“And speaking of caregivers, in last week’s episode, filmmaker and actor Mark Duplass talked about buying a home for his family’s nanny and how they approached conversations about that financial relationship.”
This characterization, that Duplass “bought” his nanny a home, as well as the way it was described by Duplass himself in the episode as some sort of benevolent act of charity is one that does not sit well with me and has been bothering me since that episode. He didn’t buy her a home; he bought a home for her to rent from him. It wasn’t a charitable act, it was a business decision that further underlined class discrepancy. So he is now not just her employer, he is also her landlord. I don’t find that to be something worth lauding but he certainly seemed to. I’m a fan of his work but I actually wish I hadn’t listened to that episode. It made me lose respect for him (and gain it for his brother).
Hi Staci -- you're right, I should've been more precise with my words. He describes their arrangement as not a gift but a 0% interest rent-to-own arrangement. But I do think it's slightly different than just being a landlord since, according to him, he's not making a claim on the equity from its increased value and "that $500,000 of profit that the house has increased over the time she’s been renting to own from us is all hers."
Yes, I agree there is a slight difference. But it’s slight. And I do still think it’s a disappointing and very neoliberal mindset that I don’t find laudable.
“And speaking of caregivers, in last week’s episode, filmmaker and actor Mark Duplass talked about buying a home for his family’s nanny and how they approached conversations about that financial relationship.”
This characterization, that Duplass “bought” his nanny a home, as well as the way it was described by Duplass himself in the episode as some sort of benevolent act of charity is one that does not sit well with me and has been bothering me since that episode. He didn’t buy her a home; he bought a home for her to rent from him. It wasn’t a charitable act, it was a business decision that further underlined class discrepancy. So he is now not just her employer, he is also her landlord. I don’t find that to be something worth lauding but he certainly seemed to. I’m a fan of his work but I actually wish I hadn’t listened to that episode. It made me lose respect for him (and gain it for his brother).
Hi Staci -- you're right, I should've been more precise with my words. He describes their arrangement as not a gift but a 0% interest rent-to-own arrangement. But I do think it's slightly different than just being a landlord since, according to him, he's not making a claim on the equity from its increased value and "that $500,000 of profit that the house has increased over the time she’s been renting to own from us is all hers."
Yes, I agree there is a slight difference. But it’s slight. And I do still think it’s a disappointing and very neoliberal mindset that I don’t find laudable.