socialismisok

If it's not vacant, it's someone's primary residence which is recorded, but also the landlords will have receipts and be taxed. If there is a vacant unit, the landlord's income with be smaller than expected and can be used to ask the landlord to attest to the occupancy of their units.

It's realistic, but not common. We did it, and we did it because we read about someone else doing it.

Some folks (myself among them) view the idea that because someone started wealthy they should be able to get more wealthy simply because they can leverage their existing wealth to be a negative thing.

Sure, there are cases where small landlords are beneficial in providing liquidity. But the big corporate firms being able to leverage their existing assets to buy more units seems antithetical to the goal of "we should eliminate homelessness" to me.

Aggressively tax vacant units is the simplest to implement, but there's a lot (lot) more that could be done.

With the exception of people who are landlords for the purposes of mutual aid. We rented a room out for a bit, but only charged "what you could pay" with a hard upper cap of "what it costs is to maintain the unit".

We have people live with us for free, for in kind services, or paying whatever they could afford and still be saving money.

It absolutely kills me that there are approximately 30 empty homes for every homeless person in the States. (Roughly 550k homeless and roughly 16M vacant homes.)

Investors are part of the problem, but by no means the only part. Anything that reduces investor speculation on housing and returns units to the rental or purchase markets is ok by me.

Yes, 1000 times yes. The idea that housing is an investment (or that you can invest in housing you'll never use) distorts so many systems in America.

We stop thinking about housing as something everyone needs and start thinking about making sure we get ours before others do.

No, I think the point being made is that it's bad to set wages this way. If every company is colluding, then wages are being kept artificially low. (Even in tech, where engineers are in demand.)

Neither of these is fine.

Sports, especially global sporting events, are always political.

Double especially when cities bid and bribe for the right to host.

Triple when they have to build infrastructure that wasn't there before.

Asking someone, quite politely, to merely acknowledge the impact this event had on tens of thousands of people is not out of line in the least.

There are few skills more important to an engineer than concise, clear technical writing. It enables engineers to scale beyond themselves.

Strong unions could do industrial action to take down the site. Take the server offline.

10% annual tax on wealth above $1 billion would get us pretty close.

Twitter workers could strike and shut down the site, they could strike and not make changes like the $8 verification badge, they could strike until Musk agreed to reasonable work hours.

They could afford to pay a lawyer a whole lot to fight layoffs and firings.

Not a perfect set of options, but better options than they have today.

It's in the context of a thread where Elon is being demonstrably cruel. Read the op for examples.