Why do I have to pay my landlord?

» When a generation forgets how capitalism works

Erik Wilkins
Contributor

 

s the world deals with COVID-19

(originating in Wuhan, China—not
Italy or from the US military as some
papers are starting to “report”), it’s
disappointing to note how many on social
media have decided now is the time to
question the workings of capitalism. Cries
for landlords to be guillotined, all countries
to switch to universal healthcare, and
business made to bear the financial brunt
have reigned supreme. It'd be amusing if
the speakers had done any homework. To
break it down, it’s essentially those who
have less wanting more from those who
have more. It begs the question: what is
equality? How much does your neighbour
have to have before you're entitled to her
hard work? Or how much do you need to
have before she’s entitled to what you have?

“I pay $800 a month in rent. So does
every other person in my 30-unit building.
That’s $24,000 a month for the landlord.

I never even see him. Just that building
manager who fixes things once-in-awhile.
The landlord isn’t doing a job. Why do I
have to pay him?”

It’s crazy that questions such as “Why
do I have to pay him?” get any play. It’s
crazy that people will pay for a service for
an agreed-upon sum and then question
the right of the person selling it to them.
What? The landlord owns the building.
You want to rent there. You're paying for
the right to live there. The difficulty is hard
to spot.

The issue with the emerging
generations is that many have (an
idealistic, not practical) socialistic-leaning
thanks to post-secondary, but none of the
history or fundamental understanding that
needs to come with it. We want everything
to be readily accessible without struggle,
and, as a point-of-principle, have extreme
disdain for any with an advanced position

in the existing infrastructure.

We all talk of how it’s impossible to
buy a house due to the high cost of real
estate and living, yet it’s forgotten that
landlords have to buy the apartment
complexes they run. These people didn’t
appear out of thin air to steal your hard-
earned dough. You think a house is
expensive? Try putting up the capital for a
30-unit building.

To put things in real terms, a listing
site (pointzhomes.com) currently has
a 69-unit building for $28,500,000 (43
studios / 26 one-bedroom suites). A bit of
digging reveals that studios go for about
$1250 a month. Average for the area for a
one-bedroom is approximately $2000 a
month. That’s $1,269,000 a year. Even if the
down payment was just a cool $5million,
the landlord will spend more than 20 years
paying off the building. And that doesn’t
include repairs, tax, the manager’s salary,
etc. Suddenly student loan figures don’t
seem so bad.

So, no—you don't have to pay a
landlord. If you're happy to put up several
million dollars and take on the financial
risk, go ahead. If you want to run your
apartment complex or small walk-up like
you feel it should be run, do it. Have every
person just pay what they can. Don’t worry
about the mounting debt. Don't worry
about the bank threatening to take your
property if you default on your mortgage.
Banks are nice. It'll be fine.

It’s sad that post-secondary education
has become so left-leaning that we've
started to have conversations about
restricting fundamental capitalistic
procedures based on social ideals. If youre
the one behind the 8-ball for the cash,
youre the one who gets to call the shots.
It’s frustrating that there’s any issue with
that concept. Current generations want to
call the shots and not take on any financial
responsibility.

It’s similar to how there’s a growing

 

clamour for minimum-wage employees
to share in the profits of large companies.
Take your local McDonalds: does the
employee pay for the burgers? The buns?
The hydro for the building? The rent?
The benefits package? The insurance?
Anything? If the store gets sued for a few
million dollars, is the employee going
to help pay off the lawsuit? What if the
employee made a snafu and was the reason
the company got sued? The answer to all of
these is a resounding “no.” The company is
taking on all of the risk and the employee is
the one who has chosen a minimum wage
job—a job and wage they took willingly
and of their own accord.

“But I’m working hard and deserve
to share in the profits!” Then buy shares.
Literally no one is stopping you. A job
is not a fancial investment. A job is
a personal investment of time that has
already been accounted for financially by
the agreed-upon wage.

Ever notice how most only want
to apply their arguments to large
corporations? The narrative disappears
when we relate it to small business.
Principles are principles because you
can apply them across the board.

Illustration by Athena Little

They shouldn’t change based on the
circumstances; any who disagree with this
should immediately look into the world of
flip-flopping politics.

While people will have an issue with
McDonalds not sharing profits, they'll
magically lose their train-of-thought
when it’s about their best friend who's
toiled at their home business for five years.
Eventually that friend hires one person to
help take some calls. Should that person
get a share of the profits? Your pal started
$50,000 in the hole and built the company
from nothing. Your friend stayed up night
after sleepless night scraping enough
money together to stay in KD for the week.
And now that things are starting to get
more comfortable, should the very minimal
profits be shared with this minimum-wage
worker? This worker who has none of your
friend’s experience, credentials, or personal
investment? And if the worker is worthy of
sharing in the profits, should not they also
contribute to the costs and losses that were
incurred before their arrival? Should the
employee only share in profits once your
friend is making some decent bank?

Of course not.

Poutine with cheese sauce is superior

» My hottest and most controversial take

  

Craig Allan
Staff Writer

remember once ordering it this way at
the Spud Shack in New Westminster

 

Illustration by Anastasia Simonovich

ccasionally when I am online,

I'll come across a thread where
people are asking any version of
the same question: “What is your
hottest take?” My take is one that
I’ve had for many years and every
time I bring it up, I have to justify
my view on it. When hearing it,
people have called me many names
like “wrong” and “American.”
Substituting cheese for gravy is still
poutine—and, in fact, is better!

Let me explain my thoughts
around this. Iam not a fan of gravy.
I just don’t like it. I feel it is either
too thick and tastes bad, or it’s too
runny and makes the food soggy.
However, I like the concept of
poutine. Fries with cheese curds on
it sounds delicious, but still, I don’t
like gravy. I’ve tried it without gravy
and for that I have been ridiculed. I

Station. When the server gave it to
me, he said “why are you getting it

really poutine though. It’s just fries
with some cheese balls around it.

sauce instead of gravy.

covered in gravy.

Though I have loved this
wonderfully cheesy combo, it has
sparked no less than indignation
amongst foodies and regular eaters

without gravy—is it an allergy thing?”
I wanted to tell him that it was a “none
of your fucking business” thing, but

I restrained myself and just told him
“no.” Poutine without the gravy isn’t

That’s when | had the idea of cheese

The cheese sauce is the same kind
you would find on nachos at a movie
theatre, but a little less thick. ] put it on
fries—and it is sooo much better. It’s
two kinds of cheesy goodness on fries.
The fries do have the potential to get
soggy, but not as soggy as if they were

alike. I have never been able to

turn anyone on this point. Some

have conceded that while it is not

a traditional poutine, it could still
classify as a poutine. But there are
others that have steadfastly disagreed
with my point. They are adamant that
poutine is fries, cheese curds, and
gravy. I defend this by saying that a
burger with a chicken patty is still a
burger, a salad with olive oil over ranch
dressing is still a salad, so why can't
poutine with cheese sauce instead of
gravy still be poutine?

I have become resigned to the
idea that my view of poutine will likely
never be accepted by the public, but I
will still defend it. After all, there has
never been a person who has said that
something had too much cheese on it.
Next time order poutine, ask for cheese
sauce instead of gravy—you'll thank
me for taking you on the wonderfully
cheesy journey that is the best version
of poutine.