Happy Fake Labor Day to the Americans, because their government wants to hide real labor day from their citizens so they don't have to educate them about the Haymarket Affair.
Labor Day being in September is absolutely about erasing labor history. If more people knew labor history, more people would understand why All Cops Are Bastards.
May day! May day! We've got socialism over here!
May day!
I see what you did there.
You are correct, the American website Wikipedia definitely does not have an article on Haymarket
The average American has a seventh grade reading level (with 54% of the population with less than a sixth grade reading level), and you expect them to be educated enough to 1. know what it is and 2. look for a Wikipedia article on it?
Jesus, half this fucking country doesn't even live in reality anymore. Somehow, they're supposed to just know that it's on Wikipedia.
I had a great public education and this one of the very few things that wasn't mentioned.
be me american sees OP comment googles haymarket affair first result is Wikipedia article for haymarket affair 😐
Mentioning America on a post that has nothing to do with America specifically? Yeah, this type of thing is ripped straight off of Reddit.
You mean when some rioters tried to kill people with a bomb?
It was reasonable at the time to separate celebration of labor from Haymarket massacre, where an anarchist through a bomb into otherwise peaceful labor rally killing both the police and the civilian with many workers being injured and triggering the riot. The labor leaders in US then decided to make labor day to be not associated with these bloody events, which have little relationship with the labor movement itself. Not sure why you refer here to ACAB, the policemen were victims here.
At the McCormick reaper plant, a long-simmering strike erupted in violence on May 3, and police fired at strikers, killing at least two. Anarchists called a protest meeting at the West Randolph Street Haymarket, advertising it in inflammatory leaflets, one of which called for “Revenge!”
The crowd gathered on the evening of May 4 on Des Plaines Street, just north of Randolph, was peaceful, and Mayor Carter H. Harrison, who attended, instructed police not to disturb the meeting. But when one speaker urged the dwindling crowd to “throttle” the law, 176 officers under Inspector John Bonfield marched to the meeting and ordered it to disperse.
Then someone hurled a bomb at the police, killing one officer instantly. Police drew guns, firing wildly. Sixty officers were injured, and eight died; an undetermined number of the crowd were killed or wounded.
But sure, the cops who were told not to show up, and then showed up when they were angry that people were pissed that they murdered workers, they deservedly got a bomb in their faces. Cops are always a bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit who can't stand being criticized for being the violent fucking thugs they are.
One thing I’ve learned on reddit is that you never tell people on platforms like that or even this one that you’re a landlord. You could be the best landlord, never raise a reasonable rent, keep a well and promptly maintained property, and LanDlOrDs aRe The ScUm of ThE Earth!!1! is all you hear.
The very idea of being a landlord is pretty evil though? Like in a housing shortage you're hoarding property and profiting off it.
So while I generally agree with your sentiment, there are some obvious ways that sometime could be an ethical landlord.
What if you have a house that's too big, so you convert a floor into an apartment? You're adding to the number of housing units available. Should you be forced to sell a portion of your house/building to whoever wants to live there? Or should you be able to rent it out to someone at a reasonable rate? Do we want rules that discourage people from potentially adding units to the market?
I feel like the "all landlords are evil" narrative is way too simplistic, and that simplistic view turns off people who would otherwise support reasonable limits on landlords and housing ownership. Like, it's obvious that we need limits and taxes on people who own multiple properties, and it's obvious that there are companies that exploit renters and drive up prices, but it's all more complicated than just "landlords evil lol".
Your assuming everyone wants to own property over renting.
House and property ownership has a lot of responsibility and expenses involved. Your water heater breaks well there is $1000+ your roof needs replacing there is 30K. All of that goes away when you rent as it isn't your responsibility.
If you own property it can be harder and more risky to relocate. I know a few people that bought in 2007 and then were stuck as they couldn't afford to move because they were upsidedown on their house.
Not saying renting is all sunshine and roses. I personally would rather own then rent but home ownership isn't for everyone.
But I do think it is a major problem when you have a few companies buying up all property so no one else can afford it. But I don't think being a Landlord is inherently evil.
Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.
Housing shortages are caused by bad government policy: namely, low-density zoning. Direct your anger towards the entity that deserves it, and make them fix their fuck-up.
(Note: I'm not making some kind of Libertarian "all government is bad" argument here. I'm saying that in this specific case, the laws need to be changed.)
What's the alternative here? Only letting big companies without any ethical regards rent housing?
Sure, there's a good argument to be made that housing is essential to survive and as such should be provided by the government, but that's not the world we live in. In this society, it's likely someone is going to have to rent it out and I'd rather it be a person who actually gives a shit and can be held responsible rather than some faceless corporation.
The vast majority of landlords are normal people renting out a portion of the home they live in as well.
What you are asking is that they should close those doors or have the rental be free? Either of those situations is bunk.
No, certain corporate landlords, like Blackrock, is even. Most small-scale landlords are not inherently evil because they rent out their properties. Having a few is not "hoarding."
Where would people live then? Those don't want to buy. Under the bridge?
I've had shitty landlords and good ones. My current one hasn't changed the rent price in 4 years, comes out same day or next day to deal with issues... to be honest I wish I could copy and paste my current landlord to my next place too 😭
One of my old landlords tried to charge me for damage I didn't cause... but guess who recorded every nook and cranny in 4K after accepting the keys, and used that footage to dispute and get my full deposit back 🤪🤪
My last landlord didn't raise my rent for seven years. I was thankful until I moved out and he still hasn't been able to re-rent the place after two years despite dropping the rent by $100. He just didn't want to risk losing his prize schmuck lol.
What I most hate is landlords who put an automatic 5% (or whatever) increase into an auto-renewing lease. It's bullshit because their mortgage generally isn't increasing like that.
Small-scale landlords also usually have full time jobs and use rent to supplement their income. Not every landlord is just rolling in cash.
I work at a credit union where we deal with a lot of smaller investors and many of them have properties where they aren't breaking even on a cash flow basis. But they are using the losses to lower their taxable income while building equity elsewhere. They are (from tenants I've heard from) good landlords. Lately we've been dealing with a lot of realtors that are buying up properties and that just doesn't sit well with me so I'm looking to change careers and get more into C&I and CRE rather than SFR investments. Being able to cash out 7.25 weeks of accrued vacation time I haven't been able to take too is a big plus.
Being a landlord, making money off of the hard work of other people, and still having enough time to have a full time job "on the side" means you don't need to be a landlord because it obviously isn't an important job that you have to dedicate time and attention to.
Probably because most users are americans and there renters barely have any protections.
I've never really seen a landlord who does all those things, unless they also live in the property and wanted roommates to help with the mortgage.
Not just being a landlord, owning a property at all, no matter how much you paid and when, means you're rich...
As a couple we own a condo paid 85k in the early 2010s and a cottage paid 50k in 2020 (that was on the market for months)? I've had many users tell me I've got no business talking about the housing crisis because I'm privileged... Because the two of us are able to afford the mortgage on 135k in property???
Anyone with a mediocre amount of business sense or anyone that actually owns / owned (or pretends they own via a mortgage) real estate knows exactly how terribly difficult it is to just keep everything running.
This alone explains why reddit and such have no damn clue why renting is so expensive.
Why is it difficult to keep things running? Keeping the plumbing, electrical, and building amenities in order is part of your legal responsibility. Don't like it? Get a real job. People HAVE to have a home. You don't HAVE to make money off it.
Why would someone become a landlord in the first place? You're not born with a title deed in your hand, and if you were given income property by a family member, you're still profiting off of the hard work of others. The only reason someone would choose to go out of their way to invest in rental properties is because they see an easier way of making money than having to go out and work for it like an honest person. "Mom and Pop landlords" aren't a thing. If you have the funds to buy an entire second property, you aren't just a "mom and pop", youre in the 1%.
I'm in that boat. I'm a land lord. I built my forever home but after a medical issue I lost my job. Unfortunately my career choice, while lucrative, only has one or two positions per state. So I had to move. I'd like to return to the home I built but that won't be for another 10 years minimum when I retire. I don't want to sell my home, so I rented it out. I'm currently renting an apartment myself.
Why would someone become a landlord? My uncle took out loans to buy distressed properties sold at auctions, and then he would put in the "sweat equity" to fix them up for renting out, all while working his full time job. So, he would work all day, and afterwards would manage those buildings doing all the maintenance and cleaning himself.
Why did he do it? He did it to make money...so he could send his son to college, so hopefully his son wouldn't have to hustle a full time job and a busy part time job as well. My uncle worked his ass off to make a better life for his son, how selfish of him.
You either put your money in a savings account at low interest rates or invest in something else.
Everyone is always profiting off the hard work of others, that's the whole point of civilization. Yes, many landlords are exploitative. But not all, and probably not even most, are.
Why would someone become a landlord in the first place?
As a way out of a job they hate and as an investment opportunity. Maybe they'd rather paint walls and replace toilets than sit in an office.
"Mom and Pop landlords" aren't a thing
Where'd you get this, straight from your ass? Yes they are, I know several.
You're so confidently incorrect here I'm not sure why I'm bothering as I'm sure you'll be a prick about it but virtually nothing you wrote is true of the landlords I know. And before you accuse me of simping for corporations. Nope. I've lived several years in corporate owned properties and despise the level of exploitation they standardized on. They're fucking evil bastards.
The fact that you don't know and can't fathom a landlord that owns a small amount of property and treats their tenants decently lets me know that you have a very limited life experience. I am moving soon to a corporate owned place for a variety of reasons but I wish I didn't have to. My current landlord owns just this one property to my knowledge and he's treated me well since day one. There's a huge difference.
Maybe if you pulled your head from your ass you'd understand that your lack of experience has no bearing on how reality is.
As a landlord and someone who loves shenanigans, it's been great. It's never been easier to piss off dozens of people I don't like at once.
Like, sure dude, my owning a few houses is totally the reason your city that I don't live in won't build new housing to meet demand, and I totally enjoy spending all of my weekends doing manual labor fixing shit for my tenants.
never mind the fact that that landlord probably worked hard to buy his first property and subsequent properties to self-employ themselves in the first place
covid hoarders also worked hard to buy up all the hand sanitizer and toilet paper
also, pick a monster dictator who committed genocide, they worked hard too
working hard doesn't mean you're doing good things, you can work hard and be evil
landlords are creating a scarcity of places for people to home and feed their families in order to charge those families money to get rich off, and, regardless of how "nice" they pretend to be in fixing the sink if it clogs, will throw a baby into the street to be homeless if their demands for money aren't met.
Nice myth.
I am my hamsters land lord. Ask me anything
Do you have any rooms open right now?
How does it feel being a monster
my cat and I started as roommates but now I'm pretty sure he's my boyfriend.
Yeah, first my dog and I just kinda coexisted, but then we were forced to talk to each other because turns out that he's my coworker.
I know landlords that work way fucking harder than I do, and I have a "real job". I get that a lot of landlords are assholes but in the end this is the system and some are playing the game as fairly as they can (being reasonable, very rarely raising rent, attending to maintenance themselves and in a timely manner) while others are cheating (not maintaining the property, raising rent, forcing tenants to sign burdensome leases, etc). Stop lumping them together.
I've found that on many Lemmy instances we got way too many people who find it much easier to just say all are assholes, there are NO exceptions!
Yeah I agree. Painting with a broad brush is something we all do, but my god people have some self awareness once in a while.
Apart from your real job and defending landlords, what else are you doing to help get rid of the sham system?
What's the point of replacing one sham system with another?
You do understand that not all landlords are the same? Even if 50% are assholes you're still lapping the other half in there whilst they're not doing much wrong
All the landlords I know have more than 1 job. My boss is the landlord of 7 rental properties. He also owns a local breakfast diner and his ass is there every Sunday on that grill flipping eggs and bacon with his employees. He also owns a private security business. If one of the guards calls out sick. Its him that covers their shift. And he pays himself for those hours at the same wage he pays the employee hes covering.
My uncle. Owns 2 rental properties. He also runs an electronics recycling business where he loads and hauls E-Waste and he does that and all the manual labor of it by himself.
My old landlord. Young guy about 30. Boughtkmy building from the previous slumlord owner during the pandemic. Dropped 25k putting brand new stairs and decks on the building for safety. During a time where the average going rate on the market for a 1 bedroom apartment was 1100$ he chose to leave all of our rents at 700$ a month because he didn't feel right about screwing people.
I am not a landlord. I have no desire to be a landlord. But not every landlord is a lazy sack of shit.
A lot of people like to think the world is either black or white with no in-between. As someone who works in construction and renovates houses a lot I can confirm that there are definitely good land lords as well as bad ones. My gf rented an appartment from old people before I met her and she paid almost nothing (400 euros all-inn), you can't even get social housing for that here. And the state of maintenance was excellent. Also in the more rural areas here the private rent sector seems to be run by mostly decen people.
Then sometimes we have to renovate ex-student housing and a lot of times those buildings are absolute dumps (to the point where you can barely call them habitable) with insane prices. Especially in the large cities I see some really bad practise. Thankfully a lot of those malicious kind of landlords are put on trial (hence why we start renovating after they sold the property).
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US and tenants have a lot of rights here to the point where landlords are forced to provide a certain standard of living. Unfortunately (foreign) students seem to not know this, this is the reason you mostly see malpractice with students here.
Agree. My mother owns a lot of land in the suburbs of my city. She sold a large amount of land in order to fully pay for my entire undergrad. She could leave her day job right now, but she really likes what she does and thinks of landlording as a side job for her in order for me and my sister to have a comfortable life.
Your boss works one regular day a week and covers the occasional shift for a sick employee, but the rest of his income comes from the labor of his tenants and employees. I'm sure he's a nice guy. I've had nice bosses and landlords. But there's a pretty unequal exchange of labor here. With surgeons and most other high-paid workers, the high wage pays for student loans and years of unpaid student labor.
That's totally fine, just don't light no grill.
there were kind and hard working slave owners too. the institution itself is bad.
realestate is simply the best and safest investment you can make in most of the civilized world today, in the same way that owning land and buying slaves to work it was the best investment 300 years ago.
At the end of the day its just waste. If money spent on housing isnt going towards making more and better housing you end up with a choke in supply that raises the price of housing, which hurts the efficiency of society as a whole .
Maybe if renting is only allowed for the party that built the house, it has to be rent to own, and is only allowed for say, 50 years after its construction. Have building codes to ensure it'll be solid for a long time. With that investing in realestate could be both profitable and societally beneficial.
Sorry, I couldn't hear your pleas from my speedboat. Oh, you were busy working because I set your schedule to work on Labor day? Obviously we're of two different classes of people. /s
Outlaw all landlords
ALAB.
Not everyone wants to buy a property.
No Landlords on Lemmy I imagine
Edit: *greedy. No greedy landlords on Lemmy
I have a few rentals. Only one of them was purchased as a straight up investment. The others were just the places where I used to live. I also have a job. Theaye posts are honestly pretty childish. I rent my places out more or less at cost, and often take applicants who are seen as too risky by most landlords (I basically guarantee my own rentals, because I don't really need the cash flow). I see it more as community service than a revenue stream.
That's why I just think this shit is childish. Almost everyone I rent to is in no position to buy. I guess they'd just be homeless without landlords. I've had people who have literally been turned down 50 times, who were living in their car, and broke down crying when I told them I'd rent to them without a co-signer.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Shame they're in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren't allowed to own a "few" rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a "few" rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.
By "at cost" do you mean they're paying your mortgages and property taxes for you? If so, they could afford to buy if they had a down-payment. They probably don't have a down-payment because all their money goes to rent :)
I don't blame people for being capitalist when living in a capitalist system, but it still sucks. You could try something like a non-predatory form of rent-to-own where they gain equity over time (though these arrangements are usually predatory).
It's super fucked up how people basically are constantly essentially getting taxed more and more for the right to survive. No one should be profiting off basic needs
That being said, the system is fucked up, and if you're mainly using their rents to pay for equity, you're playing by the rules while doing more good than harm. It can still be a win-win, and I think it's ok to feel good about that
Homes shouldn't be an investment vehicle, but they are - you should seek to help fix the broken rules, but it's foolish to just ignore them. Most investments have a similar effect somewhere down the line anyways
But the real question is - are you actually a landlord? Technically yes, but in spirit? If you're not making much of a profit from rent, you're not what people mean when they say landlord. The upper middle class has been dabbling in rental properties for a while, but that's not who the term refers to - it's people who own enough that the rental income is the line item they're keeping track of.
The starting line is like 20-30 units, and it's mostly held by investment groups or families that inherited a town... They're who own most rental properties out there
If you rent out a few places and don't put much thought into adjusting the rent, you're not the problem here. You're not the one we're talking about when we talk about landlords
I guess they’d just be homeless without landlords
See. This is why I don't like landlords.
It's either I'm stuck with some transactional fake as fuck relationship or I'm homeless.
Oh, that is very generous of you! I've edited my comment
Thank you for your service.
It's easy to demonize and dunk on people for being greedy and just removing houses from the market, but as you well have stated, some people are not in a position to buy. So rent becomes the only true and logical solution.
Sure, they could well be down on their luck. But I would also present the case of the immigrant, new to a country (and having moved with a job offer), having no opportunity to sign for a mortgage (no credit history, didn't gather enough work time in the country to provide payslips). And even if they had a suitcase of money just lying around, it takes a bit of time to decide if you want to settle. The best one can hope for is finding a landlord who's not an asshat.
And no, other solutions proposed in the comments probably would not help, since, for instance, communal rentals tend to have long waiting lists or require some sort of reputation (like knowing some of the community) before allowing you to move in.
I wonder why people are in no position to buy, when homes are treated as a source of revenue for corporations and some people. I wonder why people have to jump through hoops to be able to have a roof, if the property are bought as an investment.
Yeah, maybe you aren't lying and not making a profit out people's suffering, but even you should see that it's not the norm, otherwise your benevolence wouldn't be needed at all. The whole system is cruel, and everyone who participates contributes to it, some more than others.
Usually not, I try not to mingle with the...riff raff...who we allow to occupy our homes. And when they forget the manditory tip, whelp out to the streets with you since you can't manage your finances.
Since you can't manage our finances*
Is this a double negative?
Don't light no grill?
I think it's southern slang
Ahh, that makes sense, when i say it out loud it makes more sense, i just don't read slang very much.
Yea, getting Destiny's Child vibes
Pretty sure it was TLC that didn't want no Scrubs. I thought it was a pretty fun show too 🤷
It's not Labour Day, you moron. We already had that earlier in the year.
This isn't about own vs rent, it's about house vs apartment.
Open flames are dangerous and smoke is annoying to neighbors. Condos and coops typically won't let you grill. Some of them have designated grilling areas and those often have restrictions on how you can use them. Even many apartments with fireproof balconies won't allow them because not all the neighbors want a balcony full of smoke.
Every house I've ever rented, allowed grilling. Even the cheapest one, a row-house in Baltimore, let you grill in the back "yard".
The utility land owners provide is absorbing the risk of property value fluctuations and facilitate quicker transfer than buying and selling. But they charge exorbitantly for it.
That pretty low utility when property value has gone vastly up for decades. Id also question what "quick transfer" is, and whether it provides any use at all. Houses buy/sell in days now, as all the transactions have been streamlined between even novice sellers/buyers.
Changing exorbitant profit to poorer people on top of raking in exorbitant profit for taking near zero risk isn't a laudable role in society.
As climate change spins out of control, all land that is still functionally livable will skyrocket in value.
Which is also why, shocker, the mega rich are buying up massive amounts of land in areas least likely to experience the worst of climate change, like Michigan's Upper Peninsula, which has seen lots of influx of the rich buying property for "future-proofing" their life-plans.
Yeah, it's not much utility, but they can charge huge amounts for it because of how much demand there is for little supply. And the supply is kept low by horrible zoning and stigma against poor people and high density housing.
The amount of communists in this thread is simply astonishing. I thought we had accepted the concept of property rights. Why even stop at immovable property and not movable?
The message of an idiot, phrased like an idiot.
This is so true. And of course it gets upvoted because of the hive mind on Lemmy that thinks anyone who owns a small business is somehow bad.
Strawman, definist, equivocation, and appeal to the minority, that was almost impressive.
anyone who owns a small business, instead of running it as a co-operative, has made at least one antisocial decision.
anyone whose "small business" involves potentially making people homeless has made at least one more.
As a landlord I provide homes to people who need them, and in exchange I don’t have to toil away at a job. It’s a fair trade
You don’t “provide” homes, you charge vast somes of money for them
I provide them at barely above market rate, and I do all the work of having people come fix things when they are broken for example.
You hoaed housing and create an environment where people cannot afford to own their own home because of it, during a housing crisis, and you leech off their wages. That's theft and greed.
Because life is that simple. No subtlety at all.
You people are so naive its cringe.
It takes labor to maintain properties.
It's nice you think a landlord maintains their property but I have some bad news for you.
Labor that they (under-)pay someone else to do, using the money that we (over-)paid them for the privilege of paying the mortgage (plus profit) while receiving no ownership in return.
They don’t reside there, they don’t do any work there, and they didn’t even put up the money — the bank did.
To quote Office Space: What would you say you do here?
Only need to do that if there's somewhere else to go. Because of extremely broken zoning, people will need to pay out the nose for tiny falling apart places.
Is there a version of this with proper English? It doesn’t help the plight of the labourer to speak so poorly
What doesn’t help the plight of the labourer is being an elitist pedant.
The message is perfectly clear.There’s a double negative, it isn’t perfectly clear. Why write incorrectly when you can just as easily so don’t light a grill.
Being correct isn’t elitist
Language elitists about me more than most, especially English ones considering the massive mutt that the English language is. There is no proper English just what some think is proper because they have nothing else.
There is no "proper" English, there are only various versions of the original. If you really want to nitpick, American English stayed "truer" to the original English because of various reasons while the British version diverged more over the 18th-19th centuries.
Or in a shorter form, adding a 'u' to make some words sound more...French...is just silly.
just come out and say "with white English" and stop beating around the bush
You thought real hard about how you could use one sentence to let everyone know how white you are.
Congratulations, you've sufficiently annoyed me enough to log in to my local instances to type this out.
There is no ”one” way to speak and write English — we don't have an """official""" institute of our language like Spanish or French does (and even if we did, they would not have a monopoly on English). We don't speak in Received Pronunciation or keep the superfluous 'u' next to every 'o.'
Like every language, English has multiple dialects with their own vocabulary, and even some with their own specific grammar. The sentence in the OP was likely written in one of them - African-American Vernacular English. This dialect codifies double negatives, the habitual be, and words like 'finna.' Many of its aspects are already integrated into 'standard' American English.This is part of the process of language in general. Many of the rules in 'proper form' come from shorthand, slang, and and crude versions of other languages and forms. Being aware of the rules shifting and changing as people shift and change how they speak will probably get you further than turning your nose up at rules you don't recognize.
Double negatives are wrong in all dialects, they could and should have said don’t light A grill. This isn’t difficult.
Oh no you logged in, it's getting real now. 🙄
There's certainly no "one right way", but there also a basis of effective communication. This is context specific.
In this case, the meme obviously reached the target audience and the commenter saying it was unintelligible is wrong.
The tyranny of small differences
It's text on a background. If you can't manage that on your own and share it instead, maybe try not criticizing others prior to asking for favors or favours since you seem to lean that way on your spelling. The post likely helps more than your whining at the very least. Plus your comments are filled with poor grammar. Not sure why you're feeling secure in your throwing stones while living in that glass house.
Beyond this, language isn't moved by what's in a dictionary. Language changes and evolves on its own into "slang," slang being memed by people until it becomes a well known and popular term.
I consider myself to write fairly well, but I also know the absolute strength of language that is imperfect in spreading a message. Some of the memes that gain the most traction are the ones that sound the most "street" as opposed to "academia."
Ignoring this and acting above it is just gatekeeping and elitism.
I had to read it a half dozen times to figure out what it meant. My favorite thought before I realized the use of the double negative was superfluous:
"What's a no grill?"
I guess the Rolling Stones should have their top hits rescinded for double negatives then? It can't be a top hit, it has bad grammar!
Should we rewrite "I can't get no satisfaction" as "I cannot get satisfaction" to remove the double negative and the contraction?
What even is this nonsense. You must be fun at parties.
