Show older

@freemo @knittingknots2 Yeah I know you are talking about those. There aren’t enough of those. Like, they don’t exist. Especially not where the jobs are.

You have a weird idea that’s a combination of this stupid leftist myth and a stupid right-wing personal responsibility myth.

@MisuseCase

You have no clue what my idea of the problem actually is, you didnt ask. But it isnt qty, yes they exist.

Now saying "they arent where the jobs are" that at least gets closer to an aspect of the problem. But that also is in line with what I said, it isnt a quantity issue.

@knittingknots2

@freemo @knittingknots2 Yes it is. I live in an area where we have a rent crisis and this is the biggest factor contributing to it.

And you think, what, housing is a fungible commodity where it doesn’t matter where the housing is? Of course it matters where it is. Can’t pay the rent if you don’t have money, which almost always means a job.

@MisuseCase

Which to my point, then you shouldnt be looking locally. You should be looking in areas where there is no local crisis. Showing it isnt a qty issue, you have options just not options that match what you want (something in a specific area).

@knittingknots2

@freemo @knittingknots2 Some people can work remotely but most people can’t. You mean someone should just move wherever where they might not be able to have a job to pay their rent with? That’s bananapants. Nobody does that. I’m pretty sure even you wouldn’t do that when making decisions about your life.

@MisuseCase

Most likely there is at least one home for rent within the hour or so commute radius for your job. If your claiming there isnt I'd be really curious what area your even talking about.

That said no.. what I am saying is if the areas you have to pick from to move to dont have job options for you there, that is a problem with the job market, it doesnt mean there arent enough houses.

@knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 If this were true, people wouldn't be trying to rent in apartments in cities, and simply go for the places "1 hour or so commute of their jobs".

Those areas are *also* cities, packed just as tightly, with people holding unused homes to an aggressive rental pricing, let alone buying pricing.

@AT1ST

> If this were true, people wouldn't be trying to rent in apartments in cities, and simply go for the places "1 hour or so commute of their jobs".

How ya figure? Most people dont pick the cheapest option, most people are very irresponsible with their spending and will get a place they cant afford because they want to be close to the bar or have a nice place. Thats part of the problem.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @AT1ST @knittingknots2 This isn’t “most people.” I don’t know what your financial or housing situation is but I don’t think you’ve talked to real people about theirs.

Lots of people with limited means have gotten priced out of cities and pushed into the suburbs and have long commutes.

@MisuseCase

As a matter of charity I take people into my home who are homeless and give them a place to live. This is usually a mutli-year process as I help them get on their feet and out of poverty. I have done this with many people.

Virtually every person I ever helped who was homeless had horrible money management issues and overspent on things they couldnt afford, including rent (before they became homeless)... Yes it absolutely is most people who are in this situation. Not surprisingly almost all of them were in denial about their habits and wasnt until they were back on their feet and doing well they realized their bad habits and corrected them.

@AT1ST @knittingknots2

@freemo @AT1ST @knittingknots2 Yeah, most people who end up homeless can’t afford rent…because rent is extremely expensive and being rent-burdened is a common problem. That’s why a lot of people end up homeless! Because the cost of living, including housing, is expensive.

@MisuseCase

Right, but not because the rent was simply too high, but because they choose places that were well beyond their means and were irresponsible and had far more space than they needed (often renting apartments intead of rooms).

For every single person I helped and is now out of poverty and doing well they had to adjust how they spent money and be more responsible. Once they did they had no trouble affording their rent, once they picked a place they could afford.

@AT1ST @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 The cheapest rent in my city that I've heard cited is my studio apartment (0 bedroom), and it...is about 2 Slim PS5s worth a month.

My parents own a place and rent their basement, an hour and a half away on public transit, for around the cost of 1 Slim PS5 a month.

Rent is so high, I can compare it *literal luxury items.*

@AT1ST

Im not sure what those items cost. Are you willing to give the name of the area your in?

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 The PS5 Slim Digital costs $579.99.

And to be clear, where I live, we recently invoked a rent freeze, so without it, in the last couple of years, it could've been more.

Like, gone up to 3 PS5 Slim Digital consoles' worth.

@AT1ST

That adds up for a studio in some expensive cities. But again if 1K is too expensive for you then you probably should be renting a room, not a studio. The most expensive area in the USA to rent (manhatten) has rooms that are quite a bit cheaper than that. Go an hour outside of manhatten even cheaper still.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Are those the places that are often described as shoeboxes, sometimes not having a dedicated bathroom or kitchen?

Because somehow I got those in mine, and space is somehow a thing I'm not short on for my price.

(Also, my prices are in CDN, for comparison.)

I'd add one contention for Manhattan - are we talking 1 hour outside but within public transit access? That's what the places I'm mentioning have.

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 (Oh, to clarify, my studio was double the listed price of the Slim PS5 Digital listed above. And it would've been higher had we not got a rent freeze 3 years ago - technically 5, but only enforced 3 years ago.).

@AT1ST

Right, which is nearly twice the price of renting a room in the most expensive area in the USA (Manhattan)... Which would suggest unless your in Manhattan itself there are cheaper options, even if there wasnt a rent freeze. If I knew the specific area I'd probably find one as an example.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I mean, I'm not looking to move myself - I do know that others have significantly more costs incurred.

Because the issue isn't as big an issue for me - but my sister, her husband, and their toddler now live in a 2 bedroom a bit closer to the downtown of the city...and they pay ~5-6 PS5 Slim Digitals a month..
"Reasonable for the area" or not, it...gets on my nerves when people say that the homeless or others just need to have better spending habits.

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 (The reason it gets on my nerves is that there's pretty much *no* reason to buy more than one of those items for the entire lifespan of the console [7-10 years] for personal use, and it would constitue the most reckless spending spree that comes to mind.

It's not how people spend their money, even enthusiasts within the field. But it is how we spend our rent, because...?)

@AT1ST

I mean a ps5 is hardly a luxury item.. Most kids I know who live with their parents were able to afford one. It seems like a kinda horrible comparison to start with. Luxury items are like gold necklaces or a porche, not a video game console made for children, teens and adults that almost everyone owns.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 More than one a month?

It gives off "Kid drove a Porsche into a ditch, and their parents bought them another one" level of luxury.

For perhaps a more clear way to put it - this guy [ youtu.be/ifAm3Vp0JnU?si=EdI_uv ] (For the purposes of the skit) is more "Fiscally responsible" than people who live in my city for 2-3 months, or the apartment my parents rent to people...for 5 months.

Five PS5sYouTube

@AT1ST

> More than one a month?

Buying more than one PS5 a month wouldnt be luxury, it would just be stupid.

> It gives off "Kid drove a Porsche into a ditch, and their parents bought them another one" level of luxury.

Not saying its affordable to buy multiplke PS5 a month, but its a poor measure of luxury. Might as well measure it in 10,000 rubber bands.

> For perhaps a more clear way to put it - this guy [ youtu.be/ifAm3Vp0JnU?si=EdI_uv ] (For the purposes of the skit) is more "Fiscally responsible" than people who live in my city for 2-3 months, or the apartment my parents rent to people...for 5 months.

Being fiscally responsible isnt about how much you spend in a month. Buyng 2 ps5 every month at the same price as rent doesn't make it equally fiscally responsible as spending it on rent. Thus why the comparison is nonsensical.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

Five PS5sYouTube

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 It would be stupid, I agree - but it's luxury to be able to *afford* them.

I'm paying my landlord, in rent, enough for her to buy 2 PS5s a month...for being able to live in a 0 bedroom place. How does that not seem wasteful luxury to be able to afford that place, because quite literally that is what my landlord can charge for my place.

I'm saying that living with my parents rent free and then doing that is equivalent in cost. Per month. To live in a room.

@AT1ST

> It would be stupid, I agree - but it's luxury to be able to *afford* them.

ITs a luxury to be able to afford anything that has no utility. If i could afford to buy 10 $10 nikon phones every day despite having no use for more than one, thats a luxury too. But being able to afford $500 for rent is not a luxury, in fact that is cheap.

What makes something a luxury isnt the price, its the cost to utility ratio.

> I'm paying my landlord, in rent, enough for her to buy 2 PS5s a month...for being able to live in a 0 bedroom place.

Or enough for her to buy 100 nokia phones... again the fact that you can spend the money on shit you dont need is hardly an indication that the price is high. Yea its a luxury if she can waste the money on nonsense, so?

> How does that not seem wasteful luxury to be able to afford that place, because quite literally that is what my landlord can charge for my place.

Because luxury is when you spend a lot of money for something with no utility. It has nothing to do with how many PS5s you can buy.

> I'm saying that living with my parents rent free and then doing that is equivalent in cost. Per month. To live in a room.

Ok, and? Luxury has nothing to do with the cost of a thing compared to some other arbitrary thing.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Food has utility that you also need every day, but even at $10 a meal, that only comes up to ~310 a month.

To reach the amount I'm paying for rent, every meal I'd be eating would be $30. That's 4.5 avocado toasts...per meal, every meal.

That's a cost that would indicate that the "Thing you need" is being charged at luxury pricing, despite not being a luxury, but a thing people need.

There's no reason rent needs to be so high, anywhere.

@AT1ST

> Food has utility that you also need every day, but even at $10 a meal, that only comes up to ~310 a month.

$10 a meal is $10*3*30.. so $900. Which is double the cost of rending a cheap room in the most expensive area in the USA.

> To reach the amount I'm paying for rent, every meal I'd be eating would be $30. That's 4.5 avocado toasts...per meal, every meal.

No, you messed up the math, it is 1/3 what your calculating.

> That's a cost that would indicate that the "Thing you need" is being charged at luxury pricing, despite not being a luxury, but a thing people need.

Since your own example had an error in and the actual numbers line up with my own statement, since this was your example and convincing to you when it had the error does this mean you now change your mind and admit rent is cheap?

If not, ask yourself why was it a convincing argument with incorrect numbers and when the actual numbers show the exact opposite it suddenly stops being a convincing argument to you.

> There's no reason rent needs to be so high, anywhere.

I mean you were literally off by a factor of x3 in this comparison....

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 Ah, I'll admit I forgot it was times 3 initially, but that's still $10 a meal, which is a lot on its own.

That's expensive, even for something you need to eat to live.

1/3 the total cost is still really expensive for food (Most meals aren't anywhere near as expensive as $10 in my experience.).

And again - this is for "Roof and walls, and access to plumbing.".

That's still really expensive for the utility it provides, considering it's idle otherwise.

@AT1ST

And you dont see the backpeddling your doing... Your whole argument was "look rent is more than double food". Then when you find out its the reverse, that food is actually double the price of rent now your trying to change the numbers **you** set and tweak the equations for it to still work out to your argument.

Can you not see the confirmation bias and back peddling right now? Clearly even when i turn out to be correct when **you** lay the ground rules, you still dont accept the conclusion and change the rules....

I will end the discussion there, I think that leaves you with enough to think about, and hopefully youll realize you werent being objective here and no matter what rules you set or what the facts said you wouldnt have changed your mind, as we see here.

Feel free to reach out on future discussions if youd like, I enjoyed it. Just saying if i cant convince you even when i play by your axioms and rules then there is no conversation left to be had.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I admitted I was wrong about the numbers - but I was also intentionally inflating the numbers in the calculation to make my point. $10 is not the unit cost of cereal and milk for breakfast for a meal. It's near restaurant cost.

I recognize it's not anywhere near as strong a point as I originally thought, but regardless - food is a thing that if you don't have, you die. It *should* cost more than rent on that basis alone.

@AT1ST

We arent talking about a number thats slightly off... your math error was off by an order of x3. Completely reversing the results. Even if you pull the numbers back to being $3 a meal you wind up with food being about the same price as rent for a cheap room in manhatten., so the point is still moot.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 ...Out of curiosity, what do you mean in price range in Manhattan?

In Vancouver here, the $1100 I pay per month is considered cheap, and at the far end of the transit system, around Langley, rent goes for $650, if you can get a grandfathered discount from a previous tenant from like a decade ago.

(CDN prices there.)

@AT1ST

I did a search when we first spoke for rooms for rent in Manhatten. I tried to pick livable locations (clean) at the low end of the range that popped up. They were ~$500 give or take $100. The lowest I saw was $300, Obviously the higher end goes almost as high as you can imagine though.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@AT1ST

Oh sorry, thought you said Toronto for some reason.

But to the original point. Its still not a QTY issue, at best you can argue there is an issue with the economy in general, and I would generally agree. But the problem isnt the number of homes.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

@freemo @MisuseCase @knittingknots2 I mean, the problem is the qty that are kept open for rent.

There's a supply issue, not a demand issue. Landlords hold on to places and do not let go.

The economy in general is starting to receed a bit, but it's always been bad for rent here.

@AT1ST

So its not a qty issue at all if there are places to rent. Its a price issue. The price at which it would be worth it for the landlord is higher than you want to pay.

No landlord would go with a place not being rented at all if they wouldnt make enough money to make up for that by waiting for market-value.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

Follow

@AT1ST

You also have to consider it isnt just about how many are up for rent. Its how appealing it is to rent at all. If the price people were willing to pay was profitable more people would put their houses up for rent. So again its an economic issue not a qty issue as there are more than enough houses to fit people.

@MisuseCase @knittingknots2

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.