This is a dead end argument that can only be prolonged with obfuscation. It stands to reason that landlords raise rents whenever they can, and that tenants having more money permits the leeches more room to do precisely this.

The issue is not whether this happens, it’s how you mitigate it. Just perpetually raising the minimum/living wage won’t cut it. It’s only half the solution.

Classic obfuscation. I’ll leave you to it

equinox_code wrote:

Classic obfuscation. I’ll leave you to it

It’s not obfuscation, it’s pointing out that no link currently exists between rents and minimum wages.

Yossarian wrote:

equinox_code wrote:

Classic obfuscation. I’ll leave you to it

It’s not obfuscation, it’s pointing out that no link currently exists between rents and minimum wages.

True but there is with the living calculation. If rents were much more reasonable and controlled, the difference between minimum and living wage would be much smaller.

That said, I think another aspect is the difference between our lowest and highest wages but for me the solution isn't just to bring the lower up, its the bring the higher down either through legislation or tax.

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

equinox_code wrote:

Classic obfuscation. I’ll leave you to it

It’s not obfuscation, it’s pointing out that no link currently exists between rents and minimum wages.

True but there is with the living calculation. If rents were much more reasonable and controlled, the difference between minimum and living wage would be much smaller.

That said, I think another aspect is the difference between our lowest and highest wages but for me the solution isn't just to bring the lower up, its the bring the higher down either through legislation or tax.

A higher minimum wage would help bring that gap down too.

poprock wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

… no link currently exists between rents and minimum wages.

I dunno Yoss, I can see Noxy’s point. If the minimum wage rises, everybody else’s does too. If everyone has higher income, the average rental price can go up as well. Maybe you’re saying there’s no direct link, but I can see the logic for an indirect one. What’s actually happening in the real world is less logical than that though. Rents are rising faster than wages (and faster than minimum wage for sure).

But rents rise even if wages don't, and faster than them if they do. It's not a good argument against raising the minimum wage because landlords will put up rents anyway.

No one is saying a higher minimum wage is a single solution, but I can't see a package that doesn't include it .

Guys, how long have we all known each other? do you really think I’m arguing against a minimum or living wage? Come on

I suspect rent prices will be more closely linked to median income and housing availability.

London has quite high median income and a huge housing problem so landlords can up rent way above minimum wage affordability and still get tenants.

Somewhere like Redcar will be the opposite. Low earnings, closer to minimum wage, lots of housing if poor quality. An increase in minimum wage there would have more impact on median income and will influence rent more.

I was thinking about that process as well.
I think at some point to get such a project of the ground you have to accept some will exploit it.
Others may go in with good intentions but not fulfill the potential of it.

The balance is making those losses worth while for the sake of the individual and cultural gains of the successes.

Why the arts and not others. I would say because there is little to no structural career progression in much of the arts in comparison to other sectors.

Really I see this project as more of a loose bursary scheme than some trial overhaul of society.

I have to say, having rented in lots of places, various countries, over the years, that my experience of landlords has been pretty good. None of them were rich money grabbers or bastards. They were in general people who had had a flat left to them by a deceased parent or relative, or had managed to buy a bigger house for their family and were renting the smaller one instead of selling it, and were just renting it out for some extra money. None of them tried to hike the rent at any time and all of them made an effort to sort out any problems. The last place I was in for 8 years and the owner never once raised the rent, even though he was entitled to do it every year. I think any of us who came into some property might do the same thing. It doesn't necessarily make you some capitalist cunt.

Kow wrote:

I have to say, having rented in lots of places, various countries, over the years, that my experience of landlords has been pretty good. None of them were rich money grabbers or bastards. They were in general people who had had a flat left to them by a deceased parent or relative, or had managed to buy a bigger house for their family and were renting the smaller one instead of selling it, and were just renting it out for some extra money. None of them tried to hike the rent at any time and all of them made an effort to sort out any problems. The last place I was in for 8 years and the owner never once raised the rent, even though he was entitled to do it every year. I think any of us who came into some property might do the same thing. It doesn't necessarily make you some capitalist cunt.

Of course not, and I've argued over the years that there is a desire and need for rental properties, not everyone wants to be saddled with 25+ years of debt, not everyone wants to be tied to single place, some want more flexibility etc. The problem as with all "capital" based profit extraction is lack of regulation.

The quality, cost, maintenance and profits of landlords should be regulated via rules, health and safety, certain defined standards of living and progressive taxation. If they are not then people will abuse the opportunity to profit. Many will be just like Kow's experiences, and mine too for what it's worth, and some will become industrial sized professional landlords who will fuck you for profit every way they can.

Oof this is all 101 stuff sorry

Kow wrote:

I'm looking for an apartment here for somebody at the moment and almost everything is protected. That means that you can't buy the place unless you intend to live in it, it will not be permitted to sell it in under 5 years and it can't be rented out. You also have to prove that your income is under a certain maximum. It effectively kills off speculative buying and for-rent purchasing by wealthy landlords.

Where is that Kow?

I've often heard that the continent has way more sensible rental laws, no direct experience of it myself. Ireland seems to not know what to do to fix the problem, and its only getting worse. Doesn't help that many politicians in government are landlords.

dynamiteReady wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

At some point you just have to throw your hands up and say fuck it. Government does something vaguely humanist and progressive and culturally positive? “Oooooh but who’s an artist REALLY eh? Eh? Money for old rope!” “Middle class tossers getting their old rope exhibitions subsidised, and everyone knows middle class people can’t be true artists” People think that a job should pay for someone’s livelihood? “Nah cost of living innit? More money to the proles equals everyone paying more for everything, it’s the way the world works innit, only one lever to pull after all” Fuck this

Say if the Irish government instead said, 'fuck it, let's see what the effects of a minimum living wage does for 2000 low income homes in Limerick' instead? Do you really think it would be as easy for anyone to complain about the trial?

Thats a great idea. We can post back and forth on the merits but I guess the best way is to test it. And if the aim is truly to help those who need it, start with them.

There is the experiment going on in Finland which to be fair looks promising The results of Finland’s basic income experiment are in. Is it working? | World Economic Forum (weforum.org). I think a few places in the US are trying it too and I seem to have Iceland as a possible location as well.

I might be against it as a current concept but if the results prove otherwise I would get behind it completely. (- not that individuals do better - any of us are better off if we get extra money. I'm thinking of the impact on the whole of society)

That link also led to this - What motivates workers in the gig economy? | World Economic Forum (weforum.org) 

Now when I was talking about jobs that dont need all the usual stuff about living wage, I am thinking about this kind of stuff. When I was younger I was all over this kind of stuff as a way to get more money in around my existing job. There's pitfalls, there's issues but the simple idea that a job can be offered and you can take it or leave it based on your own personal choice is one I like. It can be very helpful for a small business who does not have the necessary ability to take on a full-time employee (or even guarantee a part-time person regular hours)

Similar issues here. 18% of MPs.