No, it’s not ok to earn rental income.
deleted by creator
Renting can be a solution for people who aren’t ready for or don’t want home ownership, but the issue arises when boomers hoard properties for the rental income so people who want houses can’t buy them.
Its not a “boomer” issue. Its a rich vs poor issue. The most common age group of people buying up tons of property in order to make it short term rentals are 30-40. Maybe 50. But certainly not over 50.
The short term rentals are especially evil because they take good starter housing stock off the market, reduce long term rental availability, and basically strangle every local economy that they exist in.
Apartments and normal long term rentals are largely owned by corporations at this point also. Not by boomers. Few people rent from an actual person anymore, unless its an airbnb
Its not a “boomer” issue. Its a rich vs poor issue
This, real estate is a form of wealth, and as the distribution of wealth becomes more one sided housing is naturally going to follow it as long as the law enables it to be used as an investment.
People that see nothing wrong with renting properties, will do this shit as well.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1421-T-St-Sacramento-CA-95811/25788682_zpid/
Only if you charge an exorbitant amount to those fuckers. Tack on an extra 5 million a month “holding cell” fee.
Leave it to the New York Times, the “paper of record”, to take these important initial steps to legitimize the world’s most horrid human rights abuses.
Is it okay to make money off prisons and concentration camps?
No.
The argument is that ICE can always find some rich BlackRock-esque real estate holder that doesn’t give af to host the camp instead if the asker terminates the lease, thus from a utilitarian perspective it’s probably more useful to hold the lease and use the money to lobby against ICE.
No.
Well, I see the NYT has certainly evolved with the changing times. Where once it pretended to talk about issues faced by us all it has now apparently retreated to the much more financially-secure world of providing ethical cover for landlords who profit from human suffering. If this is a ‘war on immigration’ these guys are literally war profiteers. Definitely ‘speaking for the people’ there, NYT. No, in case you were wondering, the word ‘rich’ does not in fact belong inside those quotes.
Removed by mod
All the links are dead.
The (presumably) bot that posted it is now extremely banned from the community.
This looks like it was written by AI.
You weren’t kidding. The headlines and links certainly look real. Damn
Oh I’m well aware that this is not new, they’ve just taken shilling for the elite in the guise of being ‘about the people’ to new heights with this one.
I’ll never understand people who apply an extra layer of bold to headings
Isn’t that what the Ethicist column always has been? Philosophy has even historically been a bourgeois subject. (I don’t think people usually put Marxism in philosophy classes.)
Also, I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
First I couldn’t read the full article because I don’t subscribe to the NYT, but…
I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
It’s providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one’s ill-gotten gains to ‘good causes’ somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
It does not.
If you redirect it all, it’s not a tiny portion.
I was speaking more broadly about billionaires giving a tiny portion of their wealth away, not this specific example.
NO!
Hell no.
kind of ??
Why?
unambiguously evi|
