Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)
FDR also said there should be no public sector unions or collective bargaining. FDR also presided over the launch of the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.
Clearly you have no idea how the real world works. You honestly think that taxes and expenses only raise for the renter?
In any case, it doesn't matter. Rents are not determined by how much the landlord stands to make. It's determined by supply and demand. If you can't understand that concept, you can look it up.
Go back and read it again. I said if the taxes remain the same, nothing has changed for you the owner to offset your rent to pay for these fees, what other reason do you have to raise the rents? O the demand excuse. Their will always be demand for housing, just like oil, water, power. the demand will never go away. Then o the supply. You can build more houses, oil wells, water lines, power plants, but then you have to increase the rent to pay for these new things as you got other bills to pay them off. You can have a town with 400 houses and have 200 people in it, and those empty houses will still "demand" the same rent as the other 200 are going now. Yes you can lower to attract more people, but they realized your too far out of town. It happens, and you know it. Where I live now, they have empty houses all over the place due to military deployments happening ,and all those empty houses are still "demanding" same rental fees as houses that are full. Do you think the LL will lower his rent to keep his tenants from leaving?
First of all you don't need to work 100 hours a week -- get a roommate to share the costs.
And when one roommate is not enough, get another, and another, and fill the entire apartment up with bunk beds, dormitory style. Because it doesn't matter how miserable your life is, as long as you make your landlord as rich as humanly possible. Just be a good peasant.
Anyway in most cities people already have roomates, and they are still working two or three jobs to pay for the rent.
He didn't have a job, and was in his 30s. Did you keep up with the story? Had he been working his family would have been fine with him living there.Cut the upper management salaries, some of these people have worked years to get where they are, they have put thousands of $$s into their education and you think it is ok to take from the rich and give to the poor. It doesn't work that way, but if you want to live in some other country maybe it would. You talk about a $ an hour more, that would still not make it possible for many people to live without a huge struggle. You mention the unemployment rate would go down if there was no min wage. Do you realize how low it is now?
Let me qualify my feelings. I am retired, and we live on a small retirement plus SS. My husband, at 81 still has a small pet sitting business to help us make ends meet. There was a time when we did have a pretty good life, but we didn't invest wisely and now we are paying for it. I do not resent those who have more than we do, they earned it. I might add when much younger I worked for min wage several times, so did hubby. We were young college kids or still in high school and that is what we were worth.
And when one roommate is not enough, get another, and another, and fill the entire apartment up with bunk beds, dormitory style. Because it doesn't matter how miserable your life is, as long as you make your landlord as rich as humanly possible. Just be a good peasant.
and then they complain about too many people living in one house.
In a country where it's basically illegal to be homeless. Try to set up camp somewhere and you will find out. I've never been homeless, but I wish something could be done, at the same time there are drug addicts who don't want to do anything but drugs.
Go back and read it again. I said if the taxes remain the same, nothing has changed for you the owner to offset your rent to pay for these fees, what other reason do you have to raise the rents? O the demand excuse. Their will always be demand for housing, just like oil, water, power. the demand will never go away. Then o the supply. You can build more houses, oil wells, water lines, power plants, but then you have to increase the rent to pay for these new things as you got other bills to pay them off. You can have a town with 400 houses and have 200 people in it, and those empty houses will still "demand" the same rent as the other 200 are going now. Yes you can lower to attract more people, but they realized your too far out of town. It happens, and you know it. Where I live now, they have empty houses all over the place due to military deployments happening ,and all those empty houses are still "demanding" same rental fees as houses that are full. Do you think the LL will lower his rent to keep his tenants from leaving?
Were getting off topic here..
It’s not just taxes that are an expense .
There are utilities , maintenance, lawyer fees , insurance etc
None of these stay the same forever .
It’s a mistake and a poor way to run a business to keep the rent the same forever .
The landlord has no legal or moral obligation to provide cheap rent.
Most properties in my city won’t even cash flow because rents are lower than the mortgage cost .
Only way people are able to make Money on these if they bought years ago and held .
Holding an asset takes patience and effort too .
Owning rental property isn’t as easy as some make it seem and it can be very stressful .
If a CEO cant live off 5 mill bring home but votes NO on the window washer asking for a bump in wage to pay for the higher rent fee or cost of food then that is the issue needs to be looked at. Mean while he votes yes for another 5mil so he can buy another summer house in the villas. That being greedy.
Go back and read it again. I said if the taxes remain the same, nothing has changed for you the owner to offset your rent to pay for these fees, what other reason do you have to raise the rents? O the demand excuse. Their will always be demand for housing, just like oil, water, power. the demand will never go away. Then o the supply. You can build more houses, oil wells, water lines, power plants, but then you have to increase the rent to pay for these new things as you got other bills to pay them off. You can have a town with 400 houses and have 200 people in it, and those empty houses will still "demand" the same rent as the other 200 are going now. Yes you can lower to attract more people, but they realized your too far out of town. It happens, and you know it. Where I live now, they have empty houses all over the place due to military deployments happening ,and all those empty houses are still "demanding" same rental fees as houses that are full. Do you think the LL will lower his rent to keep his tenants from leaving?
Were getting off topic here..
If taxes remain the same. Ha Well guess what - they don't.
And while you hate the idea of it, the reason you raise rents IS supply and demand. Even if taxes don't raise.
Didnt one person try living with family and got kicked out and taken to court? Times has changed since it was introduce and honestly needs to be freshen to todays standards of living. If they kill the min wage laws, you will see a huge, HUGE drop in unemployment and huge jump in profits in the already monopolies companies we have now. You can profit so much then you got to invest it in your people, because sitting on 12 billion a year after all your bills are paid doesnt do anything to the economy. If every major fortune 500 company would cut the CEO/COO salary in half, they would have enough money to pay each of their employers a dollar more per hour and not hurt their bottom line. Heck, could even give them a 2$ increase and not sweat it with the shareholders. Why is they vote and always approve increase in their(CEO.COO,directors) salary, but will sht on those that need it the most ( employees)
Giving each employee a $2/hr raise is $2 x 40 hrs/week x 50 wks/yr x 53,586 employees/company = $214,344,000 additional employee compensation per year for a Fortune 500 company. Cutting the CEO's and COO's pay in half wouldn't even come close to providing that employee raise, or even a $1/hr raise for the average Fortune 500 company.
Your argument ignores that fact that employee compensation is determined largely by market supply and demand and is not directly linked to the compensation of the CEO.
No need in arguing with people who made money and are hypocrites because they got theirs and they don't care about anyone else.
Last edited by toosie; 06-16-2018 at 10:05 AM..
Reason: Deleted partisan bashing
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
