hirogdev

In your hyperbolic, unrealistic scenario, are the ultra-wealthy going to be permanently renting?

They’re doing it for the short amount of time it’s going to take for them to buy another mansion - they’re in the rental market because of a disaster. Once they’ve recuperated, they’re gone.

But let’s say your exaggeration comes true. Do you think landlords would be able to continue renting for 5x the amount once their ultra-wealthy market dries up?

You seem to think I’m a proponent for the price gouging practice, so I’ll reiterate: I’m not arguing that the problem should be ignored, and something needs to be done about it.

I simply have no sympathy for those looking to rent where a 20% increase equates to $3000 a month.

You are arguing about the difference between price gouging of a Toyota Corolla vs a McClaren GTS - necessity vs luxury.

The price gouging has been happening legally for years and nothing has changed or been done to fix it. The high-end clients in the article clearly own property if they’re willing to spend that much on rent.

I have no sympathy for that specific example because it’s reported like this is some novel, new experience, as opposed to it being a systemic issue that’s plagued everyone else. My sympathy goes to the others mentioned in the article who clearly aren’t in the market for luxury-class rentals.

Don’t want to be priced gouged? Don’t rent those luxury houses from the parasites. Lower your expectations and you might find something else more reasonable.

But sympathy, or lack thereof, isn’t a requirement for the practice to be illegal and action to be taken, and I never said something shouldn’t be done about it.

I don’t disagree with you at all.

My comment assumed that they’re making enough to own passive income properties that they rent to people who don’t own properties, which is not uncommon amongst those making enough to afford that kind of rent.

Renting doesn’t make you part of the proletariat if you own private property that gives you money without working.

However, it’s definitely presumptuous of me to make such assumptions about who they are and what they own, as much as it is of you to assume that they are part of the labor force and aren’t just wealthy investment bankers, so I won’t belabor the point.

Class consciousness? Last I checked, a 3-4 bedroom rental house in the LA area has plenty of options in the $4k to $8k range.

Here’s a few examples for you.

Zillow doesn’t even have a “price minimum” filter option greater than $10k a month.

The article specifically states some rental properties were increased, and the only example they gave was a property in a range that literally 99% of the population can’t afford. Is the 1% now suddenly in the same class that I need to be conscious about?

15 to 20 percent increases overnight

the listing agent raised the monthly cost by $3,000

That’s $15,000 a month, $180,000 a year before the price increase. Maybe try hunting for normal people rentals and others would have an ounce of care or sympathy for you.

I’d also wager that most of these people have properties themselves that they use to gouge money from others for “passive income”. Well, they can passively suck it.

It’s all fun and games until the scammers use AI themselves to massively scale their operations.

“Forever Pay For Your Mouse”

Conversely, I’ve only ever seen “make do” used.

“Make due” would make sense to me in the context where debt is a factor, for example, “make due on rent”.

It doesn’t make sense when you apply that meaning to how the sentence was written in this article.

While writing this angry comment, did you stop to consider that maybe they did their job right and you’re wrong?

https://www.grammar.com/make_do_vs._make_due

Unless you’re living in the early 1900s, “make do” is correct for today’s English.