this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
816 points (98.2% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

584 readers
24 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 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 100 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 84 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Well you can never rule out arson

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Capitalism eating itself, rich people now homeless and can't afford new homes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

I think it’s marketed to people who had a home and lost it.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 71 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

[–] nalinna@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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.

[–] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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)
[–] Webster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (20 children)

First house I bought was a duplex because it let me afford the mortgage. I bought a 110 year old home in disrepair and spent years of hundreds of hours and tons of my money slowly fixing up the place. I proactively do maintainence, I charge slightly below market rents, and my renters know me on a first name basis and call me for random things unrelated to the house and I'm happy to help. I respond within hours of any request, even if just to let them know when I'm off work to come fix whatever is going on.

Half the homes on my street are now owned by a single person who is trying to buy me out. He's okay, but the homes aren't super well maintained and he does his best to juice profits by cutting a few corners. He probably owns a few dozen homes. He's driving up rents through a mini local monopoly in a niche in demand area.

I compared my return on my investment to what I would have gotten if I just put the money in stocks, and the main reason it looks okay is only because the value of the houses have been driven up by these corporate investments.

I empathize so much with the frustrations with landlords here (and damn do I hate the term), but I don't see a real bridge to dealing with the problem that doesn't squeeze out people like me trying to do it right by the renters and force these properties into the hands of the corporations. Not a single person who has lived in my duplex since I bought it can afford to buy me out for what I've got in it, let alone what I could get on the open market. They've all enjoyed living there and the updates I've made, and most of them were in town for only a few years before moving (graduate students/young professionals).

Mostly just a vent. I get why people like me get demonized on here, but it's pushing out those of us trying to do it better than the rest. I've debated selling for awhile, but the next person won't be as good to the community in all likelihood. And none of the renters have been interested.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My private landlord never did any of that.

Mine did. 22% increase in the two years after the pandemic.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Damn, that sucks. Did you move?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

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)
[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 40 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Did you really just say don't hate the player hate the game

[–] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I have room in my heart to hate both

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We can enjoy hating the player, but hating the game allows for change.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Prime_Minister_Keyes@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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)
[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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)
[–] spicehoarder@lemm.ee 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Just build more houses and more multi-use buildings. Proper planning can solve this.

[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Don't we also need some regulation that prevents landlords from buying any new housing capacity that is created?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

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)
[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I thought for a second this was the price to buy, that's how fucked the market is.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Flipper@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

...... right....?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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."

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Granted, landlords insurance pays for a new building and lost rent. Now renting it for even more money.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

This is why Luigi must be acquitted.

[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Wow I'm quite surprised the fires haven't affected that unit in particular

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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)
[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (11 children)

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)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

How much you bet once those homes are rebuilt, it'll stay like this?

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

You remembering them will not inconvenience or affect them at all.

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›