He also fathered over a thousand children. If you think all of that was consensual, well… idk what to tell you. And I can’t give him very much credit for invading peaceful nations, plundering them, enslaving their scribes and then using their language. Even if he did divide the booty equally among his men.

Trump is also famously pretty generous with for example tipping people a hundred dollars for carrying his golf clubs. And enriching his own inner circle.

Aight you win i guess, things were better back in the good old days, being happy in modern society isnt possible and you shouldn’t try.

As opposed to the legal protections given to people in ancient times?

It IS good advice I swear to god. Its not even controversial its what any therapist would tell you. Make lifestyle changes and improve your mindset.

Yeah Trump is a bad dude but tell me with a straight face hes worse then Genghis Kahn or Vlad the Impaler.

Processed foods would blow their fucking minds. Yeah im sure they would be a little homesick so lets let them take their friends and family.

Living in the woods or like a peasant in an undeveloped country is still an option, there’s a reason nobody does it though.

Ok here’s a counterpoint, sure the world sucks in that all the things you mentioned are happening, but also - compared to the conditions we were genetically programmed to endure, modern life is amazing. For the vast majority of people, our base biological needs are met effortlessly. The majority of human existence has historically been a struggle for calories. Like, thats it. That’s 99% of your life: either hunting, foraging, farming, or directly supporting the people in your family who do. Also, the strong dominating the weak wasn’t even questioned it was just a fact of life.

Transport one of those people from the hunter-gatherer/bronze age/iron age/midevial era and they would be ecstatic in the modern day. Try to tell them about Netanyahu or Trump and they would probably say “wow they sound like an asshole but not as bad as the guys I had to deal with”.

There are no objectively good or bad human conditions. Things can always be better or worse. People’s emotions and perception of human conditions, therefore, are all about whether they perceive things are getting better or worse. The good part about that is it gives you agency. All most people have to do to be happy is improve their quality of life, or adjust how they perceive the world in order to give themselves a more positive outlook.

Tldr get tf off of Lemmy and the rest of social media

Haha he did the same thing when I saw them at the SC state fair back in… 2013.

He smelled some pizza being cooked nearby and got hungry and stopped the show while someone brought him some food :) great show though

You have six fingers on your right hand… someone was looking for you.

Nice cock

Cheers

The average number of occupants doesn’t change because everyone will still be living somewhere (excluding homelessness but we can ignore that). However, that does not mean cohabitation and second houses are irrelevant.

• Some people who were previously cohabiting (not renting) will buy homes
• Some people will buy second (or third, etc) houses.

Both of these scenarios are excluded from your example above. As a consequence of them, some renters will have to start cohabiting (or become homeless). The fact that there are more people who want to rent their (own) place then there are rental units will drive up rental prices.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20181289

Here you go.

Using a 1994 law change, we exploit quasi-experimental variation in the assignment of rent control in San Francisco to study its impacts on tenants and landlords. Leveraging new data tracking individuals’ migration, we find rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco. Landlords treated by rent control reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent by selling to owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law.

I didnt mention anything about the average number of occupants per home. What i did say was that, if 100 homes go from being rented to being sold, not all 100 homes will go to previous renters, for the reasons I mentioned above. Doesn’t that make sense?

That’s a big assumption that the new homeowner was a previous renter and not just someone cohabiting or buying an additional home.

How does being evicted remove a renter from the rental market?

Yes, again, I agree with you that the landlords will have to reduce their prices because there will be a temporary housing glut. Although, they might just let them sit unused off the market until prices recover.

But the houses will get sold. There’s a housing shortage everywhere.

Yes, in your scenario, assuming that all the houses must be sold and nobody is allowed to buy a second home (which would happen in the real world as the prices drop) and nobody becomes homeless (which would also happen), all those houses would go to previous renters. The remaining renters are those who are in the most financially weak situation - even as property prices drop and rental prices go up they still couldn’t afford to buy before the market stabilized. In this market there is now going to be pressure driving down the prices of homes and driving up the price of rentals.

Because having your rental unit taken away from you does not remove you from the rental market. You might consider leaving the rental market and buying property if housing prices collapse, but outside of that most people are going to have to look around for a new rental unit in a now tighter market.

Right. We are in agreement that this should cause some reduction in property prices.

But not all renters are able to buy property. Here’s an extreme example - lets say 99.9% of landlords are forced to sell their rental homes. There are now just 100 units left in all of London.

There are 10000 students who need a temporary place to stay, and another 10000 people that have bad credit and cant get a mortgage. What will happen to rental prices?

Right but a lot of renters cannot or do not want to buy property. Thus, rental units leaving the market creates a supply demand imbalance in the rent market, driving up prices (and driving down property prices, for the inverse reason)

When someone decides to sell a good because market conditions have changed, the price of the good goes down

Yes i agree with that part

Rental prices are proportional to overall housing prices. In general, more homeowners is correlated with lower rents. Renters are also removed from the market.

That is correlation without causation. When there isn’t enough housing, rent and property prices will both be high. However, if properties get taken off the rental market and are put up for sale instead, with no changes to population or overall housing supply, that is going to drive up rental prices. There will be fewer people renting, by necessity, but the people who want or need to rent will not change by as much, creating an imbalance between supply and demand that will drive up rental prices.

Not to mention another thing we haven’t touched on which is why landlords are leaving in the first place. Those who remain in the now-less-profitable environment may try to raise rent to compensate.

Right, but if landlords are exiting the market that probably means they are selling to someone who wants to live there, meaning rental properties are going off the market. Which is good for first time homebuyers but bad for renters. Either that or this is just landlords consolidating which which wont make much of a difference either way.