The recent currency increase affected the rent, my roommate doesn't understand

the same thing happened in our house too, we argued for two months and finally split the rent increase. but the peace was pretty disturbed 😅

How much has the rent increase been? Is there really a significant difference that is causing so much trouble? 😳

The @iki_dakika interest rate is around 35%, which isn't a big number in fact, but it's more of a principled issue that bothers me.

I think it's wrong to just say it's a small difference; after all, everyone's budget is different 😂

if the sharing rates are specified in the contract, check there. Otherwise, sit down and have a clear conversation from the beginning; make it official.

35 percent? Honestly, it seems too much to me.

You mentioned an unsettling principle issue, but that was left a bit unclear. Which principle? Are you saying that the rent increase should be automatically shared, or is it a feeling of "if I'm struggling, then they should struggle too"? Because if it's the latter, this discussion will drag on.

You say it's a matter of principle, but in roommate situations, what you call principle is always open to debate if it's not written down. If the contract states that the increase will be shared, then you're right; otherwise, it's entirely up to the harmony between you. Is it worth disrupting peace over something that isn't written there? Think about that.

You're talking about the exchange rate, but maybe it's a heavy burden compared to your friend's income. I mean, no one wants to blow their budget for 35%, but is he protecting his own conditions, or is he resisting just for the sake of it? It's important to understand well.

If your friend is resisting the rate increase, either they have found the rent too high from the beginning and this increase is just an excuse, or there's a constraint in their own plans that they aren't disclosing. It seems impossible to settle without asking, "What principle, what budget?" because perhaps they moved in with a different expectation from the start.

You mentioned it's a matter of principle, but did you have an agreed-upon sharing model from the beginning? Or is this "everyone should contribute" situation something that emerged now? Maybe the guy thought from the start, "I'll pay according to my own judgment," and now you’re trying to bring order to it. If it wasn't discussed openly from the start, this matter might drag on a bit.

I think your friend doesn't quite understand the situation. If there's uncertainty in the post, there's no point in pushing it. It's best to talk directly and clarify the situation.

If your friend is resisting after the price increase, they might prefer not to disclose their financial situation to you. But if they're stirring up a discussion about it under the guise of "principle," the issue might be more personal than you think. Perhaps they're actually upset about your spending, lifestyle, or something similar; the rent situation might just be a trigger point. Have you ever encountered such insinuating remarks from them?

Perhaps what he calls principle are the imbalances that come from sharing the same house with you. For example, if there are already underlying issues regarding cleanliness, grocery shopping, or shared space usage, this rent increase might just be an excuse. Did he ever imply that he was falling short in these areas?

You talk about principles, but when it comes to the increase in foreign exchange rates and the rent issue, it's not an individual burden; it's a collective fluctuation. So it's not a personal injustice; it's a market principle. When sharing a house, there's no escape from currency fluctuations, so economic awareness is needed. If your friend isn't seeing this, could it be that they set their budget according to a world without foreign currency?

If they say "principle," and view the increase as an individual burden, they might have completely detached this issue from the number and turned it into something else. In other words, if principle is the excuse, they actually have a general discomfort about something but can’t articulate it. It's hard to proceed without clarifying whether the subject is rent or something else. Ask clearly.

Maybe they've been saying "I'll manage" from the beginning, but in reality they're adjusting their budget according to you. This means that as what you pay increases, their comfort level may be decreasing. Because sure, currency rates are one thing, but not everyone earns the same salary; what you're paying could look very different in their world. Have they ever made comments like "you're earning a lot anyway"?

They talk about principles, but the reality of the rent increase is clear. The real question is this: is the rent increase something you determine? Is it a fact coming from the landlord? If it's a fact, what he calls "principle" actually seems like an objection to the system, not to you. But he insists on discussing it with you; why doesn't he talk directly to the landlord about this?

If they are talking about "principle" but not providing a reasonable explanation for the rate of increase, maybe the issue here is not their economic order, but a power issue regarding how the household operates with you. Who controls the decision-making process? Who is more decisive? This term "principle" might also be an effort to not remain passive in the overall functioning of the household. Has there ever been a time when they questioned your decisions?

Every time you say "principle," it feels like something is being hidden. Honestly, you might be looking for an opportunity to load something onto it outside of this wage issue. A rent increase justifies you, but question where you stand on other matters; are there subtle ego games going on in this house?

Does what he calls "principle" serve as a kind of "boundary" against the possibility of putting you in a tough economic situation after the hike? In other words, even if you don't make an unfair increase, does he send the message, "I don't have to accommodate this" in his eyes? Perhaps he thinks the matter is purely commercial and doesn't include any aspect of friendship.

The word "principle" might be a defense mechanism indicating that you don't want to prolong the matter at all. It's like saying, "let's not discuss this, my decision is final." But the funny thing is, while trying to avoid a discussion, you might be triggering an even bigger argument. Is there stubbornness between you?

Maybe they really don't understand the rate of increase logically; concepts like the market are abstract for them. Have you tried explaining it in a more tangible way? For example, can you clearly say something like, "We're paying this much to the landlord, and the increase is this much"? Because not everyone enjoys diving into detailed calculations, and they might pretend not to understand when it suits them.

I don't think it's a matter of logic; it seems to resist from an emotional place. I mean, when it comes to principles, it could be the mindset of "I can't lose control." They probably feel like if they lose something, they will end up losing everything.

If so much detail is being discussed, I think there’s something else going on in the background. Maybe they have low trust in you, meaning they might even doubt if you reported your raise correctly. Did they ever say, "Let me talk to the landlord about the rent as well"? 😐

Hasn't the landlord ever tried to ask about the rate of increase? Because if they don't want to verify the source directly, it seems like they weren't really planning to have a discussion from the start. Is it really a principle, or is it just glossing over something they don't like?

I would tell you to call the landlord and ask about the increase rate, but wouldn't they say something like, "why are you interfering, it goes against my principles?" It seems there's a gap in communication from the start. Their reaction isn't clear.

Perhaps what he calls principle is not just economic but related to the division of roles in cohabitation. With the increase in rent, he may feel he has "more control." I wish you could dig a little deeper into this principle issue, because it seems to move beyond being just an economic matter.

Could they be trying to guide you by saying "principle"? I mean, regardless of the rate increase, it’s an attempt to frame the discussion the way they want. They might be seeking control from an emotional place. What if you came up with another "principle" and hit them with the same thing? Let's see what they'll do.

The issue of "principle" may be hollow, but if it's truly that assertive, I have to ask why it's taking the path of outright rejection instead of questioning the increase. Is it stubbornness, indifference, or a lack of understanding of the topic? Because let's be honest, there is no world governed by principles.

So, is this "principle" issue just a mask? I mean, could it actually be related to a dissatisfaction with the whole roommate situation rather than the salary increase? Maybe they don't want to step out of their comfort zone, or perhaps they're looking for a reason to leave. Have you ever tried looking at it from this side of the table?

If they are hiding behind the principle, it could actually be a situation where they don't want to bear the burden of the costs but can't express it directly. Have you ever had situations where work was placed on you regarding another issue before? Because this really looks like a "conflict avoidance" tactic.

Could it be that when they shout "principle," they assume the matter will be closed? How clearly defined is what they mean by "principle"? Or is it a tactic that leaves the content vague, forcing you to take a position? If so, even the ground for discussion is slippery 🫣

Here's what I'm thinking: Your roommate might be more disturbed by the way you brought up the issue than by the raise itself. Because when they talk about principles, what they really mean could be a boundary in your dynamic rather than a financial detail. Have you considered how you phrased your suggestion to research the raise percentage?

I think the critical point is whether what he calls a principle is a real boundary or merely an attempt to tie up the beginning of the event. But there's also this: if you stopped talking directly without receiving information about the increase in the rate and rent, what is this bold "principle" based on? If it's not based on information, where is the consistency?

Could there be a discrepancy in the division of labor or the perception of responsibility rather than a principle issue? I mean, why is there such resistance to sharing the burden of time? If there has been a tendency to slack off in household chores before, with this kind of "principle" excuse, it doesn't seem like a one-time resistance.

If they're saying it's a matter of principle while locking things down, it seems their intent isn't a solution. But the real oddity is their avoidance of openly discussing the price increases. This won't work without clearly understanding what they're saying "no" to. Clearly, it's not just about calculations; something else is going on. Just ask directly: "Why does this topic stress you so much?" You can gather clues from their reaction.

Is what he calls a principle, for example, a framework in practice rather than in thought? I mean, he says there's no raise, but the actual issue isn't the rent; it's expected that you take on the burden. Things like that always start with a principle, and in the end, someone is left with a bill. Can he seriously sit down and assess real confrontations like raise rates or moving out? First, try to test that.

But what if the principle he talks about is sometimes just a tool he uses to be able to say "no"? In other words, could the concern be more about losing control than the financial aspect? Because in these kinds of stubbornness, usually more than just money is at stake. Have you ever thought about this, could he be just training in resistance against you?

The issue seems to have shifted from a raise to a struggle for authority. In other words, what they're calling "principle" can indeed serve as a shield of justification, but that's just the surface. We need to step back and ask, "What is the decision-making model in this house based on?" Because the real problem here might not be the raise, but rather who is being heard the most.

Leaving aside the lack of clear lines on the principle matter, is it logical to resist this rent increase "on principle"? Because in the end, both of you will have to bear the cost of the home you're living in. So is it a better solution to say "no increase" and end up losing that house? That's uncertain.

I think you should directly contact the landlord to learn the rate of the increase and the reasons behind it. Without this information, the discussion of principles remains theoretical. If the increase is unavoidable, explain how to implement the "refusal" part, because the issue cannot be solved just by talking.

It's fine to get in touch with the landlord, but let's say you find out the rate of the increase, then what? If the guy is still insisting on his "principle," how will you come up with a solution using this information? The main issue here is to see whether this so-called principle is only related to the increase or if it represents an attitude towards your overall relationship with him. If it’s the latter, even if you resolve the rent increase, you’ll encounter the same deadlock again at another point.

If this "principle" issue is just a general instinctive resistance for him, you need to solve something independent of the time. But if he uses the word principle too easily as an argument, test it. In another matter, try playing the "principle" card yourself and see how he reacts then. Rather than conflict, you'll see how consistent this argument of his is.

Accepting or rejecting the raise is important, but your attitudes towards each other during this process are also significant. If the issue of the raise is just an excuse and the dynamics of the work relationship are shifting, then it's time to play your cards openly as soon as possible. Otherwise, today it's rent, tomorrow it's something else... Such accumulations will explode.

So let me ask this: Is there a risk of leaving the house because of what this principle refers to? I mean, could the end of stubbornness with the landlord lead to a scenario where both of you could end up on the street? Because at that point, there’s no longer any principle; you face real material consequences.

Principles are all well and good, but why such stubbornness? Let's say the increase is too much and you don't accept it; what's the alternative? After saying "no" to the landlord, are you going to look for another place? Are you aware of the state of this market? You can't stand firm on principles without creating a budget plan based on your own earnings.

If what they call a principle doesn't hold up, you’ll end up carrying the burden alone. So, the rent has gone up, fine; you pay it, they pay it, but could this principle lead to avoiding the division of labor or responsibility? Because if there's similar resistance not just with rent, but also with bills or other shared expenses, the problem might be deeper.

"Forget the 'principle' issue, what I'm really curious about is: Is this raise being distributed equally? Or is it just trying to avoid the raise by invoking that principle? Because it's not normal for a roommate, who should be contributing equally, to hold back at such a point. Let's do the math clearly and see who pays what."

My roommate once resisted paying half the bills by saying, "I barely use it anyway." That’s when I realized that the issue with these things is usually about looking "fair." Does that "principle" he refers to make him feel anything beyond equal payment? Could he be trying to justify paying less? While objecting to this increase, could he also be avoiding other things?

Isn't the "principle" argument itself a bit weak? I mean, what is a principle, what does it encompass, how flexible is it? Right now, the issue may be a rent increase, but if the principle is used as such a rigid umbrella, it might cause the same trouble again tomorrow on another issue. We can't proceed without clarification.

This principle, what it says, is it actually a stance against the landlord or against you? Because sometimes people use the issue of rent increases as an excuse to indirectly express a larger discomfort. So, "rent" might just be the apparent issue; actually, look at where the real conflict lies.

It seems like they are messaging you instead of the landlord. Did they experience any dissatisfaction with previous shared expenses or divisions of labor? It feels like that "principle" they mentioned is actually implying something about the power dynamics in the house. Why not just ask them directly what the issue is?

Is what they call a principle really a stance that doesn't align with their own budget, or is it just a reaction to the landlord in general? For instance, if this request for a raise had come but from someone else, would they stand on the same principle? Because it might boil down to the question of whether it connects to "their own interests." Ask directly: "What does this principle change for you?"

But why does this "principle" only surface when it comes to rent increases, for example? Is it this strict in other areas, like grocery shopping, cleaning arrangements, etc.? Or is it just when it comes to "money" that these principles become so rigid? I think there's a contradiction there. Reflect on it before getting angry.

It's reasonable to question what they call a principle, but the real issue here is that this principle seems to only come up in situations that put you in a difficult position. If there's a vibe of "we're a team," one could ask when the team play actually starts. Living in the same house can't just be "I can manage, good luck to you," right?

If they're saying it's a matter of principle and making things difficult, will they stop staying home if this raise isn't accepted? Because if what they call a principle is that important, they should be ready to face some consequences with this decision. Is it just talk, or is this principle really a stand for them? 🫣

I think it's a bit odd to talk about principles without offering a solution. If they don't accept the rent increase, what do they propose? For example, are they considering moving out and finding a cheaper place, or is there just an idea of leaving the situation on your shoulders? There should be a consequence or an alternative to this objection, otherwise, it just hangs in the air.

It's easy to just reject by saying "principle," but it needs to be supported by something concrete. So when did this principle form? Has there been a similar stance in a previous rent increase, or is this something that takes shape entirely according to the mood of the moment? Because, in any case, if they are going to say "principle," then the very foundation of shared living needs to be questioned.

Forget about principles, the situation is simple: If they don’t want to live with a rent increase, they should find a new place. Why are they putting you alone with the financial burden of their "position?"

Is the principle they referred to about not negotiating with the landlord, or is it about generally refusing to accept increases? Because the first one is a passive stance, while the second one is quite a bold attitude. Clarify which one it is, so that they can clearly decide whether to move or stay.

They're insisting on a principle, but do they see this principle as something open to discussion, or is it just a completely fixed wall? After all, in a place that's shared, such a "principle decision" made unilaterally is not fair. Why are you implementing a principle that wasn't agreed upon together?

If the principle is this clear, then let him talk to the landlord and take his own offer, saying "we don't want a raise this year." Let's see if that principle continues to work with the same determination outside as well? Instead of offering a direct solution, is he sidelining you? Clarify that 😳

Does what your roommate calls a principle encompass not paying the rent increase, or does it mean not paying more than their share? Because there is a difference. The first one completely rejects any compromise, while the second one merely states "this is all I am responsible for." If they are referring to the first, they are advocating for a collective stubbornness; if it is the second, they are just drawing an individual limit. Which one is it?

I think there is a bit of a class issue behind this situation as well. Accepting a rent increase might somehow mean saying "yes" to the existing property owner system for them. However, if this rejection is merely an ideological stance and doesn't share the concrete burdens of daily life, it's impossible to speak of class solidarity here. Consider whether this attitude, which starts with principles, is asking you for "invisible labor"; because if it leaves the burden on your shoulders, that alone is an imbalance.

Now we need to understand if this principle they're talking about is some sort of "you pay first, then we will sort it out" plan. Because it's really strange if they are outright refusing but not offering any financial solution. The landlord probably isn't expecting to hear "oh, okay, is it a principle? Fine then" either, right?

Is ignoring the landlord's demand for a raise something that he thinks will result in him "being convinced" or "giving up"? Because if so, this situation could soon lead to an eviction notice; is he taking this possibility into account? The principle is nice, but reality works a bit faster.

One should ask if there is a sense of "you’ll find a way" behind what he calls a principle. Because sure, it’s a principle, but will this principle really hold if rent isn't paid and an enforcement officer arrives at the door? What is the actual plan, and how far will this go? It needs to be clear.

You have to make a joint decision with your roommate because the rent increase is not just an ideological discussion, but a concrete payment situation. Even if it's a principle, if you're going to bear the burden alone, that goes beyond "principle" and turns into rejecting the sharing of responsibility. In that case, let's say there won't be an increase, so what’s the solution? Let’s hear it.

When telling the landlord "we don't want an increase," we should discuss what grounds we will rely on. Because I don't think that in the current market conditions, we can get anywhere with such an abstract argument as this "principle." We either need to approach with a more concrete proposal or clarify how we will defend this principle under realistic conditions.

It seems that while discussing the principle, the legal aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked. There are legal limits to the rent increase rate, and the landlord must not exceed these limits. Perhaps it would be more sensible to stop debating this principle argument and look for solutions directly through legal rights. I suggest you examine whether your roommate's principle conflicts with the law.

The principles are nice and all, but arguments like these often get stuck at an ideological point. The main issue is whether someone sees it as their right to apply their stance in a way that jeopardizes your financial security while sharing the same roof with you. When rent isn't paid, it's worth asking whether that principle has an "implementation plan" in the eviction notice that will be delivered to the house.

Stop discussing principles with your roommate and just ask a straightforward question: if this pay isn't going to be made, where will he go in the event of having to leave the house? I mean, what is his concrete plan as a result of this ideological stance, is there a tangible alternative? If he's considering staying, he needs to sit down like an adult and come up with a solution.

Perhaps before this "principle" issue, you need to have a clear conversation about the household budget. In other words, if it hasn't been explicitly stated, "the total rent of the house is this, with the increase it will be this, what is your maximum contribution?" then this principle discussion remains unresolved. After all, without clarifying how much burden each person will carry, there can't be a principled solution.

The principle is clear, but did the landlord make this decision about "no raise" considering the possible reactions, or will all the potential consequences be entirely on you? In other words, how ready are they to share the risk if eviction becomes a serious risk? A solution is necessary because this is not just a debate of ideas.

Is he really not contributing to his share because of "principle" or is he just opposed to the price increase? It's not clear. First, find out if he is truly willing to pay. Otherwise, this "principle" feels like an excuse to me.

Here's what I'm stuck on: Are there any other cracks in your model of sharing expenses at home? I mean, is it just the rent that's causing issues, or is there also this "I won't do it, I won't pay it" talk happening with things like grocery shopping, bills, etc.? If so, this principle issue might be just the tip of the iceberg.

Have you ever called and talked to the landlord? Maybe they could sit down with you and agree on a reasonable rent increase, but it seems difficult to resolve this without getting into an ideological debate. Does your roommate actually think about taking a direct step or are they just talking without action?

I'm skipping this principle issue because the matter now is survival math. Rent, bills, etc., accumulated debts indirectly affect you too. Have you ever asked yourself: "What will I do if we can't live here anymore, what will you do?" Maybe this concrete question shakes things up a bit.

Do you know that when your roommate doesn't pay the rent, legally you can also be held responsible? Because this issue doesn't end with his "principle"; your name is involved too. Under these conditions, would you share the same risk with him? Think carefully.

Have you clarified this: How will the process work if you need to leave your home? I mean, if an eviction decision is made, what are the legal timelines, the fate of the deposit, moving costs, etc.? I think they might not be aware of the true costs involved here. Try to make some calculations based on that.

If your roommate is resisting the rate increase just for the sake of principles, that's fine, but how much consultation did they have with you during this time? If they are putting you in a difficult position under the guise of a joint decision, I think there's another problem here. Is this a "we made the decision together" situation or is it a "I said it, it happened" situation? Let's clarify.

Do you know what kind of person the landlord is? Are they the type who will go straight to eviction if there’s no rent increase, or do they have a demeanor that allows for discussion? Because principle is part of the equation, but if you haven’t considered the other party’s reaction at all, it’s risky.

Is your roommate defending this "principle" in relation to their own income situation, or is it purely a whimsical stance? In other words, do they actually have the money to cover the rent increase but are just reacting out of spite, or are they genuinely in a position where they can't pay the increase? Because both scenarios require different approaches.

Is your roommate's stance limited to just the rent, or is it a general mode of defiance against the world? Because some people tend to carry their "battle" into every area, and while it may not seem like your issue, it could still put you in a tough spot. Think a bit broader—what does this attitude reflect?

Do you think there is a reality to the "not leaving home" situation in your roommate's stance? You know, if there isn't a rent increase, you'd move out, right? What will happen during that moving process? Is the plan to stay in a cardboard box by principle, or what is the plan?

This principle really needs to be examined for what lies behind it. Is the fear of creating serious tension with the landlord bravely accepted, or is this purely stubbornness? Because these situations usually either escalate or explode; there isn't much of a middle ground. If that risk was taken, is one truly prepared for the consequences?

Your roommate is resisting in principle, but in the meantime, do they consider that if the legal process is initiated due to the unpaid rent, the landlord will straightforwardly seize the deposit? Let's say there wasn't a rent increase; in 1-2 months, there will be grievances again due to other expenses. Have you thought about this?

Principle is one thing, but did you say anything to the landlord to reject this rent increase request? Or are you just sitting quietly in wait mode, thinking that the increase won’t happen? If there’s a lack of communication with the landlord, it could create extra problems and speed up the eviction process.

Did your roommate take your financial situation into account with this "principle" decision? Because this attitude not only affects themself, but also impacts your shared living arrangement. If they are acting without asking, "What do you think?", it seems like there is a unilateral exertion of power here. It's quite problematic.

Did your roommate clearly express to the landlord what will happen if a raise is not made? Is there an intention to purposely create a crisis, or do they have a plan? Because this silence could be making things even more difficult.

I'm curious about what role your roommate assigns to you in this principle matter. I mean, is this "resistance" solely on their behalf, or does it automatically involve you as well? Because being unwittingly made a part of their struggle is a very heavy situation. A clear "am I in for this?" question is needed here.

Is this decision by the housemate burning bridges in the relationship with the landlord, or is it showing a "conditional" resistance for a solution? Because in these types of situations, flexibility is more important than attitude. If there’s no Plan B, that’s a problem 😅

The issue here is whether to separate the rent increase from relationship management. You need to have an open conversation with your roommate and clarify things like, "What will happen if we don't accept this rent increase? Should we move out, or are we risking something legal?" Otherwise, this situation will blow up due to uncertainty.

Can you elaborate a bit on this principle? How has it really affected the landlord? Because if there wasn't a direct "no" response despite asking for a raise, he might be thinking right now that "they accepted it." Communication breakdown is the biggest issue here. Is your roommate aware of this?

How well did your roommate calculate their financial situation while acting on this principle? Because if the rent doesn't increase, could there be an expectation for you to support them with some other expense in the future? It seems like here, you are indirectly becoming a guarantor for their own decisions.

Principles are all well and good, but do these principles clash with the landlord as well, or are they just being defended within the house? Because without clear communication with the guy, this resistance won't get beyond a mere air movement. There's neither a result nor a relationship preserved.

Let's set the issue of principle aside for a moment and ask this: Did your roommate assess whether the rent increase is sustainable for you? Because if the attitude of "we're not increasing the rent" turns into "we're not sharing the burden," it creates a contradiction both class-wise and individually. There should be a shared responsibility here, both economically and emotionally; it's not just about resistance.

You say it's a principle, but this issue doesn't just end with the rent. Electricity, water, maintenance fees... If it doesn't work out with the landlord, will it draw you in again when you're facing another expense? Or is it just this one time that you're going for a "joint case," clear?

Have you ever thought about what the landlord will do after the rent increase? I mean, is there a chance they might directly say "then just leave" if you don’t accept it? Consider how sustainable the principle is, and whether the plan is clear.