eclectic_electron
What do you mean no choice? There's always a choice.
Realistically many people don't have a choice to buy, because they don't have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don't see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?
I'd be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn't afford the house you're in now if you had to buy it today. I'm in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it's a lot more complicated than "landlords" though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.
Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren't landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let's a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.
Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I'm pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn't want to be responsible for that.
More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you're mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it's actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It's just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.
So while I see your argument that landlords don't "deserve" the money they make, practically they're an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.
They could be, and probably should be repurposed
But also, brand new chrome books are ~$80
By the time you collect, clean, repair, and reimage the older computers, it may well be cheaper to just buy Chromebooks.
I hate seeing anything useful going to the trash but the economics aren't great in this case
You know that's not actually going to happen though. Maybe one in a hundred will get intercepted and saved at best.
I think there's some ability to distinguish as anything intentionally discarded due to spillage or damage should be accounted for directly, as opposed to only showing up at inventory
Obviously it is impossible to separate out honest mistakes, intentional theft, and disgruntled employee semi-intentional shrink. If you ask the company, 500% of shrink is theft by organized crime rings and the general public should definitely be spending taxpayer dollars on police enforcement and jail time for pretty thieves. So I would assume most of it is actually accidental check out mistakes and employees "accidentally" checking things out wrong.
Indeed. It would be interesting to run the same analysis for censorship of pro Israel content and compare the differences between the two, though the data would likely still be noisy and inconclusive.
They are not the same, but it is still disappointing to see lots of lazy, reactionary arguments, circle jerking, etc even if you agree with what someone is ultimately supporting.
People aren't comparing it to alternatives, they're comparing it to Google 5-10 years ago.
Google used to be astoundingly good at figuring out what it was you wanted, and finding out for you. Now there's a lot more SEO garbage and meaningless fluff clogging every results page, and if your search could even remotely be related to buying something, it's only products and ads.
As a potential purchaser, the greatest concern is if it's already been more than 10 years. In my mind this is exactly the kind of situation adverse possession is for.
Even if adverse possession doesn't apply, trying to actually evict those home owners from the land is going to be a nightmare. The validity of the lot itself may even come into question. Generally I would expect the laws governing the creation of lots to try to prevent useless lots like this.
Honestly I don't understand how lots like this even get listed. I looked at one in my city that was a little piece of a corner between two homes. It's far too small to build on and you probably couldn't even fence it off legally. Literally the only thing you could do with it is try to coerce the adjacent homeowner who's been using it to buy it from you, but that's just evil, and who wants to be evil?
I think a big component of the problem is location. I may have a different perspective living in a low cost of living city. Just a few years ago I lived in a two bedroom apartment that was $650/mo. It was old and not very nice, but totally functional and reasonably safe. It was a bigger complex so the landlord was a management company. They weren't amazing or anything, but they held up their end of the lease. I understand the situation somewhere like NYC or California is going to be radically different.
I think that's where a really interesting question comes in though, do people have a right to housing? Or a right to housing in the place they're currently living? It's a big difference. Forcibly relocating people is... Problematic at best. But there are places like LA where it's almost physically (geologically) impossible to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live there.
If you haven't already I'd recommend listening to the podcast mini series "according to need" by 99 percent invisible. I really appreciated the perspective it offers into some of the practical challenges of trying to get homeless people housed.
Ultimately I don't know that I'd call housing a "right", purely for semantic reasons, but I do think the very existence of homelessness and housing insecurity is a devastating critique of our social and economic systems. I didn't think we'll ever have a system that completely eliminates renting/short term housing, but we do clearly need to change a lot of things about how housing works now.