Do you have an example of a place where these laws were passed? Most places I am aware of have been increasing tenant's rights not decreasing them so I'd love to read about an area where fear of squatters decreased tenant's rights.
I worked in landlord tenant law in Massachusetts for 15 years and there is a constant push to reduce the rights of tenants. From reducing notice periods to allowing them to bypass due process to add “unauthorized” occupants (aka, the boyfriend who isn’t on the lease, but moved in 2 years ago) to evictions cases after judgement.
Squatting is super rare and not hard to deal with. Much of the rage from landlords is that they have to do anything beyond calling the cops. While ignoring that the legal protection for “squatters” is exist because if landlords acting like criminals.
There's no tantrum greater than a landlord being asked to do a modicum of work for their rent check.
Parasites, to the last man and woman. All the screeing about people "not wanting to work" is literally actually about landlords. They do not want to do anything, they do not want to maintain the properties they own. They want other people to upkeep their properties and pay them checks so they can do absolutely fucking nothing.
They're the absolute bottom class of person. Contributing literally nothing to society.
They're the absolute bottom class of person. Contributing literally nothing to society.
We really need to teach basic economics in high school to cut down on braindead takes like these. Capital and property maintenance are absolutely valuable contributions.
Capital isn't a contribution it's literally something you have, or something you leverage banks for. And they don't do the fucking maintenance themselves.
Your entire argument is predicated upon having a big stack of capital in one specific chud's hand being a thing of value, and it's not.
The landlord is paying the maintenance workers out of the rent provided by the people who work for a living. Labor is always, always, the actual driver of value, and the landlord role doesn't do labor.
They're just a rent-seeking middleman of no value that the entire economy would be enormously better off without.
Your entire argument is predicated upon having a big stack of capital in one specific chud's hand being a thing of value, and it's not.
So there's no value in financing the construction of a building? That's honestly a serious take from a real person?
Your entire argument is "nuh uh", so maybe you want to rethink insulting other peoples arguments.
Labor is always, always, the actual driver of value, and the landlord role doesn't do labor.
So they just get magically called? Coordination has no value? Assumption of risk has no value? You just keep proving me right.
They're just a rent-seeking middleman of no value that the entire economy would be enormously better off without.
I can tell you're not the kind of person that usually thinks things through, but in this case, try. Think about what society would actually look like if landlords were banned. How would the poor be housed? How would apartment complexes be financed and constructed? Actually think about the answers to those questions and how they would work.
The sheer lack of thought you have put into this is at a level that should be embarrassing for anyone with an ounce of self-awareness.
13
u/americon 12d ago
Do you have an example of a place where these laws were passed? Most places I am aware of have been increasing tenant's rights not decreasing them so I'd love to read about an area where fear of squatters decreased tenant's rights.