What would you do?

@laglen (19759)
United States
November 20, 2011 9:09am CST
Ok, so say that you rented an apartment for $1000 per month. You had to change jobs and can no longer afford it. Do you move to a cheaper place? or do you demand that the government subsidize you? I just posted a different discussion about occupy washington DC occupying a city owned building. That is a different issue. But the reason for it was D.C. is a city that's getting more and more expensive to live in, and the programs that help people keep living here are continuing to be cut," she said. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/19/protesters-occupy-vacant-building-in-washington-dc/#ixzz1eG5TqAHV So my question to you is, what would you do? Move someplace cheaper or demand subsidies. This my dearies would be the difference between occupiers and the rest of us working stiffs. I for one would move to a cheaper place. Happens all of the time.
1 person likes this
9 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
21 Nov 11
Per usual, I'm inspired to rant while only half touching the actual topic. But these types of things make me need to get crap off my chest. There just seems to be a who-gives-a-damn attitude about property when it's subsidized by the government. Unlike getting something through hard work, government properties are pissed in, abused, burned, torn up, and eventually torn down just to be rebuilt. This happens in many cities across the country. I come from one and live close to a few others. Folks in the neighborhoods complain, complain, complain. Government spends massive dollars to build homes, to give checks, to give the new fancy food stamp debit card, to provide funding for clinics, etc. And none of it is ever taken care of. (Obviously it's done in part to keep people there and to keep them voting for the spigot.) As it pertains to the occupiers, what's so funny here is that most of these people don't even need to stress rent. Their parents pay for everything. You could put most of this stuff under the broad category of "money" in general being viewed as the be-all, end-all in the world. Especially from a politician's standpoint, it's just easier to throw money at problems and people as opposed to doing anything to fix the problems. Something like energy independence--although these occupier schmucks don't realize it--would DROP PRICES on everything from gas to groceries. Something like more responsible homeowners living where they could afford would bring down home prices. Government-backed home loans cause prices to skyrocket. Something like attending a trade school instead of wasting 150k to learn The Advanced State of Consciousness would cause tuition prices to fall. Government-provided student loans cause tuition to skyrocket. These occupiers are dolts. But so are politicians who just think the answer to everything is MORE MONEY! Yes. I would move out and go somewhere I could afford. And the thing is, if more people had the attitude of doing things they could readily afford to do, fewer people would need government, we wouldn't have so many damn bubbles, and government could slow down on the f'n spending. If I haven't said it before, these occupiers are dolts. More mastery of business, less daydreaming in psych class.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
Great points my dear and yes this is what makes prices skyrocket. But remember, they claim no inflation. I also agree a persons care of property has a lot to do with what their stake in it is.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
The food is what floored me. This is a basic essential for living. What would directly affect EVERYBODY! I do not have credit cards so the interest rates and fees on them do not affect me directly. Yes it must be nice to control the facts.
• United States
21 Nov 11
It's totally a rigged game. They don't count oil price increases as inflation. They don't count food price increases as inflation. Politicians have set the standards and rules so that they can game the system on every conceivable level, including the rhetoric. They created the system in which BS lines like "what 'is' is" are taken seriously. I'm not even sure what they do count as inflation. Everything that's costing more supposedly isn't when you hear a proponent of any defending party tell it. Very strange standards they have build around themselves for purposes of denial.
1 person likes this
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
21 Nov 11
Umm is that right link? Because its the one about the former homeless shelter or is that what you are referring too?
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
yes, the quote is the second to the last paragraph in that article.
• United States
23 Nov 11
Sorry finally got a minute to sit down and write. Ok that is a bit like comparing apples to oranges but lets run with it. The truth is this is not the first time this has happened. In 2002 the building was was seized by the public and turned into a homeless shelter very similar to what has happened now but the city relented and from 2002-2008 it was used as a homeless shelter. It was shut down by the city only after promises of helping to get the occupants into public housing, most of which were never really helped but just dumped into the street. So this battle started a long time before OWS came on the scene. I noticed the city is paying someone to manage the building and have to wonder what the cost of paying for it to sit empty compared to letting it being used by a reputable non profit group would be. The reality is there are always going to be segments of any society that are unable to hold a normal job that would allow them to pay rent anywhere either because of physical or mental problems. Compound that with the reality of a bad economy and they got about a snow balls chance in you know where. So what should we do? Should these people be rounded up and put into concentration camps like Nazi Germany and a modern day eugenics program enforced?
@zandi458 (28102)
• Malaysia
21 Nov 11
The properties in my country have increased so much too which directly affect the house rents of properties. Our government doesn't have the policy of subsidizing on the rents and tenants have to fork out the whole rentals from their own pockets. City dwellers have no choice but to find apartments/houses a distance away from the city.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
That sounds about right. Here people are trying to demand that government cover it.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
20 Nov 11
When it comes to renting...find a cheaper place and move. When it comes to selling a home, it's a little more difficult in this economy, but I'd sure do that before asking my neighbors (through their taxes) to help me pay my mortgage. OR buy a tent and move in to the Occupy Washington collective...
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
lol great idea, who needs to pay stinkin rent or a mortgage! I believe most of us would go for the cheaper way. This only makes good sense and shows that we simply want to live, pay our way, and hopefully get ahead!
@liuyh0619 (108)
• China
22 Nov 11
Compare with the people's salary, the house price in our country is much higher. many city dwell can't afford to buy. so they choose to rent the apartment which is far away from their office. it's normal especially in the metropolis, you can move out to find a cheaper place. you shouldn't hang the hope on the goverment.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
22 Nov 11
I agree, thank you
@enelym001 (8322)
• Philippines
21 Nov 11
I think it would be a waste of time demanding the government for a subsidize. It might take a lot of time too. If I was in your position, I would just move out and look some place else where I can afford the rent.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
This is not my situation and that is exactly my point, move to cheaper place
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Nov 11
Been there done that. When I lived in Orlando the apartment my wife and I had was $850 a month. Then, when our lease was up, they upped the rent to $1095 a month. It was disgusting. We called the new manager (crap always happens when management changes) to explain that this was ridiculous as we'd lived there for years. She would return our phone calls and locked herself in her office to avoid listening to ANY renters complaining about the massive hike. Much like half the people in that complex, we moved out and got a more affordable place to live elsewhere.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
wow what a reasonable response. I think most thinking people would do this. But alas, "occupiers" once again show them selves to be a bit dim.
• United States
28 Dec 11
hmm..i guess i would discuss it with my landlord first.sometimes things can be worked out-like an onsite job to make up the difference(such as apartment cleaning). if not,i'd just tell them i have no choice but to break my lease,i can't afford it anymore-and move.
@Mashnn (4501)
20 Nov 11
Why in the first place should someone stay in a house if you cannot be able to pay for the rent while there are other cheaper houses that you can afford. This only proves the ignorance part of human being which is indeed very hard to understand.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Nov 11
Amen to that!