dangeresque's recent activity
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
-
Comment on A Helicopter In My Cable Modem in ~comp
dangeresque Link ParentYeah, I'd highly doubt that there's a fan or any moving parts in there. I also doubt that it has anything to do with any external radio interference. I'd lean more towards there's just a noisy...Yeah, I'd highly doubt that there's a fan or any moving parts in there. I also doubt that it has anything to do with any external radio interference. I'd lean more towards there's just a noisy coil or chip, possibly caused by a failing capacitor or something, or maybe that's just ThE wAy iT iS. Maybe you can try replacing the power supply, but I wouldn't have high hopes for that either. Out of curiosity, I'd see if a few devices pulling heavy downloads through it causes the noise to change any. Maybe play with settings to turn Wi-Fi radios on and off to see if that affects things any.
But I don't think there's likely a good fix even if you're skilled with a soldering iron. There are a couple posts on the Internets talking about noise coming from that model, but nobody with a resolution. Since you bought it secondhand, I'm assuming it's out of warranty. If you can put it in a heavy (but still ventilated) cabinet, that might dampen the noise, but would also dampen the Wi-Fi signal a bit.
-
Comment on A Helicopter In My Cable Modem in ~comp
dangeresque LinkWhat is the make and model?What is the make and model?
-
Comment on A Helicopter In My Cable Modem in ~comp
dangeresque Link ParentYour assessment sounds reasonable, but I can't say I've ever seen a residential cable modem that had a fan or any other moving parts.Your assessment sounds reasonable, but I can't say I've ever seen a residential cable modem that had a fan or any other moving parts.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentMy frustration is that those more appropriate and better understood interventions have either not been happening or have not been working. There's a reason why tenant unions are starting to become...It seems to me that unions have a number of problems, and that more appropriate and better understood interventions in the form of market forces would be better applied here, with less chance of unintended consequences.
My frustration is that those more appropriate and better understood interventions have either not been happening or have not been working. There's a reason why tenant unions are starting to become a bigger topic, and that's because tenants have been feeling the need to unionize and are starting to realize that such a thing is possible.
Several people in this thread are talking about the potential (because we don't really know) downsides of tenant unions, but aren't really proposing much in the way of alternatives. Nor have I read anybody go so far as to suggest that tenant unions should be barred legislatively. So this thread just feels so frustratingly navel gazey. Okay okay, you think tenant unions will bring forth an apocalypse, but what are you proposing to actually stop that from happening? If a group of renters feel that it's time to bargain with their landlord collectively, then clearly other solutions aren't working for them, and who the hell are we to say that they shouldn't even try it?
I'm a homeowner, personally. I don't own any investment properties, and I don't rent. I suppose landlords going bankrupt would cause a decline in property values and would hurt me, but I'm more interested in a healthy economic situation overall than I am worried about protecting my personal finances. My last apartment happened to be in a lovely property owned and operated by an actually solid investment and management company who was rather great to work with. Most management companies, whether owner/operators or contractors, are not that. I can absolutely understand why many tenants would want to unionize, and I'm very interested in seeing how such arrangements play out over a few years.
Because we simply don't fucking know.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentIn my mind, an ideal tenant union agreement would include some form of rent control negotiated between the union and landlord, thus government-mandated rent control would not be necessary. Are you...my own response mostly targeted the union through their support of rent control
In my mind, an ideal tenant union agreement would include some form of rent control negotiated between the union and landlord, thus government-mandated rent control would not be necessary. Are you against government-mandated rent control, or are you against any form of restriction of a landlord's ability to raise rental prices?
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentThen why are you resistant to the idea of tenants unions?I'm legitimately open-minded to anything that improves housing and living standards for most people.
Then why are you resistant to the idea of tenants unions?
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentYou write as if those are mutually exclusive. You're still not making a coherent argument against tenant unions.While this post argues a tenant union could help, there's also an argument that landlord power could be effectively curbed through increased competition.
You write as if those are mutually exclusive. You're still not making a coherent argument against tenant unions.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentYou posted a link to housingwire.com which is disputing this "striking claim" which was somehow "widely circulated" by some noname Medium blog with 779 followers and opens with, essentially,...You posted a link to housingwire.com which is disputing this "striking claim" which was somehow "widely circulated" by some noname Medium blog with 779 followers and opens with, essentially, "Blackstone and Blackrock are two different massive companies you dumdums lol".
Here's a report from the GAO saying that as of 2022, institutional investors (defined as entities who own more than 1000 single-family homes) collectively owned 3% of single-family homes and the largest 5 investors alone owned nearly 2%. They compare that to 2011 where there was no entity which met that definition of institutional investor.
So I didn't state any hard facts, and yet you claimed I'm getting "basic facts wrong" by posting a link to an entity tied to the housing investment industry which appears to themselves be misrepresenting facts in service to an agenda.
And this isn't even a discussion about single-family homes and real estate investors. It's a discussion about landlords and tenant unions. What you posted has nothing to do with tenant unions, so I'm not even sure what your point is.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentThat's an excellent question, and something that landlords really ought to start considering when they decide whether to keep screwing their tenants over petty bullshit.What incentive would there ever be to keep a landlord solvent rather than just force them to go bust and form a coop to share the upkeep costs of a property you now defacto own?
That's an excellent question, and something that landlords really ought to start considering when they decide whether to keep screwing their tenants over petty bullshit.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentIt's the narrative difference between the poor sad landlord who really tried to work something out with their tenants but wound up going belly up because of the tenants' unreasonable demands...I also don't get the fixation on "bankrupt" versus "pulled out". If I had written "the landlord decides that the revenue is not worth the costs, so stops operating their property" instead, would that meaningfully change my point?
It's the narrative difference between the poor sad landlord who really tried to work something out with their tenants but wound up going belly up because of the tenants' unreasonable demands versus the landlord who didn't want to deal with taking slightly lower profits or slightly slower returns on their investments and instead abandoned the property and shoved the problem off onto the taxpayers.
how do you think a tenants union would play out with landlords and the overall costs to the system as a whole?
The same as a labor union. Employers really need labor and employees really need a paycheck. Each employee really needs a paycheck a lot more than how much an employer really needs each employee. Thus, an individual employment contract weighs the advantage heavily in the employer's favor. When employees bargain collectively, they are able to balance the power by the threat of withholding all labor if the employer refuses to cooperate.
Landlords really need rent and renters really need a roof over their head. Each renter really needs a roof over their head a lot more than how much any landlord really needs the rent from any one renter. By bargaining collectively, renters could theoretically balance the power by the threat of withholding rent payments if the landlord refuses to cooperate.
The United States has a legal framework (for now) by which labor unions are formed and can negotiate, including governing the use of strikes and the requirement that both parties negotiate in good faith or be subject to the federal government stepping in. I don't see why a similar framework could not be established for tenant unions as well.
As well, there will certainly be "costs to the system" in the establishment of tenant unions. That's... Kind of the point. Landlords have gotten too big for their proverbial britches. Private equity owns huge swaths of real estate nationwide. For a time, they absolutely threw money at every property that came onto the market, inflating prices beyond that which normal people can afford. They intentionally reduce the supply of housing by overpricing units and colluding with one another to maximize profit across their entire portfolios rather than maximizing occupancy rates as was once the norm.
My partner used to live in one unit of a quadruplex in Utah with included laundry facilities shared among the four units. There were two washers and two dryers, all at least fifteen years old. The washers were on their last legs, one was completely broken for some time, and one of the tenants ran a thrifting operation and used the laundry room quite heavily. One time my partner put a maintenance request in for a broken washing machine. Then a couple months after she renewed her lease, the washers had both broken again and she put another maintenance request in... The property manager said that they can't fix the washer because her lease said that she was responsible for maintenance of the washer and dryer. In the laundry room that was shared with three other tenants. Which they had slipped into the lease at renewal because she had previously requested they fix their broken washers. They eventually finally bought one new washer when one of the tenants moved out and they realized they weren't going to be able to rent it out with included washer/dryer if the washers were completely broken.
I don't think there's a whole lot of risk of all landlords going bankrupt because they're required to maintain the facilities that they say are included in your rent.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentThat's exactly how employment works, too, though. I'm not following why so many people are so adamant that tenant unions are a vastly different situation than labor unions. The union places a...The fact that there are individual legal agreements with tenants makes tenant unions untenable.
That's exactly how employment works, too, though. I'm not following why so many people are so adamant that tenant unions are a vastly different situation than labor unions.
The next tenant that comes in to replace them has a lease agreement that prohibits them joining a tenant union.
The union places a provision in the contract prohibiting the landlord from including such a prohibition in their lease agreements. If the landlord refuses, the union strikes, the same as any labor dispute.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentAnd parent was talking about the subject as though they know exactly what tenant unions are going to do, and claiming that it's a much different situation from labor unions. I'm not claiming to...I think it's clear from the article that tenant unions are a very new idea, so we haven't seen much of what they are going to do.
And parent was talking about the subject as though they know exactly what tenant unions are going to do, and claiming that it's a much different situation from labor unions. I'm not claiming to know how things will shake out with tenant unions, but the current situation with real estate in the US is ludicrous and it's time that something changes.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentYou made assertions as though they are fact. You did not present them as opinion, so yes, I requested sources. You also talked about a landlord going bankrupt but then presented an example of...You made assertions as though they are fact. You did not present them as opinion, so yes, I requested sources. You also talked about a landlord going bankrupt but then presented an example of where a landlord "pulled out". That's quite different from going bankrupt, right?
Your later reply elsewhere confirms that you are not interested in having a discussion but rather you just think I'm wrong.
I do think you're wrong, but I don't see how that precludes me from being interested in having a discussion.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentNo it's not "explained". They made a baseless assertion and I asked that they cite sources and studies. There's one example of a housing authority taking ownership of a site where the landlord...The difference is explained immediately following the quoted part.
No it's not "explained". They made a baseless assertion and I asked that they cite sources and studies. There's one example of a housing authority taking ownership of a site where the landlord pulled out of the investment. If there were many examples of landlords being driven to bankruptcy and having their properties taken over by housing authorities due to bad faith tenant unions, housing authorities would run out of their limited resources pretty quickly.
Tenants are motivated to push to the point where the landlord fails, and if the landlord fails they still win.
Again, cite sources. I accept that may be the case for single-family properties, but I think it's also safe to assume those properties are the least likely to have tenant unions. A large property with communal space and shared infrastructure would dilapidate very quickly if there was suddenly no property management to maintain it or even keep environmental controls running.
It might not happen as instantly as an employer closing up shop and your paycheck suddenly not arriving anymore, but the effects of bankrupt landlords would still have a negative impact on residents' quality of life within a few months. And if a landlord going bankrupt would not actually have a tangible impact to the quality of a property.... well....... maybe that's part of the problem that's driving tenants to unionize in the first place? And in that case, I can't say I'm moved by the argument against tenant unions.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentHuh? How is that any different from landlords and tenants? Cite sources and studies, please.If the union at Big Company pushes for unrealistic demands, Big Company fails and the union loses overall. So both sides are incentivized to come to a sustainable, and fair, equilibrium.
Huh? How is that any different from landlords and tenants?
Cite sources and studies, please.
-
Comment on Elon Musk’s attack on F-35s fuels debate over expensive fighter jets in ~society
dangeresque Link ParentRight. The wasteful spending is already fucking spent lol. If we killed the F35 now, it would have all gone to waste. And this isn't sunk cost fallacy where we're trying to dig ourself out of a...Right. The wasteful spending is already fucking spent lol. If we killed the F35 now, it would have all gone to waste. And this isn't sunk cost fallacy where we're trying to dig ourself out of a pit. We're out of the pit. Development was wrought with delays, cost overruns, and waste. But those days are over. The planes are good now. Screeching about the F-35 program is just loser-grade populist low-hanging fruit based on decade-old news headlines that idiots might still remember. It is not the path to effectively trimming our military budget.
-
Comment on She didn’t get an apartment because of an AI-generated score – and sued to help others avoid the same fate in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentHonestly I stopped reading carefully after the first paragraph which painted unbanked people with a broad and kind of disgusting brush. How's that for a kneejerk reaction, I guess. It's a damn...Honestly I stopped reading carefully after the first paragraph which painted unbanked people with a broad and kind of disgusting brush. How's that for a kneejerk reaction, I guess.
It's a damn shame that we have to discuss credit reporting models at all in a conversation about renting an apartment. Real estate investors want to own all this property, pricing regular people out of the ownership market, and mitigate their risk with these easy models that can give them a yes/no answer to determine whether somebody is worthy of having a roof over their head. They want to make it cold, quick, impersonal, and cheap (and unless prohibited by law, still impose those costs upon applicants) so they can more efficiently hoard millions of units and maintain a revenue stream. Our economy is broken in many more ways than implicit bias in credit scoring systems, and solving for bias in one small aspect of the economy only serves to alleviate a symptom of systemic bias and discrimination in society.
I'm frustrated by the overall situation that capitalists have put us in.
-
Comment on She didn’t get an apartment because of an AI-generated score – and sued to help others avoid the same fate in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentYour kneejerk defensiveness simply makes my point for me. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that there might be blind spots in your models and resort to generalization of unbanked people as...Your kneejerk defensiveness simply makes my point for me. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that there might be blind spots in your models and resort to generalization of unbanked people as dirty, loud, and unreliable, then I don't see a point in engaging with you further.
-
Comment on She didn’t get an apartment because of an AI-generated score – and sued to help others avoid the same fate in ~life
dangeresque Link ParentThat in itself introduces bias against those who don't have ready access to credit, banking, etc., to establish a credit score in the first place. I'm not here to claim that the system is bad, nor...There's no race, class, or zip code parameter in the formula.
That in itself introduces bias against those who don't have ready access to credit, banking, etc., to establish a credit score in the first place. I'm not here to claim that the system is bad, nor do I have any alternative suggestions, but I just want to say that it's misleading to imply or allow people to believe that the absence of race, class, or zip code parameters alleviates any concerns of bias around those qualities. Somebody could be the cleanest, quietest, most reliable renter on the planet, but if they have no bank account and they pay rent in cash to some slumlord in the ghetto because that's where and how they grew up, they won't have enough of a credit history to get a nicer place even if they can afford it.
As an aside, that's exactly the sort of societal effect that critical race theory sets out to study.
NIMBYs are a huge problem, yes. It's also the case that there's but a tiny sliver of overlap in renters and who we would describe as a NIMBY. NIMBYs tend to be property owners. So you've proposed a boogeyman, but you haven't proposed how renters are supposed to slay that boogeyman. Renters have to do whatever they have the power to do, and there's very little they can do to stop nimbyism. In many cases, nimbies see renters, especially those of low income and status, as the enemy. Renters also are generally working class and don't have the free time to attend city council meetings and other fora which tend to be flooded by the nimby population.
Maybe the fear of tenant unions will finally push the wealthy investor class to use their outsized wealth and influence to push back against NIMBY ideology. Maybe the fear of tenant unions will finally drive landlords to work together with their tenants to drive the social change needed to make life better for both parties.
Or maybe it's too fucking late and landlords, and especially national private equity firms, have burned that bridge and there's no way that tenants will trust them to be in favor of anything that helps them. I know I'm sure leery of the idea.