• burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They raise the rent either way. If minimum wage was indexed to inflation since 1960’s it would be over 25 dollars.

    20$ is still way too low. Workers produce more now than ever but get paid less than they did in the 60’s.

    • gowan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The excuse given is that automation has provided almost all of that increase so we should sociopathically not raise wages because we’re sociopaths.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      How can they raise the rent beyond what people are able and willing to pay?

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          45
          ·
          1 year ago

          But like, how can they milk us for more than we’re able to give?

          Yeah, you can charge $100 billion for a studio apartment, but nobody is going to buy it.

          The same logic is at play for raising rent. You can’t raise it beyond what people can pay, or else you’ll lose customers and make less money overall.

          Not sure why this needs to be explained to you. You think they’re refusing to charge $100 billion for a studio apartment out of the goodness of their hearts? Lol. No. It’s market forces.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            The real answer that no one is giving you is this:

            Aggregate demand for housing in the area is through the roof, which is why prices are actually rising. If you move out because you can’t pay, there will literally be hundreds, or more, people lined up who can - this incentivizes raising the price because the market can clearly handle it.

          • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            But like, how can they milk us for more than we’re able to give?

            The logic of the market is that if there’s anyone in the market that can afford it, whether or not you can’t isn’t their problem, it’s yours.

            This is one of the basic reasons why wide income inequality is a problem- when the going housing market rate is a measure of what the wealthy people in that market can bear, it creates serious problems for everyone else. For example, the median home in Seattle lists at $800k and that’s not a measure of what the median earner can afford, it’s a measure of what Blackrock is willing to pay to outbid folks earning in the $250k/yr range.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              35
              ·
              1 year ago

              You still don’t understand, lol.

              Even if people were relying on credit cards to pay, there’s still a limit that landlords would have to price around.

              My god. This is why this generation sucks with money, lol. Most of you don’t have a clue what’s going on yet think you’re being clever.

              Ahh well.

                • bobman@unilem.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well… if you look at this comment chain you’ll get an idea of how bad it is lol.

                  • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Like someone not understanding that minimum wage workers not being able to afford to live where they work is different than ANYONE being able to live there?

                    Weird.

                    “I took micro economics and I think I’m smarter than everyone cuz I’ve never heard macroeconomics exists.”

              • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I’m incredibly confused here. You are talking first week of Econ 101 stuff here and people somehow think your points are debatable? Jesus.

                • Gabu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  From the looks of it, you ONLY have the knowledge of said “first week of economy 101”.

              • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                People will pay whatever it takes to not be homeless. If that means 75% of my paycheck is going to a shitty apartment, then i have to take on more debt to afford things like food. Landlords will continue to squeeze until something breaks.

      • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People are debating you because you’re operating under a different definition of “able to pay”. Yes technically they can’t get blood from a stone. If I make $100 dollars a month they can’t charge me $101 for rent or I can’t live there. But under the “30%” rule I shouldn’t pay more than $30 in rent, the theory being that I need the additional $70 dollars a month for utilities, food, gas etc and in theory I still have some left over for savings, incidentals, etc.If all the landlords in my area are charging $50 in rent for a studio I can technically pay that, but somethings taking a hit in my budget and it probably won’t be utilities (running water), food (got to eat), or gas (gotta get to work) so it’ll be my savings, incidentals, etc funds. Now I have no savings and can’t pay an emergency expense like a flat tire because that extra $20 a month I could have saved went to my rent because I could “technically pay it.”

        The way your comment is worded makes it sound like you probably think living check to check is a personal choice because someone didn’t want to tug on their boot straps hard enough. Should the market adjust if people dont want to pay a certain amount in rent? In theory, yes. The reason rent is skewed away from the consumer in a traditional market adjustment is that people need a place to live. So theyll keep paying till they literally can’t and become homeless. If we were talking about the cost of luxury items then the market adjustment would be much quicker because people can afford not to buy parrot petting poles but it’s harder to just quit buying it when its food or rent and that makes it ripe for abuse.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          The way your comment is worded makes it sound like you probably think living check to check is a personal choice because someone didn’t want to tug on their boot straps hard enough.

          I have no idea where you guys are getting this from.

          My point is simple, but I feel like the downvotes had their snowball effect and people who can’t think for themselves are doing mental gymnastics to fit in with the crowd.

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Holy shit dude. Literally everyone is telling you you’re wrong, some nicer people are even taking time to politely explain why you’re meeting so much resistance to your opinion. And you’re just shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming NAH NAH NAH I can’t hear you GROUPTHINK DOWNVOTES ME RIGHT YOU WRONG.

            Its fucking exhausting trying to help people like you. Why anyone tries is beyond me. Enjoy your inability to think critically and assurance of your correctness. Don’t fucking bother replying

      • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They don’t?

        Existing tenants priced out will choose not to renew their leases or default. That rids them of anyone not able.

        Then they can set the rent as high as they’d like, because there’s s no shortage of venture capitalist vampires that’ll pay way over market for an apartment if they think they can make money off it. They’ll pull perfectly good housing stock off the market so some shady LLC or foreign national can continue to treat real estate like securities, or even just sit on it, vacant.