I just say they have two parts to them. The working part and the owning part.

The working part works on the business and without it the business does not survive.

However the owning part is the part expecting an roi.

The goal of the small business owner is to separate the working and owning parts of themselves.

This fully happens when they hire employees, enough of them for themnot to work.

Then the small business owner is just an owner and their employees are the working class.

Bourgeois = owning class

Proletariat = working class

If you get income from owning (stocks [dividends, capital gains], landlords [rent]) = owning class

If you get income from working (hourly wage, salary) = working class

I think that should work. What do you think?

If passive income you getting income without working then who’s working without income.

This whole thread thoroughly convinced me of george’s ideas.

As Adam Smith said

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce

If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.

We should all work so that each person has one home.

And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.

Where did the landlord get the starter home? What if the seller refused to sell but just rent out instead what would he do then?

You contradicted yourself. Op can’t get a starter home but the starter home he would have bought is held hostage by the “smol” landlord. Pick one.

Absolutely. And you can get real estate exposure by buying REITs.

Good point but the upgradability is important to

Don’t make your problems everyone else’s.

You can just buy a REIT.

Imagine the contractor that works for a REIT. Should they get full rent because they broke their the same way as you? Or hourly, just like my roommate?

You get the rent because you’re a landlord, not because you work hard.

If working hard on a property, instead of owning it, meant getting all of the high rents then the REITs’ contractor should be collecting rents instead of the REITs but that obviously doesn’t happen.

Don’t defend landlording. Oppose it, you can still be one, but just oppose it.

Would you make the same if you sank all of your money in investments and work a second job as a contractor? Same story but different results?

If you had long term tenants and but they owned the property but contracted you? You would still work hard and be compensated for the work isn’t that enough? If the work the justification for your rental income then why not just be a contractor instead of an owner? And better yet leave the owning part to the people who live there.

If the renter doesn’t pay for maintainance who does? Are you willing to run a monthly loss of $100/month or would raise rents to cover or even sell the property?

The solution is cooperative housing and community land trusts plus social housing.

You’re solution doesn’t solve the thing you’re trying to solve.

E.g.

There is a “mom & pop” landlord with just 10 properties. But they don’t purchase anymore. Now there are 1000 such landlords. The landlords all incorporate and create a REIT that owns 10,000 homes. You have created a “megacorp” through just “mom and pop” landlords.

What is the difference?

The true answer is the abolition of landlords in favour of housing coops and community land trusts.

To prove a point to you I’ll ask you a question.

What is the difference between the goal of small landlords vs REITs and “megacorps” represented by row 4 of the graph found here?:

https://www.smalllandlords.org/about-small-landlords/

The group is a small landlord group from my city.

I don’t have a problem with the players necessarily, just the game.

I’m lazy so I invest because I don’t want to deal with being a landlord. Anyone who chooses to be a landlord deserves no sympathy. They chose to be a landlord instead of investing. You can get easy R.E. exposure by just being R.E.I.T.s so any extra work is your problem. On top of that landlords expect extra respect for something that REITs do. It’s all the same game so all should be looked down upon.

Wanting to play as a boot when the game rewards playing the boot is ok so long as you advocate against the boot. But a lot of these people glorify the boot and try to become one sooo bad and for that, all of them can have the death penalty on them.

In short, want real estate? REITs, do you want to become a boot? Invest. But most importantly of all, be a boot abolitionist. If you’re a boot defender then you rightfully get criticism.

I think your saying doing something physical is better than through an app. It makes no difference. It’s all the same. But I do agree more awareness needs to be had with REITs. The solution is not to go easy on landlords but rather to go hard on REITs.

Why don’t we just take investor money and invest in it ourselves?

Others have already pointed out that the covid vaccine was publicly funded ergo the benefit should be publicly owned

I think they meant fee (without the ‘r’) wifi

China has the CCP not the PPC

How did the big business become a big business?

I have literally seen a small business expand beyond my city and become regional over a couple decades. And probably will try to be national chains.

From a capitalist perspective. What’s bad about monopolization? For big businesses to be big business they need to have success. Why do you want to break success? Why do you want to pick winners and losers?

I don’t believe in any of that. I prefer distributed ownership and benefits.

If the consumers own their own stores through a consumer cooperative than they can set the prices for themselves. And hence don’t need “competition”. And since the shareholders would be the members (i.e. the consumers), in a consumer cooperative, then that means they’ll benefit. No need to have any billionaire tyrant either local nor from a big box store.

I almost completely agree with your first and last points. I was trying to say if they provide the same product at the same quality and price try to prefer the co-operative. I say similar because, personally I’d give some leeway to the co-op. But there are limits and co-ops are businesses and if they give sub par products and services than we shouldn’t buy from them.

The power is held by the owners. If it’s a consumer co-operative it is controlled by the consumer and a worker cooperative is owned by the workers. So the end users of products or the ones who have jobs. It depends on how it’s structured.

I somewhat agree with your last point. The big thing is ownership is wealth and control. If you control your store you get to chose the available options if someone else owns it it means someone else has control. So I’d rather I have control over it. Again with the previous thing. If someone else can do it sooo much better than I than I should someone’s product.

But we have to be careful because you can lead to the problem with data and big tech. I use an alternative to Google Cloud that is a cooperative but I have to pay. But with Google I don’t pay but loose my privacy. In that instance you have to determine what’s more important, given what I need it for is comparable to what I need what is important and I chose ownership and privacy over having neither of those.

I agree. At the end of the day it’s a business. But if two companies offer similar products go with the employee owned company.

The main thing about is decision making structure. Because employee or community owned stores are owned by the users. It means the end users have power over what is offered. As opposed to big box in which case it is non local non user shareholders.

If it’s better for customers and workers what’s the problem (from a capitalist perspective)?

Do you want to punish success?

If small businesses become successful and grow do you want to purposefully stop them?

I always ask what is the difference between a small and big business and nobody gives a good answer.

Small business is always used as a shield to attack workers.

Genuinely, if they don’t offer a innovative product, what’s the point of “small business”? What’s the point of a “small business” barber/retail store/grocer/etc. besides better prices?

When does a “small business” become a “big business”? And should we stop that from happening?

It seems to me that “small business” is just entitled people. If those same people became a “big business” they would want to crush their competition (i.e. “small business”) look at Bill Gates/Steve Jobs against IBM.

The only thing that “small business” people want is for them to be the owner of a “big business”. That’s it.

If you actually care about distribution of ownership and wealth. You’d advocate for co-operatives, ESOPs and distributed ownership structures. Otherwise I don’t care.

Can you provide examples?

I have seen big contraptions that promise it but aren’t actually doing it.