[frmersdog]

This is an incredibly heartless take, and also one not aligned with the nuances lurking beneath the surface of what "most people accept" (banality of evil and all that). The rent you "agreed" to pay may have been set or raised under circumstances ranging from ethically-fraught to soon-to-be-illegal-but-not-yet-litigated. Your income stream, likewise, might have been disrupted by someone else's malfeasance. Neither the law nor landlords care that you fully intend to - in fact, will have the means to, when everything comes out in the wash - live up to your responsibilities. If the eviction proceedings are carried out before the others, you will lose the home you, by all means except a dysfunctional system that has mistimed just order, have the rights to.

Access to a stable domicile is what defines modern civilization. Philosophically, and ironically, that we have a standardized and systematized method for depriving large numbers of our population of that stability suggests a breakdown in civil order. It's reasonable to have an issue with this system without being "super emotional", but let me be clear in stating that it's also a perfectly reasonable subject to be "super emotional" over. Circumstances outside your control depriving you of a home, even temporarily, is not "just business", it's massive disruption families and communities with material ramifications for their well-being, and in a better-organized society would not happen as often as it does here.

Your flippancy also isn't without its own consequences. It turns what could be a problem with a collaborative, mutually-agreeable solution into one where it's accepted that one party is going to get thrown under the bus. The circumstances currently favor landlords. This can be changed. Careful not to let that cannonball hit you.

[naming_the_user]

Who’s talking about rent here? The article is about mortgages.

When you buy a house you know what you’re getting into.

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the pessimistic “landlords bad, capitalism bad” viewpoint of the world, not that this has anything to do with that anyway.

[ToucanLoucan]

> Who’s talking about rent here? The article is about mortgages.

I brought up rent. While the long term consequences of paying rent and mortgages are quite different (equity, credit, assets, etc.) ultimately both are equal in that you are exchanging a pre-arranged amount of money on a schedule for a place to live.

Both are also equal in that failure to maintain such a schedule results in houselessness, one notably faster than the other.

> When you buy a house you know what you’re getting into.

A dubious assumption. Tons of people caught up in the 2008 housing crash were sold loans they couldn’t afford by financial professionals who knew damn well they could not afford it. Notably none of those families were made whole, and the banks who facilitated the crash were, because they effectively were wearing economic C4 vests and standing in the center of Wall Street, ready to blow the entire thing to bits.

> Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the pessimistic “landlords bad, capitalism bad” viewpoint of the world, not that this has anything to do with that anyway.

Yet you brought it up.