renting.
The problem is that they actually don’t mean that. And truthfully I don’t mind the idea of paying for video hosting, that shit’s expensive, but YouTube is going about it in the worst way possible.
Do you mean the actual video buffer or the page’s loading time? Because they made it take 5~ seconds longer to load on Firefox when they started going after adblockers and my filter that replaced it with 0.0001 (or whatever) seconds hasn’t been working for a little bit.
This idea that nobody on the internet is willing to pay for anything is outdated. Most people know that if it’s not money, they’re paying in data, time and/or attention. I much prefer paying with money, as do most people that use Proton, Kagi and other paid alternatives to free Google products.
Right. Some people get stuck up about getting things for free that they think they should get for free.* But a lot of the problem is the obnoxious ways companies go about control and profit.
*There are important arguments to be had about freedom, still.
"They do want to pay for premium! They just don’t understand what a great value it is! SHOW THEM THE AD AGAIN! SHOW THEM ON EVERY VIDEO SO THEY WILL UNDERSTAND!!! "
I pay for YouTube Premium. I didn’t really want that, I just wanted YouTube Music, but it didn’t make sense to just pay for YT Music. I don’t want Spotify and Amazon Music kinda sucks so YT music worked best.
I actually used to pay for the Premium account in Google Play Music, but disliked YouTube Music so much when they migrated accounts over that I canceled my subscription. Have they improved the radio/music discovery parts at all?
In the same boat. GPM was so much better than Spotify in terms of UI and basic features. People hype-up Spotify’s recommendations, but since moving there after GPM shut down, I don’t think I’ve ever had good music in my Spotify recommendations. Lack of basic features like being able to dislike specific songs, which they keep removing it with A/B testing, is so fucking infuriating!
I couldn’t justify $14 a month for YT Premium especially when YT Music sucks so much. And it’s very likely just going to get more expensive.
If they could stop bundling them both together and give me an option to just get rid of ads, I’d probably go back to paying. But for now, NewPipe is a way better experience.
I read everyone bitching about the ads but I don’t get them, and I have access to an awesome music streaming service too… you know, cause I have premium…
Why is it your responsibility to pay the creators? Google is a trillion dollar company and makes billions off of what people post on youtube. Shouldn’t they be paying them instead and not you?
Besides, it’s only a matter of time before Google takes more and more of the cut that you think you’re paying them.
Your logic doesn’t make any sense. They make money off of people paying for a service or watching ads. If you’re blocking ads then you’re costing Google money and no creators are getting paid. If you’re paying for the service then you don’t get ads, and you pay the creators, and you pay for Google to keep running the service.
Doesn’t change anything I’ve literally NI’d every single post of that matter and THEY KEEP SHOWING UP. I’ll even DRC to channels that post that content primarily and they’ll start show up half a year later. I’ve had it up to here with youtube’s fucking algorithm deciding what I want.
Do you pay for premium? From what I’ve seen the algorithm is much more hostile to people who don’t pay. I literally _never _ have these problems about YouTube recommending stuff I don’t care about.
Pat Finnerty on YouTube does a great series called What Makes This Song Stink. It’s definitely not for everyone, as he doesn’t give a shit about YouTube algorithms and keeping videos to an ideal length. But has a recent hour long video on Jason Aldean’s Try That in a Small Town. The video (Pat Finnerty’s not Jason Aldean’s) is phenomenal.
He hooked me so hard by showing how Ohio would sound over it, I wanted to laugh but I was also flabbergasted and so just noise and head shaking and disbelief is what I mustered.
But yea, I’ll go back and watch the old ones. Thanks.
Another video you (and @FunderPants, @Grayox, @Holyhandgrenade) might enjoy is Chill Goblin’s take on “Oliver Anthony, Welfare, and Blair Mountain”. Oliver Anthony is the artist who did “Rich Men North of Richmond” and it’s a really great breakdown with historical contexts from the mining union wars to the Reagan Era of “Welfare Queens”.
And it’s leeching into lemmy via obvious astroturfing too. Ah yes an account less than a week old that does nothing but bring up how they pay for YouTube premium mmkay
Yikes!? Though never fail to underestimate the stupidity of… yeah okay I see your username, you already know that:-P.
It’s like why didn’t peasants rise up and overthrow their royalty long so, as those in the USA & France eventually did? Bc there was always a tiny handful of people who benefited from the status quo, and were willing to defend it with their very lives.
Or bc it’s Lemmy, it could also just be a pure Troll:-P.
Haha yea, shame on them for trying to transition to a business model that’s actually a great value for the customer compared to other music and video playforms, no longer relies on datamining customers to maximize ad-effectiveness, and brings in more income for creators than ads ever did…
It’s a totally stupid idea, YT should just eat the costs and be subsidized by Google search revenue forever.
Why can’t we just keep taking from the platform while its expenses are covered by some shrinking group of shmucks who don’t know about ad-blockers yet, drowning in commercials?
/S
I don’t understand this outlook. Like, sure, you can use adblock. One person stealing a mars bar isn’t gonna hurt Walmart… But if literally everyone just took their shopping cart home, never once paying, Walmart would just… Cease to exist.
What makes people think that math is any different for online services?
By all means, defect when warranted, but if a bad company changing course doesn’t net rewards, why would corps ever do anything other than the worst possible, taking as many users down with them as they can snare?
If google goes down someone else will fill the void. And I don’t give a shit about their numbers, if it’s not financially feasible to host everything without running a loss for years to extinguish competition and then to hike up the price, they should have thought of that before.
Aside from that, any Corp that goes down is a victory in my book.
I will pay for premium when it means they will not sell my data and will allow me control over my algorithm to prevent it from playing to my vulerabilities. Since they won’t change, I won’t pay.
I will never pay for premium. Yewtu.be and all the similar front end ad killers are always there when ublock Origin gets half a step behind in the never ending cat and mouse it seems to have with YT. Fuck tech companies. Fuck YouTube. Fuck Reddit. Fuck em all.
Google doesn’t sell your data, they’re one of the few that don’t. That doesn’t mean they aren’t misusing your data though. They’re more the dragon hoarder than the thief selling off stolen goods. They want all your data so they can learn everything about you. Selling your data to others makes it worth way less. It’s a difference in strategy. Google retains the data to enhance their products, Facebook sells your data because they have no products that would be improved by keeping it.
Sorry if I miscommunicated. No, they’re not selling your home address. But the idea that they aren’t monetizing your personal data aggressively is laughably wrong and heavily documented.
I don’t know who started this trend of “showing ads is the same thing as selling data” but it’s fucking irritating to see so many people confidently wrong about something they could figure out themselves if they thought about Google’s business model for 30 seconds.
Showing ads is not the same as selling data, but it’s also not really what google is doing. Google spies on you and uses that data to sell access to you to any company that wants to exploit you. They’ve also been known to give (not sell) data on you to law enforcement based solely on your location data or things you looked up.
Since we’re all dummies and you know the answers, please go ahead and explain how Google goes about selling heavily targeted ads to uniquely identifiable groups, but that they also are not “selling data”.
Are we being massively pedantic and saying that it’s not actual user data, but rather leveraging said data to sell ads to the anonymized targeted groups, who are actively tracked by Google around the internet so ads can be served up at opportune times in their browsing?
Because that dumb argument is like saying Oxford Dictionary doesn’t sell words, they sell definitions; or that McDonalds doesn’t sell beef, they sell hamburgers.
They sell ads, but data. If you can’t see the difference I can’t help you. It’s not “pedantic”, it’s being factual. Sorry you apparently think facts don’t matter.
when it means they will not sell my data and will allow me control over my algorithm to prevent it from playing to my vulerabilities
The problem is that this will never happen. That boat has sailed - companies will never give up on their existing revenue streams. They may say that paying today will exempt you from the ads, but it’s only a matter of time before they ramp up the cost and start showing ads anyway. That’s how cable television started, and it’s how internet streaming will end as well. And as for the not selling data/controlling the algorithm, well you have no way of proving that they don’t do that so they’ll do it no matter what they say.
There’s no reason for google to do this whatsoever. They have their business model - any new revenue streams will 100% definitely not reduce the other ones at all. It’s just gonna be another giant dump into the pile of enshittification.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.