• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do conservatives value landlords and employers over families?

phattonez said:
Answer the question.

How is it that a family could be supported on one income 50 years ago, but today even two income households are deep in debt?
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the differences between what a family expected in that house 50 years ago compared to today. How massive houses have grown since then. The average house size has almost doubled since the 1970s. People now demand a huge house, multiple big screen TVs, smart phones for everyone in the family and multiple new cars.

Look into a few of those things and you will answer your own question.
 

Person won't touch that with a ten-foot pole. He was hoping that Dims' past indiscretions were completely forgotten.
 
phattonez said:
Answer the question.

How is it that a family could be supported on one income 50 years ago, but today even two income households are deep in debt?
Click to expand...
Your question is embarrassingly wrong. MANY families could survive on 1 income 50 years ago...and many required both parents to work. Today, MANY families survive on single income providers...and many require both parents to work.

You should really try studying history and not getting your economic education from leftist memes.
 

It's assessed on the person who owns the property. If you don't want to pay it then don't own the property. Or, sell it to the tenant so he can pay it.

Principal isn’t profit. Only that principal that is above the selling price.
Click to expand...

Of course it's profit. You get equity that you didn't have before.


It's not a real cost. It's a cost you get so that you can buy property faster. Are you going to lower your rent when interest payments end? No. You'll just take more profit.

Like I've been saying, it's speculation on a necessity, driving up its cost. When the cost of housing goes up faster than inflation and wages, something is wrong.
 
What's the difference between this and the water bottle example? You said the water bottle scenario was morally repugnant. What's different that makes this okay?
 
phattonez said:
Answer the question.

How is it that a family could be supported on one income 50 years ago, but today even two income households are deep in debt?
Click to expand...
Lets examine some things.

WHat is REALLY different today from 50 years ago?

A lack of personal spiritual foundation.
A dramatic increase in single mother led homes.
More and more children born out of wedlock.
The abandonment of the middle income service industry driven economic base.
A dramatic increase in divorces.
Social ills...people so ****ed up they dont know what of 117 different gender types they are.
A transformation of an expectation that life is supposed to involve hard work to a belief that life is supposed to be 'fair'.
The vilification of competition.
The transformation of college campuses as a place of higher learning that facilitated higher paying careers to a hiding places for lost children that run up massive debt while being indoctrinated as to the benefits of socialism and the evils of capitalism. Let the irony of that sink in for a bit.
The change in expectation that minimum wage jobs should be jobs for teenagers or second income jobs to the notion that people should be able to have careers with 'livable wages' as a fry cook.
The shutting down of shop and trade programs in high school.

Lots of things that have changed.
 
Look at the chart. I'm comparing median home prices and median incomes. This isn't a spending problem. It's a cost of living problem. Housing should get cheaper with time. Necessities shouldn't be harder to get as society gets richer.
 
I have looked into it. So did Case-Shiller. Their index takes this into account. Home prices are still way higher than they were 50 years ago.
 
Wrong. Male incomes are far lower today.

Notice that I'm the only one providing real data here. You're trafficking in narrative. You're wrong.
 
phattonez said:
Wrong. Male incomes are far lower today.

Notice that I'm the only one providing real data here. You're trafficking in narrative. You're wrong.
Click to expand...

Data is ten years old.
 
And you ignore the fact that housing becoming more expensive relative to income contributes to all of those things, especially single motherhood. It turns out that when men have low wages, women will still have sex, but they won't be interested in marriage. Sadly that's human nature.
 
phattonez said:
Look at the chart. I'm comparing median home prices and median incomes. This isn't a spending problem. It's a cost of living problem. Housing should get cheaper with time. Necessities shouldn't be harder to get as society gets richer.
Click to expand...

In many places houses do get cheaper over time and that is why they end up being slums. A 50 year old is less desirable to purchase so it becomes a rental. As a rental it becomes less desirable without additional upgrades so it doesn't get market rates. The less people are willing to rent it for, the less the landlord puts into it. Rinse and repeat until it is a crack house.

Anyway, the only solution to this is more public housing. Any time the government tries to fix an issue on the cheap, it makes it worse.
 
phattonez said:
Wrong. Male incomes are far lower today.

Notice that I'm the only one providing real data here. You're trafficking in narrative. You're wrong.
Click to expand...
No...Im not wrong. People that dont marry til they graduate from school and have jobs...people that dont have kids until they are married...and that have a plan and budget can live as successfully today as they did 50 years ago. People that dont cant. And today there are a lot more that dont than that do.

Your chart doesnt say **** about the motivation, action, or efforts of those 'men' they are citing.

Look...are you really goofy enough to believe that 50 years ago people even USED the word 'barista', let alone looked to being a 'barista' as a career choice?

Lots has changed. For some stupid reason you are trying to pin the blame for your failures on landlords.
 
phattonez said:
It's only gotten worse.
Click to expand...

Looks like it's picking up in the last few years. Assuming this particular number means anything, of course. My statistics professor used to say "just because you can apply a mathematical operation to two numbers does me you should or that the result has any useful meaning."
 
Public housing has been an awful experience in this country.

We need to do something about the price of land.
 
So when I find you dying in the desert I hope you have $500 to pay for my water or you're dying. Tough luck.
 
Lol, talk about being willfully blind.
 
phattonez said:
Yes that's true, but for workers living in their cars, I would say an increase in standard of living is warranted.



Landlords who are profiting while their tenants are spending 50% of their income are engaging in injustice.
Click to expand...

- How about you also shift the blame to the outrageous housing prices in LA and other parts of California instead of focusing on Landlords. If home prices were reasonable many would not have to try and rent.

- The recession impacted the housing market in a negative way.
- Since the recovery more high end rentals have been build than average/low end affect supply.
- 3 Reasons Why Your Rent Is So High | HuffPost
 

Oh, we can do this all day.

Why do Conservatives value grocers over families? Why should grocers be allowed to charge for their food?

Or, for that matter, doctors?

Or, for that matter - oh - what is it that you do, again? Why should we allow you to be paid for it?



If you don't like paying rent, move somewhere you can afford to own. If you want to live in a big city, and can't afford a big nice house with a big ole yard in that place, then accept that you are responsible for your own decisions, including the one where you decided to prioritize living in that city.
 
Landlords and housing prices aren't separate issues.
 

And in swoops cpwill with the straw man! No one ever said landlords deserve no compensation. I'm saying that they should take into account the means of their tenants and show solidarity with the poorer members of the community. After all, the wealth of the rich belongs more to the poor than to the rich. You are Christian, aren't you?


The end result of this line of thinking is that only the rich can afford to have communities. Once affordable suburbs are now selling homes that start at $1 million, but I guess you think rich people deserve it more than the people who built that community over generations.
 
The wealth belongs to the people who made it.
Not sure how you got so confused on this.

And it’s not a question of who deserves what. No one deserves a thing more then what they are willing to work for. Your entitled attitude is a large part of what of wrong with this country.
 
I don't know what heritage you come from, but that's certainly not the Christian heritage.

St. John Chrysostom: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…