Ah yes because it's not the landlords it's the slumlords
Because there's a difference /s
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
636 points (100.0% liked)
196
18046 readers
1179 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One exploits the poor
The other exploits the middle class
there is no lower class or middle class or upper class there's only working class and ruling class.
There is still a massive difference between poor people living in slums and people with comfortable, but not ridiculously high income living in a better area.
This is true, but only if you leave out the upper band of the comparison range.
It's like saying that there's a massive difference between the size of a rice grain and the size of a loaf of bread, but leave out the literal planet in comparison.
But there's a continuum of varying degrees of passive income royalty between the two.
Any minute now the study on whether or not rocks are hard is coming out too. Big week in science.
There are bendy rocks, there aren't moral landlords.
Slumlords exploit the poor who live in slums, landlords exploit the middle class who live in slightly better buildings
No true landlord would exploit the renter.
Those are slumlords. Which are mostly Scotsmen.
There's the reason they call them BIG think. Truly next level.
But seriously is the study actually any good? Or the article?
Water is wet, new study finds
no fucking way
That is some crazy big thinking there, bud.
Someone is a landlord and doesn't like to think about the exploitative nature of rent-seeking, and is feeling guilty about it.