Polonius wrote: Being a small time landlord won't make you rich, but it is probably the most reliable, high return investment you can make.
I just wanted to say actually Pol, since I didn't comment earlier; that your post a little ways back was a pretty good one. Nobody else has mentioned it, and good forum contributions deserve acknowledgement.
thanks! All of those business and tax classes come in handy at times.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Also, a strawman is apparently one of the concepts that people struggle with...
Apparently you missed the part of this discussion where there are people who literally stated that it's too hard to make their own food.
That's not a straw man. That's pointing out obvious incompetence. This is why I don't believe these 'people' deserve my help. If you're too incompetent to manage your finances, get something that isn't fast food and learn to make food, etc.- perhaps you should be locked in a care facility. With orderlies that strike you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: If that were true, the landlords would be begging to offload the properties to their tenants at cut-price rates. You know, to absolve themselves of the massive financial burden of owning the house.
If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.
Someone should tell all these property owners that.
If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.
Someone should tell all these property owners that.
I never said woe is me, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I' m pretty happy that I'm a property owner. I want to make sure my families future is safe.
I apologise if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here; but it really sounds to me like you're trying to make being a landlord sound like this massively onerous task and risky investment for poor return.
When in reality, assuming you're not a mug charging well below market rent, have tenants from hell, or buy an absolute dump? It's easy money. The whole point of being a landlord, the whole reason that you and absolutely everyone else do it, is for the explicit purpose of leeching a large chunk of someone else's income away for little effort whilst building up a high value long term investment portfolio (aka property).
I mean, heck, you don't even have to rent. Property value goes up so fast here in London that people buy it as an investment choice on the assumption that just the net value of the property will increase faster than the equivalent value in investment fund interest. Hence all the empty 'luxury' flats. Which means that rental income in places like London is literally just the small cherry on the icing.
I'm just saying that it's not a money pot or income for me at all. I have to work hard to keep it functioning correctly.
Did you hear me saying how my girlfriend's parents did zero work bar a new carpet on a flat for the last twenty something years? Yet they were raking in over ten grand a year for that flat. Given they bought it for £25,000 back in '96, they've not only paid it off several times over, they now have an asset worth in the region of £400,000 for virtually no effort.
You may well be a more conscientous landlord than them, but the truth is, you work as hard as you want to as a landlord (assuming the basics are covered - heating, double glazing, etc), If you don't want to do any work at all, you just give it to an estate agent. You get less money, but then you really don't have to do any work for it!
So let's say you've taken my property, and all the others previously rented out, then what? Who's going to own them? You've said yourself the people who are renting most likely have poor credit and or not enough income to get mortgages, so how are they going to afford the houses? They're not suddenly going to be affordable to the unqualified school leaver working in JD sports.
Hey, I never claimed to have a solution. I'm just contesting the idea you seem to be pushing that it's hard work from the sweat on your brow for well-earned small potatoes. When in reality, you've decided to leverage your good financial standing to leech off people in less good financial positions to make your position even better still.
I know it sounds pretty morally loaded and offensive like that, but I'm honestly promise I'm not judging negatively you for it. Everyone does it, and you're just trying to (quite fairly) provide a reliable income stream for you and yours. It's just the system we all live in, unfortunately. It's the government's job to create new housing stock and thus make sure that the people at the bottom aren't too disadvantaged; not yours.
Not at all. I'm just making the point that landlords/property managers aren't all these leeches sucking up money from poor people, who deserve to be punished with higher taxes, purely for possessing wealth to own property.
I agree that something needs to be done about housing, it should be easier for folks to own homes, but that should come more from an increase in income, rather than forcing property prices down by attempting to penalise property owners.
Seems like a UK thing. I don't worry about the laws in countries that we defeated (MURICA! )
Also, "Land". Not buildings. Land is where you come into the problems.
You'll observe similar trends in places like Hong Kong. Not to mention that the above reports have freehold as frequently as leasehold (which incorporates the land).
I think we can broadly agree however that your blanket statement about 'people who own property know to offload it, lease it, or rent it' is inaccurate. Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's the case, but not so much here in the UK or anywhere else with an overheated property market.
Ketara wrote: I think we can broadly agree however that your blanket statement about 'people who own property know to offload it, lease it, or rent it' is inaccurate. Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's the case, but not so much here in the UK or anywhere else with an overheated property market.
Inheritance tax, land tax... if you're not generating revenue with your properties in the US... they ruin you. That's just the way it is. A whopping 40% inheritance tax from my grandfather's land, and property taxes each year were barely covered by leasing the land to grow wheat and corn.
Not at all. I'm just making the point that landlords/property managers aren't all these leeches sucking up money from poor people, who deserve to be punished with higher taxes, purely for possessing wealth to own property.
By all means, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm going on the attack against you. I'm really not. I know that words like 'leeching' and 'parasitic' sound really morally loaded and awful, but I'm honestly not trying to deploy them in a judgemental/nasty context. It's just my describing the way the market forces at play interact.
I agree that something needs to be done about housing, it should be easier for folks to own homes, but that should come more from an increase in income, rather than forcing property prices down by attempting to penalise property owners.
I think that something like that could be tried, but the cat is well out of the bag. The bigger operators will just work on economy of scale, soak up all the properties dropped by smaller freeholders like yourself, and the rents will remain high.
Plus, to be honest, small-time landlords with a few properties aren't really the problem. You've worked hard to get where you are. The problem is what happens when it jumps a few generations down and really concretes the wealth into 'haves' and 'have nots'.
To hammer it home to me, I come from poor mining stock, whilst my girlfriend is upper middle class and her parents have a stock and property portfolio. She'll inherit everything you've worked so hard for with little effort one day. I'm quite fiscally prudent, as is she. If we ever have kids, they'll probably inherit a portfolio from us three times the size. They'll never have to work a day if they don't want to. Jump it another generation or two like that and my descendants will be rolling in it; whilst my brothers kids will probably still be just as poor as the rest of my family is now.
That's the real issue with the property market being how it is. It's really, really, really locking in generational inequality.
It's not feasible as I've already said. Redistribution of wealth does not work, without massive government intervention.
You've claimed it's not feasible, with fallacious anecdotes as evidence.
I never claimed a connection between my examples and the ineffectiveness of redistribution of wealth, but I don't think we can really discuss that without delving completely into the P word, which we've flirted dangerously close to already under a sheen of economics.
Land is, quite literally, a finite resource. And there are many more things that can be done with land now than even 3 decades ago. Much more demand for that property.
With a higher demand for a finite resource, there's a higher price tag attached to it.
It's not going to get any easier to own a home or plot of land.
To hammer it home to me, I come from poor mining stock, whilst my girlfriend is upper middle class and her parents have a stock and property portfolio. She'll inherit everything you've worked so hard for with little effort one day. I'm quite fiscally prudent, as is she. If we ever have kids, they'll probably inherit a portfolio from us three times the size. They'll never have to work a day if they don't want to. Jump it another generation or two like that and my descendants will be rolling in it; whilst my brothers kids will probably still be just as poor as the rest of my family is now.
That's the real issue with the property market being how it is. It's really, really, really locking in generational inequality.
It's cool, I'm all about civil dialogue, particularly with those of differing viewpoints!
But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.
The concept of "working hard to acquire things for my descendants" is often lost on some people.
Many of them also fail to realize that if you don't utilize things you inherit (which is work itself), you quickly lose your inheritance.
But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.
Well, 'throwing them into the pot for redistribution' is quite literally the basic concept behind inheritance tax. Laws are only really just starting to catch up with modern developments though. They've unbent enough to raise the cap and make sure kids don't need to sell the family home. But at the same time, the real upper end of the market is untouched. It's no mistake the same noble families still own vast chunks of our country. Everything just gets thrown into offshore companies and trusts once you reach a certain point, and inheritance ceases to apply. That's what really needs to be locked down.
The day the likes of Duke Richard Scott don't get to hand the keys to 217,000 acres to the next generation will be the day inheritance taxation actually works.
But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.
Well, 'throwing them into the pot for redistribution' is quite literally the basic concept behind inheritance tax. Laws are only really just starting to catch up with modern developments though. They've unbent enough to raise the cap and make sure kids don't need to sell the family home. But at the same time, the real upper end of the market is untouched. It's no mistake the same noble families still own vast chunks of our country. Everything just gets thrown into offshore companies and trusts once you reach a certain point, and inheritance ceases to apply. That's what really needs to be locked down.
The day the likes of Duke Richard Scott don't get to hand the keys to 217,000 acres to the next generation will be the day inheritance taxation actually works.
Seems like you should have dodoed the nobles a long time ago.
Has worked for us
Polonius wrote: I don't know the specifics in the UK, but owning rental properties is one of the great ways in the US to build generational wealth. Not tons, and the margins get thinner the less of the work you can do yourself, but the tax code is so favorable to landlords its damn near a subsidy.
So, the way to do it is find a property in an area where people want to rent. This could be near a university, in a densely populated area, near a mass transit hub, or anywhere you have a short term population. buy the house, taking on debt to better leverage your down payment.
so, going into this, you have a loan, with interest, to repay, along with property taxes, insurance, and repairs/maintenance. You also need to find tenants, and occasionally evict tenants. You have expenses, in other words.
Now, unless you are incredibly bad at business, you will be making money. Even if you use a rental company to actually manage the property, gross rents will exceed gross costs by a pretty healthy margin. (For fun, look at monthly rents vs. property costs in any neighborhood. Do the math and you'll see that there's meat on that bone.)
Now, where does the magic come in? Depreciation! So, lets say you end up earning some money after paying all of your expenses. Now you have to pay taxes... except you also get to "write off" a percentage of the purchase price of the property each year to account for the loss of useful life. It gets complicated (buildings can be depreciated, but not land), but essentially you can deduct 3.8% of the purchase price of the property every year as an expense, which helps shield you from paying taxes.
The downside of depereciated a long term asset like a building is that when you sell it, you subtract all depreciation from what you paid to determine any profit. so if you hold a building for 15 years (half the usual depreceation life) after paying $200,000, then when you sell it, your taxable profit is based on you spending $100k, not $200k. So if you sell after 15 years for $250k, you have a taxable profit of $150k.
But wait! There is one more great trick in the tax code. If you inherit property, you no longer look to the purchase price to calculate profit, but rather the fair market value at the time of inheritance. So if you father bought a rental property for $100k, took 30 years of depreciation against his income, and hten dies, leaving it to you, you can either 1) sell it with no taxable profit, or 2) lease it out again, with the ability to depreciate it for 30 more years!
At it's most extreme, a family can buy a rental property, pay minimal taxes on the income, and leave a much more expensive property to their children, all without ever paying income taxes on the increase in that property.
In addition, if your location remains un-rented, you can deduct money off your taxes as lost income to a certain amount that varies by jurisdiction. Therefore, by using the right balance of rented and unrented property you can really game the tax system on any other income you make!
I have seen it in action so many times where a out of the area landlord, keeps a vacant building in a struggling, small town downtown, and asks ridiculous rent for a beat up old property. There is no one stupid enough to rent it, so they then right off a significant loss and eliminate tax burden elsewhere. Small towns have a real hard time with this, and they try to make up the losses this crap hole causes to the city by pressuring all the actual owners of buildings that live in the area. Thereby, allowing the local actual business owners to subsidize the tax write-off of some investor from god knows where instead!
Main street vs. Wall Street at its most fundamental. Main street is losing.
It's not feasible as I've already said. Redistribution of wealth does not work, without massive government intervention.
You've claimed it's not feasible, with fallacious anecdotes as evidence.
I never claimed a connection between my examples and the ineffectiveness of redistribution of wealth, but I don't think we can really discuss that without delving completely into the P word, which we've flirted dangerously close to already under a sheen of economics.
Fair enough. Can you clarify why a £1-200 tax-deductible fee once a year, if that, would put you and thousands of other landlords out of business and force you to sell up?
If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.
Someone should tell all these property owners that.
Seems like a UK thing. I don't worry about the laws in countries that we defeated (MURICA! )
You're not much keen on evidence from your own country either. Did you find many examples of 1960s $20k homes that now cost 144k or are we ready to concede that housing costs have massively outstripped wages?
Ketara wrote: I think we can broadly agree however that your blanket statement about 'people who own property know to offload it, lease it, or rent it' is inaccurate. Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's the case, but not so much here in the UK or anywhere else with an overheated property market.
Inheritance tax, land tax... if you're not generating revenue with your properties in the US... they ruin you. That's just the way it is. A whopping 40% inheritance tax from my grandfather's land, and property taxes each year were barely covered by leasing the land to grow wheat and corn.
I don't really know what to say about some European or Asian slumlord's buildings, or how he generates revenue, or what additional revenues they're pulling in to cover it.
Inheritance tax is for the vast majority of people 0. You have to have an estate worth in the millions of dollars to pay any inheritance taxes and only the amount over the multi-million dollar threshhold is taxed.
Polonius wrote: Being a small time landlord won't make you rich, but it is probably the most reliable, high return investment you can make.
It is a good investment but it is also work. You are providing upkeep and repairs on that property, and also finding/vetting tenants. And if you get a bad tenant, it can be a huge pain. Really hard to get someone evicted even if they aren't paying you. The law is very much on the side of protecting the renter. So you can end up with people not paying for a long time before you can get them kicked out, and you'll never get that money back, or money for any damages they might have done. Especially if they managed to lie about their identity. So it is work, and it has risks, and it provides a valuable thing for someone who wants to live in a house but doesn't want to do the upkeep or have the long term commitment. So I can't bring myself to be mad at people who go that route.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Yeah, I mean, you've got almost everything way better. To complain that house prices have gone up in places that have grown tremendously in the last 50 years just sounds like whining.
And our life expectancy isn't much different than Germany's, even though we have a much higher obesity rate. Maybe that is somewhat an issue with the healthcare system. Doctors should probably more often be telling people to eat better an exercise more instead of prescribing them more medication and doing more procedures. But is that because they are trying to get more money out of people, or are they giving people what they want? Ultimately your health, like most things, is always going to be your own responsibility.
I think part of it is the fear or hurting people's feelings these days. If someone gets told to exercise more or eat better by their doctor, they post a video complaining about how they were 'shamed' and that the doc didn't take them seriously.
It could possibly be a financial issue too, but we have the same here, and we have a socialised healthcare system.
I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.
Well, I don't want to get into politics, but I personally don't think it's the government's place to incentivise healthy lifestyle, though I guess if I lived in the UK and healthcare was government funded, I may think differently because you're spending everyone's money on to treat people who aren't taking care of themselves. That alone seems to me like a good argument against a socialized healthcare system which then gives the government an excuse to make further decisions about what you do with your life. But you shouldn't have to incentivise people to be healthy, being healthy is the incentive. Though I'm fine with government providing education on what healthy eating is and encouraging exercise and that sort of thing. But even then, they often mess it up. When I was a kid they were all about the food pyramid, which informed what we all ate in school. And that said we should mostly be eating lots of bread. And telling us that eggs were unhealthy.
Fair enough. Can you clarify why a £1-200 tax-deductible fee once a year, if that, would put you and thousands of other landlords out of business and force you to sell up?
Not sure where you're getting that from. My property currently generates 1200 pa in council tax, which I would have to pay under those plans.
Plus the absurd notion that I couldn't evict people for 3 years.. I'll pass thanks.
Fair enough. Can you clarify why a £1-200 tax-deductible fee once a year, if that, would put you and thousands of other landlords out of business and force you to sell up?
Not sure where you're getting that from.
You repeatedly saying that the Labour plan would force vast numbers of landlords to sell up (and then force the state to buy all the properties, for some reason?). That's the only cost. The renters charter was only protection from unfair eviction, rent rises capped at inflation, and the property MOT. If that extra small costs means you no longer get to have someone else pay several hundred pounds a month into your savings account, well hard lines, but it's not likely. Absolute worse case scenario (if your property is as well kept as you claim) you only make £1000 profit a year in addition to having a mortgage paid for you.
My property currently generates 1200 pa in council tax, which I would have to pay under those plans.
The landlord council tax was in a policy proposal document (from Monbiot et al 2019) and was not in the Labour manifesto.
Plus the absurd notion that I couldn't evict people for 3 years.. I'll pass thanks.
Yes, if I want to remove tenants from my property why shouldn't I be allowed to? What happens if my situation changes and I need to sell? Maybe someone in my family or friends has an emergency and needs housing. They're going to get prioritised over the general public.
I hate to keep beating this drum, but I don't make 1k a year in profit. After insurance, income tax and repairs I'm lucky to strike even.
Read land for the many. It proposes a 'progressive property' tax, which would replace council tax and be footed by the owner, not the tenant.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yes, if I want to remove tenants from my property why shouldn't I be allowed to? What happens if my situation changes and I need to sell? Maybe someone in my family or friends has an emergency and needs housing. They're going to get prioritised over the general public.
Because the price you pay for getting a massive interest free savings account should be not being an donkey-cave to the people paying into it for you. And you know what? Even if it stopped you breaking even. Tough. You might effectively have to pay a mortgage of a few pounds a month? For a property that's just sitting gaining value? What a disaster!
I hate to keep beating this drum, but I don't make 1k a year in profit. After insurance, income tax and repairs I'm lucky to strike even.
You literally stated earlier in the thread that you make about £100 a month after outgoings.
EDIT: you said after fees but not repairs, my error.
Read land for the many. It proposes a 'progressive property' tax, which would replace council tax and be footed by the owner, not the tenant.
Land for the many is Monbiot et al 2019. It is a policy proposal document containing recommendations made to Labour. It is not a Labour manifesto.
skyth wrote: Inheritance tax is for the vast majority of people 0. You have to have an estate worth in the millions of dollars to pay any inheritance taxes and only the amount over the multi-million dollar threshhold is taxed.
You aren't well aware of the value of land, especially farmable land close to both a river and with lakefront areas...
Sounds like a great thing to inherit in your 30's, then you realize it's like a second job to just have the damned thing leased properly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: Because the price you pay for getting a massive interest free savings account should be not being an donkey-cave to the people paying into it for you. And you know what? Even if it stopped you breaking even. Tough. You might effectively have to pay a mortgage of a few pounds a month? For a property that's just sitting gaining value? What a disaster!
No one is entitled to your property, whether squatting on it or using it.
In most sane places, you can give someone 30 days to evict the premises. After that, they are trespassing. And in most places, a trespasser can be removed by authorities- and if need be, the threat of force... and if they present a threat- can be dealt with using force- as long as it is proportional to the threat.
This is perfectly fine, as no one has any right to your property. If they don't like it, tough.
nfe wrote: Because the price you pay for getting a massive interest free savings account should be not being an donkey-cave to the people paying into it for you. And you know what? Even if it stopped you breaking even. Tough. You might effectively have to pay a mortgage of a few pounds a month? For a property that's just sitting gaining value? What a disaster!
No one is entitled to your property,
I fully agree. Once you ask someone to pay you to live in it and make it their home in exchange for giving you a free property in the future, however, you have obligations to them.
How's that list of homes that have appreciated only in line with wages going?
nfe wrote: I fully agree. Once you ask someone to pay you to live in it and make it their home in exchange for giving you a free property in the future, however, you have obligations to them.
And this is why we have contracts. Have you ever seen one of those?
"Free". You must not know what this is, either.
nfe wrote: How's that list of homes that have appreciated only in line with wages going?
I'm sorry, was I tasked with something? I must have missed your request.
EDIT: It's also entirely possible I didn't care enough to indulge you. If you're determined to win an argument, then how about you do your own work and bring the data?
Because population, requirements and demand for property/land, etc. have been the exact same since the 1950's.
nfe wrote: I fully agree. Once you ask someone to pay you to live in it and make it their home in exchange for giving you a free property in the future, however, you have obligations to them.
And this is why we have contracts. Have you ever seen one of those?
"Free". You must not know what this is, either.
Err yes. You'll be aware I'm sure that contracts in most territories are subject to regulations. The premise was to add further regulation to protect already exploited people. I've no doubt that you find protecting exploited people to be contemptuous state interference, though, so you can probably withdraw from that conversation. I don't get the feeling that queen_anne's_revenge thinks regulation is fundamentally problematic so there's actually a viable dialogue there.
nfe wrote: How's that list of homes that have appreciated only in line with wages going?
I'm sorry, was I tasked with something? I must have missed your request. I tend to skim over irrelevant whinging.
I asked you to demonstrate the baseless assertions you kept making when presented with evidence, yes. Obviously you can't and know yourself to be wrong, but I'm well aware no retraction is ever coming. Don't fret.
nfe wrote: Err yes. You'll be aware I'm sure that contracts in most territories are subject to regulations. The premise was to add further regulation to protect already exploited people. I've no doubt that you find protecting exploited people to be contemptuous state interference, though, so you can probably withdraw from that conversation. I don't get the feeling that queen_anne's_revenge thinks regulation is fundamentally problematic so there's actually a viable dialogue there.
I'm not sure who you think is being exploited or how I would enjoy it, but if someone violates a rental contract- then 30 days is plenty of time. If they can't manage that, then there are holding cells.
I'm sure nothing would please you more than having me withdraw from a conversation. You don't strike me as someone who's very open to anything other than your own ideas, so this seems like it is causing you discomfort.
Therefore, I will continue as I please.
I'm just waiting to mis-spell something so you can hoist that up, since you're scrambling for a win here.
nfe wrote: I asked you to demonstrate the baseless assertions you kept making when presented with evidence, yes. Obviously you can't and know yourself to be wrong, but I'm well aware no retraction is ever coming. Don't fret.
Oh, I didn't really care too much. Like I said, if you're so desperate to be right- then by all means, show me.
And show me how the demand for property hasn't changed at all since the 1950's with more urban/business development.
EDIT: It's also entirely possible I didn't care enough to indulge you. If you're determined to win an argument, then how about you do your own work and bring the data?
I have you considerable data across several posts. Primarily drawn from US gov documents from the 1950s/60s and last couple years and your last response was 'I assume you must be talking about the UK'.
Prior to that you demonstrably weren't reading anything you were responding too.
nfe wrote: Err yes. You'll be aware I'm sure that contracts in most territories are subject to regulations. The premise was to add further regulation to protect already exploited people. I've no doubt that you find protecting exploited people to be contemptuous state interference, though, so you can probably withdraw from that conversation. I don't get the feeling that queen_anne's_revenge thinks regulation is fundamentally problematic so there's actually a viable dialogue there.
I'm not sure who you think is being exploited or how I would enjoy it, but if someone violates a rental contract- then 30 days is plenty of time. If they can't manage that, then there are holding cells.
Read what you are replying too. QAR was specifically objecting to an end to NO FAULT evictions. I have no issue with evictions for broken contracts and in fact think the state should be significantly more supportive in cases of long term non-payment or refusal to leave after eviction notices.
I'm sure nothing would please you more than having me withdraw from a conversation. You don't strike me as someone who's very open to anything other than your own ideas, so this seems like it is causing you discomfort.
nfe wrote: Read what you are replying too. QAR was specifically objecting to an end to NO FAULT evictions. I have no issue with evictions for broken contracts and in fact think the state should be significantly more supportive in cases of long term non-payment or refusal to leave after eviction notices.
Then you might wanna note a specific middle-America state. One that requires 30 days eviction notice, 30 days after the date of the notice- and if they refuse, they can get an additional 30 days for the state to investigate (or more)- with no repercussions if the state finds nothing. Also, if the State can't investigate within 30 days, they get another 30 days.
Scumbags have used this to get about 6 months of rent free living.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yes, if I want to remove tenants from my property why shouldn't I be allowed to? What happens if my situation changes and I need to sell? Maybe someone in my family or friends has an emergency and needs housing. They're going to get prioritised over the general public.
Because the state (and by extension, you the tax payer) is now responsible for your evicted tenants and their actions :|
The fundament of this problem is "What do we do with the losers?" for which there is no really palatable answer, and we're going to generate more losers :(
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Also, a strawman is apparently one of the concepts that people struggle with...
Apparently you missed the part of this discussion where there are people who literally stated that it's too hard to make their own food.
That's not a straw man. That's pointing out obvious incompetence. This is why I don't believe these 'people' deserve my help. If you're too incompetent to manage your finances, get something that isn't fast food and learn to make food, etc.- perhaps you should be locked in a care facility. With orderlies that strike you.
Now you're moving the goalposts as well now. You characterized your opposition's argument as, and I quote verbatim, "Gibs Me Dat for Free Because I'm as good as my WW2 Vet Grandpa". That's a lie.
I'm sure nothing would please you more than having me withdraw from a conversation. You don't strike me as someone who's very open to anything other than your own ideas, so this seems like it is causing you discomfort.
You've twice in this thread alone referenced how you want people who disagree with you physically abused. The cognitive dissonance on display is staggering.
Just a personal aside, I've never raised rent rates for my tenants even when advised by the agent. I get enough to cover my mortgage plus most of the other things and that's fine for me. I actually rent below the advised values for that area.
But yes, I think being able to evict is important. If I leave the forces and need to buy a family home, I will need to release the value of my property to use for a deposit. I won't be able to do this if I'm obliged to let tenants remain in the property for 3 years.
I'm absolutely not opposed to regulation, I'm just opposed to regulation that's fundamentally designed to restrict the free market, and tell folks what to do with what they essentially own.
I think part of the solution to solving people's financial issues it to put more regulation on who the banks can offer credit cards to.
But yes, I think being able to evict is important. If I leave the forces and need to buy a family home, I will need to release the value of my property to use for a deposit. I won't be able to do this if I'm obliged to let tenants remain in the property for 3 years.
Then I'd suggest you'd plan. You are able to do this. It's one of the luxuries of wealth.
In any case, the three year minimum lease is another mooted idea, albeit one from shadow cabinet this time, that did not make it into the manifesto. So in terms of things that would have effected you financially, you are STILL dealing only with a Landlord MOT fee.
I'm absolutely not opposed to regulation, I'm just opposed to regulation that's fundamentally designed to restrict the free market, and tell folks what to do with what they essentially own.
That's literally all financial and commercial regulation! That's exactly what absolutely all of it does, no? Hilariously, Prince Of Capitalism Adam Smith himself said it was essential because the free market would simply see wealthy people destroy the lives of everyone else.
Not Online!!! wrote: Tbf, most people also forget that adam Smith was a philosopher that had created a quite decent book for ethics aswell.
It's like with machiavelli, everyone knows il principe alot less know about discorsi.
I think his philosophy all rests on a fundamental fallacy about self-interest but yes he does rather get reduced to a proto-economist. Including hy all the institutes names after him. I often teach in an 'Adam Smith Building' but obviously it's part of the business school rather than philosophy.
Amusingly, there's an archaeologist at Cornell called Adam T Smith that borrows really heavily from that self-interest principle but I feel it's a namesack gag that's gotten out of hand.
I disagree, current regulation allows the free market to run smoothly and allow for growth, whereas the new proposals are designed to restrict, and artificially force down prices.
Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yes, if I want to remove tenants from my property why shouldn't I be allowed to? What happens if my situation changes and I need to sell? Maybe someone in my family or friends has an emergency and needs housing. They're going to get prioritised over the general public.
I hate to keep beating this drum, but I don't make 1k a year in profit. After insurance, income tax and repairs I'm lucky to strike even.
Read land for the many. It proposes a 'progressive property' tax, which would replace council tax and be footed by the owner, not the tenant.
In the US you can evict for some of the reasons you state above, especially if you need the housing for yourself.
Also, I may not be familiar with your 'read' source above, but I have a hard time thinking of any equitable situation where any additional taxes of fees due to the property owner would not be passed onto the tenant in some fashion, i.e. higher rent. Unless rent control is in place. One solution just creates more problems, eh?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I disagree, current regulation allows the free market to run smoothly and allow for growth, whereas the new proposals are designed to restrict, and artificially force down prices.
You think it's smooth. Few tenants do. It allows it to run smoothly for people with capital whilst making it hard for those without to acquire it. The proposals you are concerned about, which, again, only extend to limiting no fault evictions, a property MOT, and rent rises capped at inflation, don't artificially force down prices. They help reduce the degree to which they are artificially increased.
A cost of inflation rise isn't forcing prices down, it's ensuring they don't continue to accelerate vastly above inflation, and therefore even further beyond wages. Bear in mind it does nothing to address the already sky-high prices that have been created by RTB, the failure to build more social housing, the number of BtL properties, and landlords buying huge numbers of properties and keeping loads of them empty. There are enough empty homes in the UK for all homeless people but they're deliberately kept unavailable to create a supply shortage where none exists. That's your artificial market interference.
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
When there is a massive housing crunch, yeah your options are pretty limited.
There were 40 other applicants to live here that we managed to beat out.
And sure, we could move into a much nicer place. And pay twice as much per month.
So explain to me how I’m supposed to find something better and cheaper when there really isn’t any options for that?
And when finances are tight, so are options. And when there is no regulation or rent controls, yeah it’s a gak situation to be in.
If you'd have ever owned property in your life, you'd know that you either offload it or you lease it, or rent it ASAP- otherwise, the taxes will bury you and you'll be in financial ruin.
Nice try.
Someone should tell all these property owners that.
But then you could argue that why shouldn't people gift things to their children in inheritence? Whats the alternative? Give them back? Throw them in a pot for redistribution? If someone has paid for something then its theirs to do as they will.
Well, 'throwing them into the pot for redistribution' is quite literally the basic concept behind inheritance tax. Laws are only really just starting to catch up with modern developments though. They've unbent enough to raise the cap and make sure kids don't need to sell the family home. But at the same time, the real upper end of the market is untouched. It's no mistake the same noble families still own vast chunks of our country. Everything just gets thrown into offshore companies and trusts once you reach a certain point, and inheritance ceases to apply. That's what really needs to be locked down.
The day the likes of Duke Richard Scott don't get to hand the keys to 217,000 acres to the next generation will be the day inheritance taxation actually works.
Seems like you should have dodoed the nobles a long time ago.
Has worked for us
It hasn't really, we (all, and in general) have just replaced feudalism with capitalism and nobles with capitalists. Those nobles are still have power due to all the stuff they own, not because of their titles. They lost some power but not the really important bits.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Now you're moving the goalposts as well now. You characterized your opposition's argument as, and I quote verbatim, "Gibs Me Dat for Free Because I'm as good as my WW2 Vet Grandpa". That's a lie.
Uh, I'm pretty sure that was spewed earlier. And yes, I agree- it is a lie.
Also, while we're at it:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You've twice in this thread alone referenced how you want people who disagree with you physically abused. The cognitive dissonance on display is staggering.
Did I, now?
I had never quite considered that as an option, but now that you mention it- it would sort out quite a few problems.
It hasn't really, we (all, and in general) have just replaced feudalism with capitalism and nobles with capitalists. Those nobles are still have power due to all the stuff they own, not because of their titles. They lost some power but not the really important bits.
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
When there is a massive housing crunch, yeah your options are pretty limited.
There were 40 other applicants to live here that we managed to beat out.
And sure, we could move into a much nicer place. And pay twice as much per month.
So explain to me how I’m supposed to find something better and cheaper when there really isn’t any options for that?
And when finances are tight, so are options. And when there is no regulation or rent controls, yeah it’s a gak situation to be in.
Alright. Sounds like a different world from the US. There are certain shortage issues here, but not 'beat-out-40-other-people-just-to-find-a-place-to-rent' issues. The homeless population there must be high...?
gorgon wrote: Alright. Sounds like a different world from the US. There are certain shortage issues here, but not 'beat-out-40-other-people-just-to-find-a-place-to-rent' issues. The homeless population there must be high...?
Our biggest rent problems seem to be when you have to live in a certain area, and finding the most reasonable place to live that isn't saturated with crime or obnoxiously loud neighbors.
In the US the homeless population is indeed quite high.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Just a personal aside, I've never raised rent rates for my tenants even when advised by the agent. I get enough to cover my mortgage plus most of the other things and that's fine for me. I actually rent below the advised values for that area.
But yes, I think being able to evict is important. If I leave the forces and need to buy a family home, I will need to release the value of my property to use for a deposit. I won't be able to do this if I'm obliged to let tenants remain in the property for 3 years.
I'm absolutely not opposed to regulation, I'm just opposed to regulation that's fundamentally designed to restrict the free market, and tell folks what to do with what they essentially own.
I think part of the solution to solving people's financial issues it to put more regulation on who the banks can offer credit cards to.
I think the people living there have a right to be given some time to establish new living arrangements rather than you just saying "evicted, get out by the end of the month." But I also feel that 3 years is far too long a period.
Overwhelmingly- mentally ill persons and addicts. Quite sad, I am a firm believer in re-evaluating our lack of asylums and facilities for them. Ever since many of them shut down, the homeless population went up. Also, our homeless shelters can't seem to stay running- I live in a city that's relatively calm, and the area around the homeless shelter is a criminal cesspit- dealers preying on the addicts and other persons looking to take advantage of the well-meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I think the people living there have a right to be given some time to establish new living arrangements rather than you just saying "evicted, get out by the end of the month." But I also feel that 3 years is far too long a period.
30 days is plenty of time, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I believe after that, you are trespassing .
Also, 30 days notice deciding to move out and break your lease is also entirely reasonable.
Indeed. Unfortunately the UK introduced laws last year which restricted the up front rents landlords could charge to 5 weeks. The standard practice before that was to charge 2 months rent up front, 'first and last' the idea of this was that tenants couldn't just up and leave without paying the last month's rent.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Indeed. Unfortunately the UK introduced laws last year which restricted the up front rents landlords could charge to 5 weeks. The standard practice before that was to charge 2 months rent up front, 'first and last' the idea of this was that tenants couldn't just up and leave without paying the last month's rent.
Odd, every place I've ever rented was just 'first and last month + deposit'. And usually, it's never been an issue to end a lease.
I've only had two issues with landlords-
1: The maintenance personnel installed something in the apartment above us, but did it wrong and broke it- then the place flooded and it flooded for several days while I was away on vacation. Came home, the entire place was still flooded and all of my uniforms and clothes were ruined (And these are USMC dress blues, not the cheapest uniform). They didn't even bother to notify us, or leave a note on the door. They claimed they were not responsible for flooding, and in the contract 'flooding' was explicitly in the context of 'weather, climate, and natural disasters'. They were by contract liable for faulty maintenance. I was almost going to need a lawyer, but then the USMC got involved and threatened to blacklist their apartments (meaning: No military personnel are allowed to be on the premises, and all contracts must be ceased, and none of their associated businesses can do business with the military). The place immediately cut me a really hefty check and knocked a few months off rent. Then they tried to charge me a 'pet fee' (not 'Pet Deposit', a flat penalty fee), because I kept a friend's tiny dog for 4 days. I glared at them and asked if we needed to go down the list of damaged items with a lawyer. They never bothered me again.
2: A place had a maintenance guy that was casing apartments, and then tried to claim I pulled a gun on him when he was doing routine maintenance... at 3 AM. On a place that had no maintenance orders. Come to find out, the guy had full, unrestricted access to all the keys (and just had them in a box in his truck), and was stealing all kinds of oddities from people. Place went out of their way to deny this was the case, and were threatening to evict me until one of their contracted workers came out with the truth and threatened to put it in the local paper. Then they banned guns from the property, I ended my lease immediately, and had it not been so said- I'd have laughed when the break-ins spiked in that complex afterward (spoiler: the maintenance guy got fired and STILL had all the keys, they never changed locks). (Other spoiler: I didn't pull a gun on him, I racked a shotgun as he was trying to open the door and said 'I have a gun and I'm calling the police, I know who you are'. He went to the landlord about it, and I'd have never known it was actually him if he didn't do that- I was bluffing when I said I knew who it was).
NinthMusketeer wrote:In the US the homeless population is indeed quite high.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Just a personal aside, I've never raised rent rates for my tenants even when advised by the agent. I get enough to cover my mortgage plus most of the other things and that's fine for me. I actually rent below the advised values for that area.
But yes, I think being able to evict is important. If I leave the forces and need to buy a family home, I will need to release the value of my property to use for a deposit. I won't be able to do this if I'm obliged to let tenants remain in the property for 3 years.
I'm absolutely not opposed to regulation, I'm just opposed to regulation that's fundamentally designed to restrict the free market, and tell folks what to do with what they essentially own.
I think part of the solution to solving people's financial issues it to put more regulation on who the banks can offer credit cards to.
I think the people living there have a right to be given some time to establish new living arrangements rather than you just saying "evicted, get out by the end of the month." But I also feel that 3 years is far too long a period.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Of course, I don't see why the, 6 month contracts they sign can't be enough
Good thing no one was planning to legislate for minimum three-year tenancies, eh?
I'm kinda torn on regulated minimum duration tenancies.
Some people could really utilise them (we would have to buy a second home if we could reliably get three month leases) but that's not a particularly common problem for most people. I think a year is most appropriate in most cases. It would be useful if month-to-month (our any term shorter than the original) rolling leases could not be tacked on to leases after the first term without the consent of both parties, but leaving the first term duration without a minimum.
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
When there is a massive housing crunch, yeah your options are pretty limited.
There were 40 other applicants to live here that we managed to beat out.
And sure, we could move into a much nicer place. And pay twice as much per month.
So explain to me how I’m supposed to find something better and cheaper when there really isn’t any options for that?
And when finances are tight, so are options. And when there is no regulation or rent controls, yeah it’s a gak situation to be in.
Alright. Sounds like a different world from the US. There are certain shortage issues here, but not 'beat-out-40-other-people-just-to-find-a-place-to-rent' issues. The homeless population there must be high...?
Every major intersection on the way from our suburb to the mall where my wife works, has a homeless person walking the edge of the meridian with a sign asking for change where the cars line up to wait for the advanced green. Every single one. There was a mission to abolish homelessness by 2020 but it only seems to be getting worse.
What with all the subsidized housing and social programs up here, I really have no inkling how one ends up homeless in Canada.
The housing crunch has ended since our oil industry pretty much collapsed, which is why we’re moving at the end of this lease term.
But when we were looking, the number of horrendous properties people were lining up to rent was absurd. I think we looked at 30 rentals or so, and we settled for the one we’re in now. And honestly I can’t wait to get the hell out of here.
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
When there is a massive housing crunch, yeah your options are pretty limited.
There were 40 other applicants to live here that we managed to beat out.
And sure, we could move into a much nicer place. And pay twice as much per month.
So explain to me how I’m supposed to find something better and cheaper when there really isn’t any options for that?
And when finances are tight, so are options. And when there is no regulation or rent controls, yeah it’s a gak situation to be in.
Alright. Sounds like a different world from the US. There are certain shortage issues here, but not 'beat-out-40-other-people-just-to-find-a-place-to-rent' issues. The homeless population there must be high...?
Every major intersection on the way from our suburb to the mall where my wife works, has a homeless person walking the edge of the meridian with a sign asking for change where the cars line up to wait for the advanced green. Every single one. There was a mission to abolish homelessness by 2020 but it only seems to be getting worse.
What with all the subsidized housing and social programs up here, I really have no inkling how one ends up homeless in Canada.
The housing crunch has ended since our oil industry pretty much collapsed, which is why we’re moving at the end of this lease term.
But when we were looking, the number of horrendous properties people were lining up to rent was absurd. I think we looked at 30 rentals or so, and we settled for the one we’re in now. And honestly I can’t wait to get the hell out of here.
It hasn't really, we (all, and in general) have just replaced feudalism with capitalism and nobles with capitalists. Those nobles are still have power due to all the stuff they own, not because of their titles. They lost some power but not the really important bits.
Economics failure detected
That from the person who couldn't do it on his own and needed the US armed forces generous benefits to pay for college? Nice projection you got working there.
It hasn't really, we (all, and in general) have just replaced feudalism with capitalism and nobles with capitalists. Those nobles are still have power due to all the stuff they own, not because of their titles. They lost some power but not the really important bits.
Economics failure detected
That from the person who couldn't do it on his own and needed the US armed forces generous benefits to pay for college? Nice projection you got working there.
Nice insult there.
Sat on this for a few hours, but wanted to point something out to how ignorant your statement is.
Couldn't make it on our own, and needed the military to give us free money. Ok sure. So, instead of going the route that way to many have, and put themselves into massive debt for college, many of us instead choose a different path. Where we sacrifice the best years of our lifes, our physical, and our mental health, for the opportunity to earn money for college.
I just earned my Bachelors degree last month. After 12 years in school, because it took me that long with my military obligations. The things I paid for that? I've spent the last 2 years attending mental health therapy. I've spent 6 years of the 14 I've been married to my wife, on a different continent then her. I've undergone numerous surgeries. I've spent years in physical therapy. I'm looking at retiring in a couple of years with a pretty hefty helping of disability.
I'm a person who "couldn't do it on his own" according to you. That's utterly laughable, but you just keep throwing those generalizations out there buddy. In the meantime, me and my brothers and sisters will still be spending parts of our lives over there protecting your country, because you guys can't bother to maintain a military that can protect your own nation.
It hasn't really, we (all, and in general) have just replaced feudalism with capitalism and nobles with capitalists. Those nobles are still have power due to all the stuff they own, not because of their titles. They lost some power but not the really important bits.
Economics failure detected
That from the person who couldn't do it on his own and needed the US armed forces generous benefits to pay for college? Nice projection you got working there.
Nice insult there.
Sat on this for a few hours, but wanted to point something out to how ignorant your statement is.
Couldn't make it on our own, and needed the military to give us free money. Ok sure. So, instead of going the route that way to many have, and put themselves into massive debt for college, many of us instead choose a different path. Where we sacrifice the best years of our lifes, our physical, and our mental health, for the opportunity to earn money for college.
I just earned my Bachelors degree last month. After 12 years in school, because it took me that long with my military obligations. The things I paid for that? I've spent the last 2 years attending mental health therapy. I've spent 6 years of the 14 I've been married to my wife, on a different continent then her. I've undergone numerous surgeries. I've spent years in physical therapy. I'm looking at retiring in a couple of years with a pretty hefty helping of disability.
I'm a person who "couldn't do it on his own" according to you. That's utterly laughable, but you just keep throwing those generalizations out there buddy. In the meantime, me and my brothers and sisters will still be spending parts of our lives over there protecting your country, because you guys can't bother to maintain a military that can protect your own nation.
I'm fairly certain that was Mario turning Adeptus Doritos worldview back against him, not an actual agreement with said worldview.
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
When there is a massive housing crunch, yeah your options are pretty limited.
There were 40 other applicants to live here that we managed to beat out.
And sure, we could move into a much nicer place. And pay twice as much per month.
So explain to me how I’m supposed to find something better and cheaper when there really isn’t any options for that?
And when finances are tight, so are options. And when there is no regulation or rent controls, yeah it’s a gak situation to be in.
Alright. Sounds like a different world from the US. There are certain shortage issues here, but not 'beat-out-40-other-people-just-to-find-a-place-to-rent' issues. The homeless population there must be high...?
Every major intersection on the way from our suburb to the mall where my wife works, has a homeless person walking the edge of the meridian with a sign asking for change where the cars line up to wait for the advanced green. Every single one. There was a mission to abolish homelessness by 2020 but it only seems to be getting worse.
What with all the subsidized housing and social programs up here, I really have no inkling how one ends up homeless in Canada.
The housing crunch has ended since our oil industry pretty much collapsed, which is why we’re moving at the end of this lease term.
But when we were looking, the number of horrendous properties people were lining up to rent was absurd. I think we looked at 30 rentals or so, and we settled for the one we’re in now. And honestly I can’t wait to get the hell out of here.
1) It's presumptuous to say all street beggars are homeless. 2) many homeless have mental health problems, just housing provision isn't enough. 3) There needs to be accesible training in home economics or relapse is bound to occur. 4) many living on the streets are untrusting of government or institutions and will avoid involvement. 5) homelessness is way more complicated than "build houses", but having accomodation available is obviously a good first step.
Ghool wrote: Landlords pay for maintenance? Not mine. I’ve invested over $5000 into this house to maintain it. I’ve repainted top to bottom when we moved in, replaced almost all the electrical fixtures and lights due to poor wiring, and fixed up the yard, which was a horrendous mess when we moved in.
The fence is falling apart it’s so rotten, and should have been replaced 6 years ago when we moved in. A section in the parking pad in back has already blown down, and will my landlord replace it? Nope.
He replaced the fridge only after it had completely failed and I lost 4 days worth of food. Did he replace my lost food? Nope.
Ok, so the landlord has to pay insurance. He doesn’t pay the mortgage, we do, and have done so for 6 years. Damages to the house? I fix them so I can hopefully get my damage deposit back, although it’s not likely, as he doesn’t even remember how bad of shape the place was in when we moved in. When we move, he plans on selling the place. If he gets market value for it, he essentially almost doubled his money in the time we lived here. And what did he have to do? Buy a fridge. In addition, he also owns the property next door, and rents it out to an older couple, and they have been there longer than us. In the time we’ve lived here, he’s not once even lowered the rent.
Now, granted there are better landlords out there, but it hasn’t been my experience. The last thing I’m going to do is feel sorry for some one whom I’m paying for their investment so they can leave their kids a ton of money. The only thing I’m unable to do, to afford buying a house is afford a down payment. And that’s only because I’m paying another persons mortgage, and who buys up properties for investments, which in turn drives up prices, pushing those properties further and further away from our family being able to purchase one.
And I still have to pay for the insurance and not the landlord.
And what does he have that I don’t? A down payment.
Don’t expect pity, or empathy from renters if you’re a landlord, no matter how good you are.
So the house is a gakhole, but you agreed to live there and have lived there for the past 6 years. You're spending thousands of dollars of your money maintaining it, but complain that you can't save for a down payment.
Am I crazy for thinking that there are some self-inflicted wounds there?
When there is a massive housing crunch, yeah your options are pretty limited.
There were 40 other applicants to live here that we managed to beat out.
And sure, we could move into a much nicer place. And pay twice as much per month.
So explain to me how I’m supposed to find something better and cheaper when there really isn’t any options for that?
And when finances are tight, so are options. And when there is no regulation or rent controls, yeah it’s a gak situation to be in.
Alright. Sounds like a different world from the US. There are certain shortage issues here, but not 'beat-out-40-other-people-just-to-find-a-place-to-rent' issues. The homeless population there must be high...?
Every major intersection on the way from our suburb to the mall where my wife works, has a homeless person walking the edge of the meridian with a sign asking for change where the cars line up to wait for the advanced green. Every single one. There was a mission to abolish homelessness by 2020 but it only seems to be getting worse.
What with all the subsidized housing and social programs up here, I really have no inkling how one ends up homeless in Canada.
The housing crunch has ended since our oil industry pretty much collapsed, which is why we’re moving at the end of this lease term.
But when we were looking, the number of horrendous properties people were lining up to rent was absurd. I think we looked at 30 rentals or so, and we settled for the one we’re in now. And honestly I can’t wait to get the hell out of here.
1) It's presumptuous to say all street beggars are homeless. 2) many homeless have mental health problems, just housing provision isn't enough. 3) There needs to be accesible training in home economics or relapse is bound to occur. 4) many living on the streets are untrusting of government or institutions and will avoid involvement. 5) homelessness is way more complicated than "build houses", but having accomodation available is obviously a good first step.
But this is Canada. We have all of that and more. There are shelters, support groups, free counselling, health care, welfare, subsidies, and all kinds of things for free to prevent one from living on the street. When the beggars walking in between cars during rush hour at stop lights are covered in tattoos, the problem is not a lack of care or help from the system.
Again, this is Canada, and we have ALL of those things to help prevent people living on the street.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
A more tolerant, less violent society where a larger amount of competence can be taken advantage of than in a less educated one. That's not even including the synergistic effects of having a population that is well-versed in a broad set of skills.
There's also the egalitarian part: why should those of means be premiered above those of merit?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
He referenced "education" not "knowledge" which are related but not the same. Why go off about the latter, that isn't what he was talking about.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
A more tolerant, less violent society where a larger amount of competence can be taken advantage of than in a less educated one. That's not even including the synergistic effects of having a population that is well-versed in a broad set of skills.
There's also the egalitarian part: why should those of means be premiered above those of merit?
You’ve missed the point entirely. I am not arguing that education is bad or that an educated populace doesn’t benefit society. I am arguing that if the manner in which our populace obtains a secondary education is going to be transactional wherein colleges and universities declare that the education they provide to students has a value in the tens of thousands D.D. of dollars and the schools must therefore be paid that much in compensation for their service by either the individual student or the State then students must be able to recoup tens of thousands of dollars in earning power thanks to the education they received. If students aren’t getting $30k worth of benefit from a $30k college degree then it isn’t an equitable transaction. We are living in the Information Age nearly all of our collective knowledge is available for free or a mere pittance.
Prestor Jon wrote: We are living in the Information Age nearly all of our collective knowledge is available for free or a mere pittance.
It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that one can just figure out the sum knowledge of humanity on one's own.
NinthMusketeer wrote: He referenced "education" not "knowledge" which are related but not the same. Why go off about the latter, that isn't what he was talking about.
That's also a fair point. To quote historical professor Thomas Thorild, "To think freely is great, to think rightly is greater". There's a lot of really great stuff one can learn as an autodidact, but there's also eleventyfive billion pitfalls
nareik wrote: Again you are assuming all beggars are homeless .
Am I though? Or are you making assumptions about what I assume?
I’m saying that in Canada, one needn’t beg for sustenance, nor does anyone have an excuse to be homeless up here.
There is the food bank - free food.
There is welfare - no need for a job.
There are shelters, and subsidized housing - no lack of shelter.
There are free clean needle and drug abuse support centres - no need to pay for counselling.
There are free social work centres - no need to look for a job on your own.
All I’m saying, and assuming, is that if I somehow ended up homeless, I wouldn’t remain that way for long, if at all.
I’m not assuming anything except for a persons lack of seeking out assistance for a bad situation they might happen to be in.
I’ve used a few of these programs myself when I was 18 and had a lack of support, which is why I assume that there is no reason anyone in Canada should be in such dire circumstances that they are forced to beg for a living, or end up homeless. A lack of using the resources is the only excuse for that.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
A more tolerant, less violent society where a larger amount of competence can be taken advantage of than in a less educated one. That's not even including the synergistic effects of having a population that is well-versed in a broad set of skills.
There's also the egalitarian part: why should those of means be premiered above those of merit?
You’ve missed the point entirely. I am not arguing that education is bad or that an educated populace doesn’t benefit society. I am arguing that if the manner in which our populace obtains a secondary education is going to be transactional wherein colleges and universities declare that the education they provide to students has a value in the tens of thousands D.D. of dollars and the schools must therefore be paid that much in compensation for their service by either the individual student or the State then students must be able to recoup tens of thousands of dollars in earning power thanks to the education they received.
I'm fairly sure you're talking about tertiary education.
That aside, education doesn't need to be remotely as expensive is in the US, or indeed the UK.
If students aren’t getting $30k worth of benefit from a $30k college degree then it isn’t an equitable transaction. We are living in the Information Age nearly all of our collective knowledge is available for free or a mere pittance.
How are you measuring that benefit?
Whilst I am partisan, the idea that many people can gain the quality of education that they can from a good university through self-directed study and a library card and the internet is laughable. Even aside from the interactive nature of university education that makes an enormous, well-evidenced difference, heck, even ignoring education at all and focusing entirely on collecting information, all the best getting up to date information on research in most fields without an institutional affiliation of buckets of money - because we're a million miles away from universal open access.
It hasn't really, we (all, and in general) have just replaced feudalism with capitalism and nobles with capitalists. Those nobles are still have power due to all the stuff they own, not because of their titles. They lost some power but not the really important bits.
Economics failure detected
That from the person who couldn't do it on his own and needed the US armed forces generous benefits to pay for college? Nice projection you got working there.
Nice insult there.
Sat on this for a few hours, but wanted to point something out to how ignorant your statement is.
Couldn't make it on our own, and needed the military to give us free money. Ok sure. So, instead of going the route that way to many have, and put themselves into massive debt for college, many of us instead choose a different path. Where we sacrifice the best years of our lifes, our physical, and our mental health, for the opportunity to earn money for college.
I just earned my Bachelors degree last month. After 12 years in school, because it took me that long with my military obligations. The things I paid for that? I've spent the last 2 years attending mental health therapy. I've spent 6 years of the 14 I've been married to my wife, on a different continent then her. I've undergone numerous surgeries. I've spent years in physical therapy. I'm looking at retiring in a couple of years with a pretty hefty helping of disability.
I'm a person who "couldn't do it on his own" according to you. That's utterly laughable, but you just keep throwing those generalizations out there buddy. In the meantime, me and my brothers and sisters will still be spending parts of our lives over there protecting your country, because you guys can't bother to maintain a military that can protect your own nation.
I'm fairly certain that was Mario turning Adeptus Doritos worldview back against him, not an actual agreement with said worldview.
Exactly, and on top of that I find that the fact that about 75% of those who enlisted did it for educational benefits (link) quite horrifying (actual utilisation: 48%). You got a college education but at a incredibly high cost and nobody should need to make that type of choices, especially as most people make them at a very young age when they are still very much not that smart. There are (or were?) similar issues/stories about many young trans people who enlisted because the military offered them mental/medical support that their own families didn't (link with some data, quote: "about 21.4% of the total transgender population in the US is estimated to have served in the military". Or their families just kicked them out and they had to find some way to survive.
Joining the military and all the danger around it shouldn't ever be your last resort.
Also in the context of my quip about the shift from feudalism -> capitalism, having 75% of your army being there because they want to utilise some other service, makes it feel like feudal levies but with extra steps. Instead of feudal obligations (so they could farm) you were fulfilling capitalistic obligation (so you could learn). Yes you couldn't make it on your own but nobody should need to do it on their own. That's not a bad thing or something to be ashamed of. That's why we have governments, social services, and similar support structures. My studies were subsidised and now my taxes help subsidies the studies of other students who don't have the means to "do it on their own". Only a tiny number of people actually can do it on their own and even then that usually means support from their families, or old, accumulated wealth, so again not really "on their own".
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
Have you seen how many people fall for random hoaxes (the latest, I think, being about ingesting bleach to fight cancer), Alex Jones type of deception, and other lies? Some guidance when it comes to learning is a good thing. College education in the USA costs tend of thousands of dollars due to a combination of multiple structural issues, not because learning/teaching/lecturing is so expensive. Isn't most of that (today) done by lowly paid grad student anyways, while their professors are trying to keep their research funding from collapsing?
This approach is also what lead to colleges and universities in the USA seeing students as customers and trying to appease them. You wouldn't have so many snowflake student protests if colleges didn't depend on students paying directly (and being seen as paying customers first). Students would be busy studying. From what I have read, students in the USA get somewhat coddled and grading is also much softer over there because colleges need/want to keep students (their payments actually) from dropping out too quickly.
Any army enticing enlistment through monetary, educational, psychological or career advancement is an army which has massive loyality issues due to the rank and file beeing first and foremost loyal to the institution and not the political society it comes from.
Also the feudalism term is quite apt, infact it perfectly shows the issues that are happeneing with regards to loyality.
It's not that black and white though is it? Most people wouldn't serve without some added benefits. I for example, am massively grateful for the (although ours isnt the best) subsidised family house. Back when I was a singly I enjoyed cheap accomodation and subsidised food. I got my driving licenses for free, aswell as a bunch of other things. Over here the military doesn't pay for education, but you do get credits to use on education or employment courses based on duration served.
Plus I get to go to the gym during work time pretty much every day so...
Not Online!!! wrote: Any army enticing enlistment through monetary, educational, psychological or career advancement is an army which has massive loyality issues due to the rank and file beeing first and foremost loyal to the institution and not the political society it comes from.
I imagine you're generalizing but it sounds like you've watched too many movies to me.
I have to ask, if we take out the incentive to enlist than what does that leave, conscription? I don't personally see how that encourages loyalty to ones country.
Joining the Army was probably the best choice I could have made at the time for employment, I had no interest in more school and saw no possibility to "make it" where I was living.
I would have lived in depressive poverty probably forever. For a person like myself with no academic interests and no desire to continue school, which I have never enjoyed, this was the best choice I could make.
People can have more than one motivation to do something. Just having a primary motivation does not mean that one thing is the -only- reason they did it.
Also, an important factor when discussing the US military is that while the danger and stress are very real our military is essentially massive overkill deployed in teaspoon amounts; the only restraint boils down to officials answering the question of "how much money do we want to spend on this." There is no realistic concern about the country being unable to defend itself.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
A more tolerant, less violent society where a larger amount of competence can be taken advantage of than in a less educated one. That's not even including the synergistic effects of having a population that is well-versed in a broad set of skills.
There's also the egalitarian part: why should those of means be premiered above those of merit?
Because we have well documented proof that educated or knowledgeable people have never been violent or intolerant. Naturally.
Also, what is the difference between the college education and simply reading all that knowledge online and absorbing it? The degree. And what do employers look for as far as proof of education? Certainly not browser history. If the degree wasn't intrinsically valuable in that respect, why pursue it?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
That is quite the straw man.
And that's quite a dismissal without attempting to dispute. I think it's because you really CAN'T dispute that.
I think the issue with education starts a lot earlier than college. Over here most (non-international at least) university students are there under government scholarship and pay much reduced fees and not upfront. Even then, there’s a massive bias to folk who grew up in wealthy areas when you take a cross section of university students in money-earning degrees.
So it’s largely a merit based system, but if you weren’t born lucky to start with you statistically are less likely to be competing on merit.
Not Online!!! wrote: Any army enticing enlistment through monetary, educational, psychological or career advancement is an army which has massive loyality issues due to the rank and file beeing first and foremost loyal to the institution and not the political society it comes from.
I imagine you're generalizing but it sounds like you've watched too many movies to me.
I have to ask, if we take out the incentive to enlist than what does that leave, conscription? I don't personally see how that encourages loyalty to ones country.
Joining the Army was probably the best choice I could have made at the time for employment, I had no interest in more school and saw no possibility to "make it" where I was living.
I would have lived in depressive poverty probably forever. For a person like myself with no academic interests and no desire to continue school, which I have never enjoyed, this was the best choice I could make.
Conscription is indeed the way imo, mostly because higher demands from a democratic societies body leads to higher demands for rights for said democratic body.
Also even conscription armies have a smaller core of job military the core however remains loyal to the society which should be the End goal due to less abuse beeing possible.
And no i don't really watch Movies , i am more a book type of guy, books like "du contrat sociale" etc.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Maybe you should make further education free so nobody has to choose between lifelong debt and PTSD and physical trauma.
That's a misnomer. What you mean is "maybe you should subsidize further education that way we can make successful people pay for the potential success of later generations, despite the fact that nothing about the secondary education system lends itself to preventing applicants from getting gak degrees that won't land them employment that the couldn't get with just a high school diploma."
Or basically "we want other people's money."
Fortunately, the point of education isn't to employ people. An educated populace is a goal in itself, not just a means to making more money.
Fortunately a person can gain access to pretty much all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity with a library card (usually free or only a few dollars) and/or an internet connection (available through a variety of means for an affordable monthly fee). What support do you have for your argument that we need a national secondary education system funded by students incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt and billions of dollars in state and federal subsidized simply for people to satiate their curiosity about anything? We already have free public libraries for people to use for the pursuit of knowledge. An education that costs tens of thousands of dollars better provide the student with more utility and value than simply the addition of new knowledge.
A more tolerant, less violent society where a larger amount of competence can be taken advantage of than in a less educated one. That's not even including the synergistic effects of having a population that is well-versed in a broad set of skills.
There's also the egalitarian part: why should those of means be premiered above those of merit?
Because we have well documented proof that educated or knowledgeable people have never been violent or intolerant. Naturally.
Let's never try to improve anything, because it's not ever going to end up being perfect anyway.
Do you even read what you're posting yourself? I shouldn't have to explain that "more tolerant" isn't the same as "perfectly tolerant" and yet here I am, explaining that to you. Come on. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Also, what is the difference between the college education and simply reading all that knowledge online and absorbing it? The degree.
A bunch of different knowledgable people's viewpoints on the subject you're studying, and the much reduced risk of running into people that seem reasonable but that are actually complete hacks.
Again, it takes a staggering amount of arrogance to believe that people can just sit at home and turn into brilliant autodidacts in any given field. It just does not work, barring a few select prodigies.
Also, what is the difference between the college education and simply reading all that knowledge online and absorbing it? The degree. And what do employers look for as far as proof of education? Certainly not browser history. If the degree wasn't intrinsically valuable in that respect, why pursue it?
The main difference is that you've spent several years demonstrating an ability to critique and process that knowledge and communicate the results.
Anyone can submit material to peer reviewed journals. Do you think there's a reason that submissions from people without advanced degrees almost never make it through that (usually blind) peer review process?
Also even conscription armies have a smaller core of job military the core however remains loyal to the society which should be the End goal due to less abuse beeing possible.
Conscription's primary service is that it leads to a society which has no military fetish. I don't know anyone who had to do mandatory training that doesn't think career military are all idiots by trade.
Also even conscription armies have a smaller core of job military the core however remains loyal to the society which should be the End goal due to less abuse beeing possible.
Conscription's primary service is that it leads to a society which has no military fetish. I don't know anyone who had to do mandatory training that doesn't think career military are all idiots by trade.
I agree somewhat on the first part, military service and general status of the military is preety ingrained here. fetishised altough not really. Accepted or liked as a institution, yeah preety universally funnily enough (and if you go dig a bit in swiss behaviour that is actually a wonder). Even though the motivation of your standard fuisilier is somewhere between 0 and nothing. often.
AS for career military, no, we call them "agfresse" or "angefressen", meaning a bit overly dedicated. Idiots generally they aren't, atleast not here, but then again they had to make do with an army of more or less happy fusiliers which also tend to be vocal and can bully them and their budgets pretty heavily.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: It's not that black and white though is it? Most people wouldn't serve without some added benefits. I for example, am massively grateful for the (although ours isnt the best) subsidised family house. Back when I was a singly I enjoyed cheap accomodation and subsidised food. I got my driving licenses for free, aswell as a bunch of other things. Over here the military doesn't pay for education, but you do get credits to use on education or employment courses based on duration served.
Plus I get to go to the gym during work time pretty much every day so...
It's true that people wouldn't enlist without benefits (there are some benefits here in Germany too) but that's not the problem. The problem is that it seems like this is the only way out of a bad situation for a significant number of people, meaning for them it's not just "benefits" but much more fundamental and essential support. It can end up being a choice on a technicality only when all other options are just bad/worthless. Everybody should be able to live decently without needing to risk their lives in some war.
Military service should never be a last resort/emergency option for people. Some people need/want the more rigid structure of a military life, some see it as a duty/honour that they are doing for their country but if you make the choice to enlist then that shouldn't be "clouded" by considerations like "I have to do this because otherwise I might end up homeless and starve". This is not like a video game where you can just exit it when you are bored of it and without any consequences (mental and/or physical injuries).
Besides, if most people wouldn't serve then the US government wouldn't be able to just throw bodies at problems and would need to think of other ways of dealing with external/foreign issues. Because from another point of view the system as it exist right now looks like the military–industrial complex of the USA is just throwing poor people's lives away to make a profit.
Reread the damn thread, I wasn't the one who was making the argument, I simply agreed.
I also am the one that said the stupid fething diploma wasn't worthless, just that all the information given to get said degree is readily accessible to anyone who is literate and has internet. I'm the one saying subsidizing college is a stupid idea because it would encourage even more worthless gak degrees getting passed out to people who aren't informed about their choices and saddles more debt on people that shouldn't be called upon to pay for someone's colossally stupid life mistakes.
Reread the damn thread, I wasn't the one who was making the argument, I simply agreed.
I also am the one that said the stupid fething diploma wasn't worthless, just that all the information given to get said degree is readily accessible to anyone who is literate and has internet. I'm the one saying subsidizing college is a stupid idea because it would encourage even more worthless gak degrees getting passed out to people who aren't informed about their choices and saddles more debt on people that shouldn't be called upon to pay for someone's colossally stupid life mistakes.
The information isn't readily accessible to everyone that has internet though, and even if it were expecting everyone to be an autodidact in (post-)graduate-level academics is just so mind-bogglingly stupid that I don't even know where to start. It's condescending, but it's true. How are you even supposed to know where to start? Try random web pages and hope for the best?
Not to mention you'd de facto be putting Google in a position of deciding what people get to learn or not. That alone is such a spectacularly, mind-bogglingly stupid idea that it doesn't merit anything other than ridicule and scorn.
I think that the primary skill university teaches is teaching you how to teach yourself at varying levels. Any decent Humanities undergrad can do cursory digestion, analysis and summation of information. Any such postdoc can schedule a basic research program. An undergrad wouldn't know where to start in piercing together as halfway competent research program though. And Joe public would struggle to do either with no experience.
Any undergrad with a Humanities degree can thus probably teach themselves any other Humanities subject to the same level, and the same for a postdoc. They know how the game works.
At the same time, that falls apart once you get to stem. Stem learning is so heavily based on accumulated knowledge and specialist facilities you've no hope even with advanced study knowledge. Joe public has absolutely no chance of teaching themselves advanced dentistry or architecture from the internet.
A university gives you structure to ensure you learn all of what you need to learn. At least ideally, most students forget most of what they learned assuming they learned it in the first place.
Even before the internet people could teach themselves from books. The university is there to make sure your mechanical engineers learn enough mathematics, structures, materials, basic dynamics and so on to do their mechanical engineering properly.
When we used to take our university-built race car to amateur race events, we’d see the guys who learned themselves and built their own cars. Not to disparage them because what they achieved was often incredible, but they also often lacked much of the basic knowledge that leads to a well designed car, and if they happened to have a well designed car it was often from mimicry rather than understanding of why.
You can figure out the folk who taught themselves engineering, or even things like YouTube channels of folks who might use engineering principles without actually having studied it... they might know that they’re doing something a certain way for a reason but don’t have a good grasp on that reason.
Even if they might do some impressive things, they aren’t the sort of folk you want building your cars, aircraft, bridges or doing surgery and prescribing drugs.
In addition to structure, universities have exams to help ensure people don’t skip content, and you’re being taught by experts so you are less likely to go down the path of idjits who put up websites without actually knowing what the hell theyre talking about.
As for university costing too much, I’m sure some do, a lot of money seems to get wasted, but also when you break it down on a course by course basis it’s often not as bad as you might think when you consider the infrastructure, lecturers and tutors required, and academics usually are well but not extremely well paid (often the same skill set in industry would make them more money).
Reread the damn thread, I wasn't the one who was making the argument, I simply agreed.
I also am the one that said the stupid fething diploma wasn't worthless, just that all the information given to get said degree is readily accessible to anyone who is literate and has internet. I'm the one saying subsidizing college is a stupid idea because it would encourage even more worthless gak degrees getting passed out to people who aren't informed about their choices and saddles more debt on people that shouldn't be called upon to pay for someone's colossally stupid life mistakes.
All the information is not accessible without an institutional affiliation or masses of money, as I pointed out earlier.
Which degrees are worthless? Why?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
As for university costing too much, I’m sure some do, a lot of money seems to get wasted, but also when you break it down on a course by course basis it’s often not as bad as you might think when you consider the infrastructure, lecturers and tutors required, and academics usually are well but not extremely well paid (often the same skill set in industry would make them more money).
Depends on the country, the degree, and the institution, but many definitely do charge too much. No degree costs Ivy League money to teach. Few non-medical ones cost Russel Group money. Alas, those of us teaching them see very, very little of it, even in terms of research funding. High fees are primarily there to ensure institutions and senior non-teaching make vast incomes.
I’ve often wondered who makes all the money at universities, because all the wages at our university are open for anyone to see and none of them are terribly impressive. It seems, at least at my university, a lot of the money goes in to infrastructure, new buildings or renovating old ones, and a lot of ancillary stuff like security, grounds keepers, and so on. But maybe some folk are making money hand over fist, the only people I know who have made a lot of money at my university are a few blokes who operated their own businesses or consultancies from the university.
Or the people who contract for the uni. Like builders and electricians and whatnot seem to add a zero to their price when they see it’s from the university.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I’ve often wondered who makes all the money at universities, because all the wages at our university are open for anyone to see and none of them are terribly impressive. It seems, at least at my university, a lot of the money goes in to infrastructure, new buildings or renovating old ones, and a lot of ancillary stuff like security, grounds keepers, and so on. But maybe some folk are making money hand over fist, the only people I know who have made a lot of money at my university are a few blokes who operated their own businesses or consultancies from the university.
Or the people who contract for the uni. Like builders and electricians and whatnot seem to add a zero to their price when they see it’s from the university.
It's usually the folk highest up, but it's not straight cash that is their "reward" for running the university. Things like a fancy car, paid for housing w/ staff, etc.
Would it be cheaper to found your own university and just contract a professor to outline a syllabus, then hire lecturers to deliver it through private tuition?
When i went to uni a decade or so ago we did not receive many hours of lecture or tuition. It was like an hour or two a day tops. Lots of break between semesters. Maybe a thousand hours of 'assisted learning' (lectures, tutorials, etc) across the course.
How much would it cost to pay the professor to outline a sylabus and for 1000 hours worth of time from lecturers compared to however much uni costs in the UK/US now?
What would the advantages of such intense 1:1 tuition be compared to a convensional establishment uni? What hoops would need to be jumped through in order to make such a 'homeuniversitied' course accreddited?
nareik wrote: Would it be cheaper to found your own university and just contract a professor to outline a syllabus, then hire lecturers to deliver it through private tuition?
When i went to uni a decade or so ago we did not receive many hours of lecture or tuition. It was like an hour or two a day tops. Lots of break between semesters. Maybe a thousand hours of 'assisted learning' (lectures, tutorials, etc) across the course.
How much would it cost to pay the professor to outline a sylabus and for 1000 hours worth of time from lecturers compared to however much uni costs in the UK/US now?
What would the advantages of such intense 1:1 tuition be compared to a convensional establishment uni? What hoops would need to be jumped through in order to make such a 'homeuniversitied' course accreddited?
Teaching staff (even pure teaching contracts with no research) aren't just paid for contact hours.
If you had 1000 hours of contact time (though that seems pretty high) then the hours wprked by lecturing staff is going to be, as an absolute minimum, three times that not including marking or admin and assuming the basic content is largely written already. At university tutor rates at most Russell Groups that'll be paying around £17 an hour.
If you need to actually write the course you can probably treble the worked hours again.
This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.
I am really tired of hearing this argument.
No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Guys, you are missing the subtle brilliance of Tony's post. He is demonstrating the difference first hand!
You think you're deep, you're not. For the record, my wife is in the medical field and can probably line you up with a good proctologist who can help you with where you need to stick your condescending attitude.
I admit it was indulgent on my part and in hindsight I should have have said it. But I also didn't expect it to go over your head, let alone by that much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.
I am really tired of hearing this argument.
No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.
So incredibly true. I will note that there is a political side that promotes such a mentality, but going further would mean getting into politics.
Easy E wrote: This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.
I am really tired of hearing this argument.
No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.
I tell our CNC machinists how they might run their machines better, they’ll also tell me how to design my parts better, so it’s a two way street, lol.
I think people should absolutely be sceptical of “experts”, I always start by assuming people are bullshitting me regardless of their qualifications, but self teaching is a lot more difficult than some might think, and without the structure of a university there’s not much way of knowing if people have actually covered the basics properly.
Easy E wrote: This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.
I am really tired of hearing this argument.
No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.
Reminds me of what Hegel said in The Phenomenology of Spirit:
If the ratiocinative attitude is a hindrance to the study of philosophy, the conceit that flaunts settled truths without any ratiocination is no less so. The possessor of such truths sees no need to come back to them; he makes them the foundation and believes he can not only express them, but also judge and dispute by means of them. In view of this, it is particularly necessary that philosophizing should be made a serious business again. In the case of all sciences, arts, skills, and crafts, people are convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to philosophy, it seems that the dominant prejudice is now that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and gets leather and a tool, is thereby in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy, since he possesses the yardstick for it in his natural reason—as if he did not equally possess the measure of a shoe in his own foot.—It seems that philosophical competence is made to consist precisely in lack of information and study, as though philosophy left off where they begin. Philosophy is often regarded as a formal kind of knowledge, void of content, and the insight is sorely lacking that, whatever truth there may be in the content of any discipline or science, it can only deserve the name if it has been engendered by philosophy; that the other sciences can try their hand as much as they like at ratiocination without philosophy, but without it they can have in them neither life, nor spirit, nor truth.
One of Hegel's rare times of being blunt and right to the point,
Isn't that something to do with the dunning kruger effect? I agree mostly with what's been said, however there are times where I believe its healthy to be skeptical of what experts say, particularly if those experts have agendas or financial incentive. Look at (former) Dr Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism debacle.
There's a difference between being a reasonable skeptic and blanket ignoring science and treating it like an opinion.
When the 'expert' if going against scientific consensus, (Like Vaccines are good, Man-Made Climate Change is real, or Evolution happened) then there's very good reason to be skeptic and discount them.
But for the most part, scientists and teachers earned their ability and having a layman think they know better really devalues their hard work and contribution to society.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Isn't that something to do with the dunning kruger effect? I agree mostly with what's been said, however there are times where I believe its healthy to be skeptical of what experts say, particularly if those experts have agendas or financial incentive. Look at (former) Dr Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism debacle.
Well, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-skeptic, or anti-skepticism (in-itself). However, the skeptical approach should be employed with limits. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with questioning authority and lots "right" about it. However, to be radically anti-authority, in the sense of rejecting anything and everything "experts" say, is as nonsensical as simply accepting it without question.
So, as always, we are somewhere betwixt the poles of radical skepticism and radical dogmatism without a clear, quantitative answer to where we should necessarily, rightly, take a stance in the continuum. I don't have a solution for this problem, but my guess would, unsurprisingly, be that we should each be vacillating somewhere near the middle. Of course, in this process, we should likely be considering teleology, bias and resolving ourselves to try to be somewhat Bayesian. However, I'd be the first to admit I have a somewhat anti-stance stance on stances, a paradox I don't have the means to undo. However, I'd personally consider this position as fully tenible, since I don't ever really feel the need to resolve the paradox, "I" simply just am it's sort of dialectical process.
Easy E wrote: H- I think the ancient Greek's simply called it the Golden Mean. All things in moderation.
Yeah, although I think one can get into some "trouble" in applying that too overtly. To me, it's less about some sort of 50/50 split, but rather more a process where we apply both ends against the mean (and against each end).
Yeah, personally I tend to judge things on a case-by-case basis, somewhat adjusted by things I know, have experienced or how well it fits into what I know of how the universe (and our tiny corner of it) works.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Isn't that something to do with the dunning kruger effect? I agree mostly with what's been said, however there are times where I believe its healthy to be skeptical of what experts say, particularly if those experts have agendas or financial incentive. Look at (former) Dr Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism debacle.
As you say, former. He went against the scientific consensus and lied to get the results that met his personal belief. He was very quickly found out, discredited and lost all standing and accreditation. He is not an example of why you should not trust experts, quite the opposite.
If you aren't an evolutionary biologist then offering nuanced and comprehensive critique on peer reviewed publications on evolutionary science is almost certainly beyond you. If you aren't a biologist at all then that 'almost' is near-redundant. If you are unable to properly critique the material, your personal opinion on how convincing a certain paper is is pretty much worthless as you definitely do not have the assumed knowledge required to understand it sufficiently within the context of the literature. Even if you could, an individual paper's methodological insufficiency means exactly nothing re: the robustness of an entire field of science.
I don't even know where to start with 'I'm skeptical of the scientific rigor underpinning evolution because I read some papers from another field'.
Considering even the catholic church, a body so learn resistent that it is a wonder it stuck around imo, and i say this as a catholic , accepts evolution as a fact. And considering that MOST critique comes out of creationist supposed counterexemple based upon complexity of creatures which literally goes something like this:
"the whip tail is so complex and therefore god must exist ergo evolution is bs!" until some palentologist finds another ancient fossil to point to gradual mutation and competition, at which point the generally switch to the next best organ, extremity etc. i kinda rest the point.
I'd wish though for an improved general education, would certainly help out.
Way to quote what I said out of context. Literally the next sentence I said was that I'm not a strict adherent to the idea that falsifiability is a black and white distinction for what is and isn't science.
But thanks for proving my point that people don't actually bother to reference original scientific research, and instead resort to opinion. It is YOUR opinion that I should blindly believe evolution because someone tells me that someone else who is an expert said I should believe it.
No it isn't. It is my opinion that you aren't capable of troubleshooting the theory of evolution and are at the mercy of experts. You can potentially identify issues in specific papers, but not the validity of a colossal body of literature.
Take it from someone who is actually in a research field, scientists are fallible, the system which we build our knowledge on is fallible. Even in fields based on falsifiable hypotheses and experimentation, it's been a point of critique on the scientific community that no one wants to re-prove another person's work so that our theories can end up built on far less information than they should be.
'Take it from someone who is actually in a research field'. Aye, sound mate. Want to compare PhDs?
Whilst you're at it, it may be worth considering why anyone should take it from you when you've spent several posts telling us why you shouldn't simply pay heed to experts.
Anyway, we're way off topic, so I will leave this hubristic silliness here.
In my field, people try to re-prove stuff all the time.
Wakefield is the textbook example- loads of people tried to replicate his results, and all of them failed. It was a major part of what lead to his discrediting, alongside the complete lack of ethics in his study.
Basically any research produced by a pharmaceutical company is also treated with a healthy degree of scepticism too, until some independent studies have appeared.
Well that's just it--even experts are treated with skepticism when there is only one instance of the thing in question. Further, any expert with integrity would be first in line to suggest if not outright request others test it themselves.
There are definite problems with how we construct knowledge with the scientific method, but mostly with the social structures surround it. The system of allocation of funding resources and the tendency not to report on negative results, as well as the volume of work being published and the paucity of resources allocated to checking said work. And of course the fact that the publishing of papers is gated off by profit making companies that rely on the free labour of others for peer review, and the supine way most academics accept this.
However, pointing out flaws in the process is not the same as saying the process is bad and we should ignore it. The process has flaws and we should address them, but it is still the outstanding intellectual achievement of our species and what our entire society is built upon. Without this method of gaining new knowledge we would all be absolutely fethed.
So I think contempt is the correct response to people who blithely go off on one about scientists and experts, but cannot back it up with much more than some internet research or a qualification in an unrelated field.
Several societies are currently being run by people with anti-science views and approaches. Lets see where it gets them.
)
