I know landlords that work way fucking harder than I do, and I have a “real job”. I get that a lot of landlords are assholes but in the end this is the system and some are playing the game as fairly as they can (being reasonable, very rarely raising rent, attending to maintenance themselves and in a timely manner) while others are cheating (not maintaining the property, raising rent, forcing tenants to sign burdensome leases, etc). Stop lumping them together.
I’ve found that on many Lemmy instances we got way too many people who find it much easier to just say all are assholes, there are NO exceptions!
Yeah I agree. Painting with a broad brush is something we all do, but my god people have some self awareness once in a while.
It’s not playing fairly. They are scammers and Mao was right about how we handle them
Apart from your real job and defending landlords, what else are you doing to help get rid of the sham system?
What the fuck is this. I could make all sorts of stupid assumptions about you too, you’re honestly not worth it
Lemmy.ml user. They are an ass backward echo chamber.
Yo you’ve done a really good job at staying away from hexbear posts on your alt account. I’ve only seen one, impressive!
What do you mean by this? How are you tracking this user’s alt accounts?
What’s the point of replacing one sham system with another?
You do understand that not all landlords are the same? Even if 50% are assholes you’re still lapping the other half in there whilst they’re not doing much wrong
All the landlords I know have more than 1 job. My boss is the landlord of 7 rental properties. He also owns a local breakfast diner and his ass is there every Sunday on that grill flipping eggs and bacon with his employees. He also owns a private security business. If one of the guards calls out sick. Its him that covers their shift. And he pays himself for those hours at the same wage he pays the employee hes covering.
My uncle. Owns 2 rental properties. He also runs an electronics recycling business where he loads and hauls E-Waste and he does that and all the manual labor of it by himself.
My old landlord. Young guy about 30. Boughtkmy building from the previous slumlord owner during the pandemic. Dropped 25k putting brand new stairs and decks on the building for safety. During a time where the average going rate on the market for a 1 bedroom apartment was 1100$ he chose to leave all of our rents at 700$ a month because he didn’t feel right about screwing people.
I am not a landlord. I have no desire to be a landlord. But not every landlord is a lazy sack of shit.
A lot of people like to think the world is either black or white with no in-between. As someone who works in construction and renovates houses a lot I can confirm that there are definitely good land lords as well as bad ones. My gf rented an appartment from old people before I met her and she paid almost nothing (400 euros all-inn), you can’t even get social housing for that here. And the state of maintenance was excellent. Also in the more rural areas here the private rent sector seems to be run by mostly decen people.
Then sometimes we have to renovate ex-student housing and a lot of times those buildings are absolute dumps (to the point where you can barely call them habitable) with insane prices. Especially in the large cities I see some really bad practise. Thankfully a lot of those malicious kind of landlords are put on trial (hence why we start renovating after they sold the property).
Disclaimer: I don’t live in the US and tenants have a lot of rights here to the point where landlords are forced to provide a certain standard of living. Unfortunately (foreign) students seem to not know this, this is the reason you mostly see malpractice with students here.
Agree. My mother owns a lot of land in the suburbs of my city. She sold a large amount of land in order to fully pay for my entire undergrad. She could leave her day job right now, but she really likes what she does and thinks of landlording as a side job for her in order for me and my sister to have a comfortable life.
Your mother’s tenants paid for your undergrad, and their kids probably took out student loans.
Oh god the calamity… They had to take out student loans?!!
They are also working. They are performing skilled, useful labor that actively benefits other people. A landlord is not. Working a side job unrelated to landlording does not suddenly make landlording a job that deserves pay.
deleted by creator
Your boss works one regular day a week and covers the occasional shift for a sick employee, but the rest of his income comes from the labor of his tenants and employees. I’m sure he’s a nice guy. I’ve had nice bosses and landlords. But there’s a pretty unequal exchange of labor here. With surgeons and most other high-paid workers, the high wage pays for student loans and years of unpaid student labor.
That’s totally fine, just don’t light no grill.
there were kind and hard working slave owners too. the institution itself is bad.
realestate is simply the best and safest investment you can make in most of the civilized world today, in the same way that owning land and buying slaves to work it was the best investment 300 years ago.
At the end of the day its just waste. If money spent on housing isnt going towards making more and better housing you end up with a choke in supply that raises the price of housing, which hurts the efficiency of society as a whole .
Maybe if renting is only allowed for the party that built the house, it has to be rent to own, and is only allowed for say, 50 years after its construction. Have building codes to ensure it’ll be solid for a long time. With that investing in realestate could be both profitable and societally beneficial.
Happy Fake Labor Day to the Americans, because their government wants to hide real labor day from their citizens so they don’t have to educate them about the Haymarket Affair.
Labor Day being in September is absolutely about erasing labor history. If more people knew labor history, more people would understand why All Cops Are Bastards.
I just did some reading on it and found this article. I wasn’t even really aware of the event until recently.
https://socialistworker.org/2011/01/28/the-legacy-of-haymarket
I sort of knew about this but not the details. Reading that article shows just how far America has failed to come in 50 years.
Interesting stuff
According to others in the thread, you should have known your whole life about the Wikipedia article on it! Duh! /s
May day! May day! We’ve got socialism over here!
May day!
I see what you did there.
You mean when some rioters tried to kill people with a bomb?
You are correct, the American website Wikipedia definitely does not have an article on Haymarket
The average American has a seventh grade reading level (with 54% of the population with less than a sixth grade reading level), and you expect them to be educated enough to 1. know what it is and 2. look for a Wikipedia article on it?
Jesus, half this fucking country doesn’t even live in reality anymore. Somehow, they’re supposed to just know that it’s on Wikipedia.
Half doesn’t live in reality? It’s like 90%. Half is way way way lower than how many don’t live in reality
So you want like some mandatory Ludovico Technique for this piece of information, or what? There’s literally a library of Congress article. It has been part of AP US history for as long as I can remember. I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make. That there are tons of wilfully ignorant people in the US (true)? Or that this piece of history has been censored (objectively false)?
Erasure is different than censorship, and I think you’re intelligent enough to know that. I took that AP history class, and it was super biased against the workers, so that’s kind of a joke to reference.
Also, if we’re talking about a country with a seventh grade average reading level, we’re mostly talking about people who have never taken an AP fucking US history class.
Choosing the September date is part and parcel to why more people don’t know about it, because it’s not generally part of the public consciousness or conversation. That’s called erasure, not censorship.
If it was an AP class, that shits not getting to the ears of who really needs it most.
I would argue that it’s completely erased in most States
I mean we’re talking about a country that is literally in the process of redefining the history of slavery and running with “but the slaves learned valuable skills!” Yeah, I’m trying to meet these people at their level, but it’s clear that in huge swaths of the country, it isn’t talked about, period.
More that the US has successfully managed to censor entire swaths of history by limiting education (especially in red states) and ensuring that critical thought is not taught or enforced in any meaningful capacity. This is all totally intentional and verifiable. The information is there, but people are literally not ever taught (in academia) to think critically and seek answers to things they are unsure of. It’s mostly just memorization until you get the churned to the next year of memorization and if you do dare question any of it you get shit on by peers and teachers alike for being a know it all. It’s rare that you find people willing to foster curiosity in children which ultimately blooms into people eating up whatever they’re told as truth.
be me american sees OP comment googles haymarket affair first result is Wikipedia article for haymarket affair 😐
Mentioning America on a post that has nothing to do with America specifically? Yeah, this type of thing is ripped straight off of Reddit.
It was reasonable at the time to separate celebration of labor from Haymarket massacre, where an anarchist through a bomb into otherwise peaceful labor rally killing both the police and the civilian with many workers being injured and triggering the riot. The labor leaders in US then decided to make labor day to be not associated with these bloody events, which have little relationship with the labor movement itself. Not sure why you refer here to ACAB, the policemen were victims here.
At the McCormick reaper plant, a long-simmering strike erupted in violence on May 3, and police fired at strikers, killing at least two. Anarchists called a protest meeting at the West Randolph Street Haymarket, advertising it in inflammatory leaflets, one of which called for “Revenge!”
The crowd gathered on the evening of May 4 on Des Plaines Street, just north of Randolph, was peaceful, and Mayor Carter H. Harrison, who attended, instructed police not to disturb the meeting. But when one speaker urged the dwindling crowd to “throttle” the law, 176 officers under Inspector John Bonfield marched to the meeting and ordered it to disperse.
Then someone hurled a bomb at the police, killing one officer instantly. Police drew guns, firing wildly. Sixty officers were injured, and eight died; an undetermined number of the crowd were killed or wounded.
But sure, the cops who were told not to show up, and then showed up when they were angry that people were pissed that they murdered workers, they deservedly got a bomb in their faces. Cops are always a bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit who can’t stand being criticized for being the violent fucking thugs they are.
Cops are always a bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit who can’t stand being criticized for being the violent fucking thugs they are.
Such blanket statements about all the cops is intellectual dishonesty at best. While there are shitty people working in all professions, and having some police officers shitty means very bad things can happen, the majority of the force is not that, as I am sure you aware. Yes, structural changes are needed, but this is not the same as calling all of them as bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit. There is crime in this country, and police does have its function and is needed by society.
Just admit you were wrong. Just say “Actually, you’re right, the cops were committing violence against striking workers first.” It’s not that hard.
No need to split hairs or change the subject.
Not on May 4. And I did not change the subject - you did with the ACAB statement.
To the topic: The bomber was anarchist. Labor was not behind this attack and wanted to distant itself from it. Thus they selected the September.
You’re really dedicated here to handwaving away the violence committed by the police before the bombing and also handwaving away that the cops were asked by the Mayor to not interfere. Maybe, just maybe, if the pigs hadn’t fucking showed up, it would have never happened.
It’s also handwaving away that only 2 of the 8 men put to death for the bombing were actually at the Haymarket event, and it was never conclusively proven that any of them built the bomb. They also never proved conclusively who threw it, but they put 8 men to death over it.
Also, it’s handwaving away the brutal crackdown on union organizers afterwards. Maybe, just maybe, the reason the labor organizations acquiesced and distanced themselves is because all the businesses, property owners, newspapers, and government were busy vilifying them. How much choice did the labor movement actually have in the date?
There was disagreement among labor unions at this time about when a holiday celebrating workers should be, with some advocating for continued emphasis of the September march-and-picnic date while others sought the designation of the more politically charged date of May 1. Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe. In 1887, he publicly supported the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative, formally adopting the date as a United States federal holiday through a law that he signed in 1894.
So the labor movement is Grover Cleveland? And so it’s pretty clear it was because they wanted to prevent socialists from strengthening their numbers. Give me a break. Stop trying to rewrite history and get that boot out of your slobbery mouth.
Also, finally, stop repeating “anarchist” like it’s supposed to be an insult. “Not on May 4th” is the definition of splitting hairs, chucklefuck.
Those cops should be thankful that’s all they got
ACAB
Look, I kind of agree with your sentiment, but the historical event in question did involve what the commenter you’re replying to insists happened. I that instance, all the cops involved were assholes. In that era, law enforcement was tied to power by necessity, since only the powerful (read: rich) could start townships and such and afford to pay for law enforcers.
But now? Things are a little complex. This is on purpose, as the powerful class has continually meddled in police affairs through lobbying and unions (ironically the police union is hilariously well funded due to rich interests wanting am army to keep the poors in line), and we’re (in the US) trending back towards police basically being an official branch of Pinkertons.
Still, I’ve met good cops. Genuinely good people. Last year, I had a flat (entirely my fault. In CA) tire and a passing motorcycle cop stopped to help. He not only helped me replace it with a spare, he offered to call and pay for a tow truck for me. Truly a kind man, and believed in his social position perhaps more than the average.
But yeah, that’s not how it is in most places. Even in CA you have sheriff gangs, prison guard gangs, corruption, you name it. Like I said, the US as a whole is generally trending backwards as of late.
Anyways we need nuance. But we’re increasingly approaching a world where nuance is shunned or laughed at as missing the point, or being needlessly picky. Not only that, people seem even more desperate to feed into tribal groupings. Even on lemmy, you’re either pro US or pro China/Russia. It’s like people think they need to pick a side.
Sorry, just needed to rant I guess. I just hope we manage to keep the planet alive while we figure our bullshit out.
Cheers mate, thanks for the nuanced take.
I don’t think most folks like me reject the idea that good cops could exist, it’s more that we’re so aware of how many bad cops exist (at least in the US), it’s one of those situations where good cops are run off the force (or worse, targeted and murdered before they can testify) or put up with so much bad behavior themselves that over time, they’ve become a bad cop, because they’re not stopping other bad cops. Even if they’re nice to citizens, if they’re covering for crimes of their fellow cops, they’re a bad cop. The fact that more cops aren’t standing up against things like qualified immunity when it’s painfully being abused or civil forfeiture when it’s abused shows exactly how little they care for the public and how much they care for their right to abuse the public without recourse.
Unfortunately, that leaves most cops in the USA falling under the umbrella of ACAB.
Oh, and the whole 40% of cops self-reported as beating their spouses. On top of the whole “Killology” mess that trains them to be an occupying force in their own cities. It’s really hard to make excuses for them at this point.
Outlaw all landlords
What if someone wants to rent an apertment
With an absence of landlords, buying an apartment unit like a condo would be how that works.
But what if I don’t have money for an apartment or don’t want to commit myself to one?
Are you talking about the current situation or my hypothetical? Because money and commitment are a big part of renting an apartment.
I’m just talking about in general, how there’s reasons to rent
Not everyone wants to buy a property.
If rent was just paying for the costs of utilities, insurance, taxes, general upkeep costs, and the mortgage for my unit I’d have no problem with it. When corporations start sucking up money to line the pockets of investors it becomes a problem.
do you not think a landlord is by default an investor?
Scalpers are investors of sorts, yes. Doesn’t make it a good thing that we should have in society
Im the guy saying get rid of all landlords. Being investors is what makes them bad.
I’m not playing word games today, sorry. In this context “investor” means someone who is investing in corporate ownership of housing.
Its no word game, this is layman’s terms, rental properties are bought by investors. I just dont get why unincorporated investors also sucking up money get a pass.
would you like to get back all the money you spent on a rental property when you move out?
I would like to sure, but I don’t think that’s reasonable. Why would I get my money back?
It’s how mortgages work. You make a monthly payment to live somewhere, same as renting. In the rental scenario, it all stays with the landlord. In the mortgage scenario, you have paid off some portion of the price of the house. When you move out, you sell the house, and use that money to pay the rest of what you owe, and the difference is yours. It’s like selling your car when buying a new one, except housing in the US tends to go up in price even when used.
You don’t need to explain it to me, I’m paying a mortgage and have rented before. But a rental isn’t a mortgage. You don’t get your money back when you return any rental item, why would a property be any different?
The landlord is offering a service: a property that you can move into almost right away, sometimes even furnished, with little risk and without having to manage the property. They’re the ones who have taken on the risk of taking on a mortgage or have spent a lot of money buying something outright.
I’m not defending all landlords here, but the concept. I think rentals are an important part of the market and for social mobility.
But a rental isn’t a mortgage. You don’t get your money back when you return any rental item, why would a property be any different?
right, thats why Im confused why anyone would rather rent.
also Im hearing an alien language. Im living in a rental property, I’ve never had one furnished, and I’ve been threatened with eviction for not managing the property myself. I aint seen my landlord in years.
Also, please dont buy into the propaganda that wealthy people are taking on risk. Its never about risk, its about having enough money to own the things that people need. They’re not gonna stop needing it.
right, thats why Im confused why anyone would rather rent
Maybe because you’re young and you don’t want to commit to buying a house yet? Or you’ve just got a new job in a distance place but need somewhere quickly? You can’t exactly tell your new employer you can’t start until 6 to 9 months while you look for a house and go through all the legal process to buy one. Also some people just don’t want to have to maintain it themselves. Boiler breaks? Landlords problem. Need a new roof? Landlord takes the hit.
Furnished rentals are definitely a thing here. Unfortunately shitty landlords exist everywhere.
That doesn’t make any sense. Are you connecting mortgage payments to “getting money back” or something?
In a non private ownership situation the government “owns” the housing and citizens contribute via taxes. (Scaled to their ability/income) No argument on the validity of that approach, just saying someone still “owns” everything, and the money spent isn’t just sitting around, waiting to come back
who said non-private ownership? Landlords are not the only property owners, as much as they would like to be.
As in government owned
I said who said non-private ownership?
You proposed getting money back. I discussed options of who you might hope to be getting money from, because it wasn’t clear from your comment
Is this a double negative?
Don’t light no grill?
I think it’s southern slang
Ahh, that makes sense, when i say it out loud it makes more sense, i just don’t read slang very much.
This isn’t about own vs rent, it’s about house vs apartment.
Open flames are dangerous and smoke is annoying to neighbors. Condos and coops typically won’t let you grill. Some of them have designated grilling areas and those often have restrictions on how you can use them. Even many apartments with fireproof balconies won’t allow them because not all the neighbors want a balcony full of smoke.
Every house I’ve ever rented, allowed grilling. Even the cheapest one, a row-house in Baltimore, let you grill in the back “yard”.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear your pleas from my speedboat. Oh, you were busy working because I set your schedule to work on Labor day? Obviously we’re of two different classes of people. /s
No Landlords on Lemmy I imagine
Edit: *greedy. No greedy landlords on Lemmy
I have a few rentals. Only one of them was purchased as a straight up investment. The others were just the places where I used to live. I also have a job. Theaye posts are honestly pretty childish. I rent my places out more or less at cost, and often take applicants who are seen as too risky by most landlords (I basically guarantee my own rentals, because I don’t really need the cash flow). I see it more as community service than a revenue stream.
That’s why I just think this shit is childish. Almost everyone I rent to is in no position to buy. I guess they’d just be homeless without landlords. I’ve had people who have literally been turned down 50 times, who were living in their car, and broke down crying when I told them I’d rent to them without a co-signer.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
By “at cost” do you mean they’re paying your mortgages and property taxes for you? If so, they could afford to buy if they had a down-payment. They probably don’t have a down-payment because all their money goes to rent :)
I don’t blame people for being capitalist when living in a capitalist system, but it still sucks. You could try something like a non-predatory form of rent-to-own where they gain equity over time (though these arrangements are usually predatory).
It’s super fucked up how people basically are constantly essentially getting taxed more and more for the right to survive. No one should be profiting off basic needs
That being said, the system is fucked up, and if you’re mainly using their rents to pay for equity, you’re playing by the rules while doing more good than harm. It can still be a win-win, and I think it’s ok to feel good about that
Homes shouldn’t be an investment vehicle, but they are - you should seek to help fix the broken rules, but it’s foolish to just ignore them. Most investments have a similar effect somewhere down the line anyways
But the real question is - are you actually a landlord? Technically yes, but in spirit? If you’re not making much of a profit from rent, you’re not what people mean when they say landlord. The upper middle class has been dabbling in rental properties for a while, but that’s not who the term refers to - it’s people who own enough that the rental income is the line item they’re keeping track of.
The starting line is like 20-30 units, and it’s mostly held by investment groups or families that inherited a town… They’re who own most rental properties out there
If you rent out a few places and don’t put much thought into adjusting the rent, you’re not the problem here. You’re not the one we’re talking about when we talk about landlords
Shame they’re in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren’t allowed to own a “few” rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a “few” rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.
There would just be less housing. Construction workers are workers too, and as much as it sucks, they aren’t going to put $50k of their own labor and materials at risk so that a person living paycheck to paycheck can own a home, regardless of how noble that pursuit might be.
I also support radical action to end housing shortages and homelessness, and believe secure housing is a fundamental human right. If the government wanted to buy my properties at cost, using my own tax dollars, and gift them to those in need, I would support that. If they wanted to turn my current home into high density housing, I would support that. I am doing many things on my own, both through advocacy and direct action to address the real moral problem of housing. Unfortunately, I have no interest in being a smug slacktivist, so it often seems like lemmy doesn’t have any interest in my ideas.
Not everyone wants to own and it can even be profitable not to… It’s like if the anti landlord movement wants to force ownership on everyone…
Obviously not. The “movement” wants to remove profit intensives from the whole process
So landlords should rent for the price of their mortgage only? What about when they’re done paying their mortgage, they should rent for free and take a risk that the person “renting” the place will damage it and the landlord then has to pay for the damage? What’s the incentive to rent then? Wouldn’t that create more scarcity? What about if they’re on a mortgage with variable rate, should the rent price vary every few months?
I guess they’d just be homeless without landlords
See. This is why I don’t like landlords.
It’s either I’m stuck with some transactional fake as fuck relationship or I’m homeless.
I wonder why people are in no position to buy, when homes are treated as a source of revenue for corporations and some people. I wonder why people have to jump through hoops to be able to have a roof, if the property are bought as an investment.
Yeah, maybe you aren’t lying and not making a profit out people’s suffering, but even you should see that it’s not the norm, otherwise your benevolence wouldn’t be needed at all. The whole system is cruel, and everyone who participates contributes to it, some more than others.Thank you for your service.
It’s easy to demonize and dunk on people for being greedy and just removing houses from the market, but as you well have stated, some people are not in a position to buy. So rent becomes the only true and logical solution.
Sure, they could well be down on their luck. But I would also present the case of the immigrant, new to a country (and having moved with a job offer), having no opportunity to sign for a mortgage (no credit history, didn’t gather enough work time in the country to provide payslips). And even if they had a suitcase of money just lying around, it takes a bit of time to decide if you want to settle. The best one can hope for is finding a landlord who’s not an asshat.
And no, other solutions proposed in the comments probably would not help, since, for instance, communal rentals tend to have long waiting lists or require some sort of reputation (like knowing some of the community) before allowing you to move in.
Oh, that is very generous of you! I’ve edited my comment
deleted by creator
It’s not Labour Day, you moron. We already had that earlier in the year.
Its American labour day today
No, it’s American Labor Day.
This is lemmy.world. not lemmy.usa
Relax, it was just a joke. Did you not read what I replied to?
How am I meant to know OP is from some stupid country on the other side of the world?
Why do Americans have to do everything differently
Why is this fuck twat getting up voted? Have ya checked the calendar 📆 ? It is Labor in MULTIPLE countries.
Is there a version of this with proper English? It doesn’t help the plight of the labourer to speak so poorly
just come out and say “with white English” and stop beating around the bush
One thing I’ve learned on reddit is that you never tell people on platforms like that or even this one that you’re a landlord. You could be the best landlord, never raise a reasonable rent, keep a well and promptly maintained property, and LanDlOrDs aRe The ScUm of ThE Earth!!1! is all you hear.
The very idea of being a landlord is pretty evil though? Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.
Where would people live then? Those don’t want to buy. Under the bridge?
Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.
Housing shortages are caused by bad government policy: namely, low-density zoning. Direct your anger towards the entity that deserves it, and make them fix their fuck-up.
(Note: I’m not making some kind of Libertarian “all government is bad” argument here. I’m saying that in this specific case, the laws need to be changed.)
There is enough empty property to house every homeless person 30 times. Some of those empty property are summer houses and shit, but even then the problem isn’t the lack of housing, it’s treating homes as a mean to make money out of people’s basic needs. You can build the best walkable city in the world, but if it will be bought by professional landlords immediately it will not solve shit.
Not everyone is able or willing to own their property, what would they do if landlords didn’t exist?
Make it illegal to rent out property you don’t live on.
If you want to rent out your basement, or build a seperate dwelling on your property then you are adding to the available housing and can rent that. Most people would rather build their own equity given the chance, and this would provide rentals for temporary living situations.
Privatizing the right to have shelter is pretty scummy to be a thing to exist.
What if I build a house on a piece of land I own and want to rent it out?
The second construction is completed I’m all of a sudden a scumbag for privatizing someone else’s right to shelter? Even though it’s a house I built on my land? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
You’re moving the goal posts here. Did you buy the land for the purpose of building property? Bad. Did you convert arable land into housing? Bad. Was it a rocky bad piece of land that you invested in to build something more out of it? Good. Housing policy isn’t binary but in most cases the current personal private multiownership model doesn’t help anyone. My perspective is no one should be allowed to own more than one house, and if so anything beyond the first house should be heavily taxed.
Buying land for the purpose of building property is bad? I think any policy that discourages development of additional housing is probably not going to be great for house prices. Or if you’re handing out houses in a lottery system, it won’t be great for housing supply at least.
I’ll give you an example; my country has food insecurity, rich people take arable farmland and build suburbs on that land instead of infilling the city downtown which has single detached homes less than a kilometre from the centre of the city. Do you think that this is a good thing they’re buying this farmland for suburbs, or a bad thing?
What’s the alternative here? Only letting big companies without any ethical regards rent housing?
Sure, there’s a good argument to be made that housing is essential to survive and as such should be provided by the government, but that’s not the world we live in. In this society, it’s likely someone is going to have to rent it out and I’d rather it be a person who actually gives a shit and can be held responsible rather than some faceless corporation.
Actually in my experience faceless corporations tend to follow the rules much more stringently.
Your assuming everyone wants to own property over renting.
House and property ownership has a lot of responsibility and expenses involved. Your water heater breaks well there is $1000+ your roof needs replacing there is 30K. All of that goes away when you rent as it isn’t your responsibility.
If you own property it can be harder and more risky to relocate. I know a few people that bought in 2007 and then were stuck as they couldn’t afford to move because they were upsidedown on their house.
Not saying renting is all sunshine and roses. I personally would rather own then rent but home ownership isn’t for everyone.
But I do think it is a major problem when you have a few companies buying up all property so no one else can afford it. But I don’t think being a Landlord is inherently evil.
Rentals should be socialized, not owned by corporations or private citizens.
I actually recently learned about housing co-ops. Basically an apartment complex led by a committee of residents. It’s non profit high density housing, so you can buy a share (meaning rent an apartment) at much lower rates. As an example, in my area the co-ops are at 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of traditional rentals. The downside is, from what I hear, the folks managing the apartment complex can be even worse than an HOA if you’re unlucky.
IMO this is the sustainable way forward for housing.
I would love a co op
Don’t forget food too. No one should profit on necessities.
Correct, but only one mountain can be climbed at a time. We have more reliable food sources than housing sources right now.
In a perfect world sure, government is fully funded and runs smoothly people care about the everyone etc… etc…
But in reality I really would be very hesitant to want to live in that world. It is very scary to have a single organization control all your housing. At least with the way it currently is if you don’t like your landlord you can go somewhere else. If the government owns everything your kind of stuck dealing with the same organization no matter where you go. Governments are not immune to corruption and can screw you over even worse in some cases then an organization.
In my opinion the best solution is many private citizens and small rental companies combined with government enforcing laws protecting both parties. However one big issues I am seeing is huge companies buy up everything in a small area and build a monopolies on rentals. That isn’t good either.
Governments are not immune to corruptions, but in the democracy there are ways to influence the government. Private companies that buy all the property are doing the corruption by design, in this case it’s not even called corruption, it’s normal profit-driven business, it’s supposed to be like that. And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them
Threw down over 20k in fixes so far in our first year of homeownership, and due to interest rates and closing costs, we don’t really have the opportunity to move anywhere else without taking a significant financial hit.
You bet it’s not for everyone.
Yeah but you know what, you always have a home. It is very unlikely the bank will ever foreclose on you, they rarely do that, even in 2008 almost nobody lost their homes.
But me, I lose my home on my landlords whim. At any given time I may have just 30 days to pack my life up and fuck off, and there’s nothing I can do about it.
You have stable permanent shelter. Don’t undervalue that just because you have to maintain it.
Um, you have rights depending on your country of I’m not mistaken
You’re still paying for those repairs when you rent, it’s just spread out.
But you’re not researching, hiring, and scheduling a contractor to fix it. You don’t need to become an expert in long term planning and anticipate problems. You’re not mentally cataloging basic maintenance tasks like when you last painted the siding or mowed the lawn.
Home ownership vs renting goes beyond equity and I know a lot of people who were happy renting because it gave them a huge chunk of free time back for trips, hobbies, etc.
You are basically insuring yourself against those expenses, which has a premium. If you are good with money and have a savings, you can afford not to pay that premium. Not everyone is in that position or smart enough with money. So many people are bad with money, that stuff really should be taught in school.
I think everyone in your replies is conflating being a full time landlord and a part time landlord. One of them is definitely more evil than the other.
Idk my previous landlord was part time and was still hell.
My previous landlord was amazing. Dealt with every issue that arose in a timely fashion, never raised my rent (which was already very fair based on the location), and even installed central AC after my first kid was born since the house was old and could get pretty hot in the summers.
And she wasn’t the only good landlord I’ve had.
Sorry your experience has been bad with renting, and I agree that most landlords are terrible (I’ve had plenty of those as well), but just because you haven’t ever had a good landlord doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
So while I generally agree with your sentiment, there are some obvious ways that sometime could be an ethical landlord.
What if you have a house that’s too big, so you convert a floor into an apartment? You’re adding to the number of housing units available. Should you be forced to sell a portion of your house/building to whoever wants to live there? Or should you be able to rent it out to someone at a reasonable rate? Do we want rules that discourage people from potentially adding units to the market?
I feel like the “all landlords are evil” narrative is way too simplistic, and that simplistic view turns off people who would otherwise support reasonable limits on landlords and housing ownership. Like, it’s obvious that we need limits and taxes on people who own multiple properties, and it’s obvious that there are companies that exploit renters and drive up prices, but it’s all more complicated than just “landlords evil lol”.
I rent my property because it’s the only way I could’ve bought it at my age and I use that money to pay for the mortgage of it while I live somewhere I don’t want to (under parent’s wing in a crappy city) but angry people rarely if ever consider all scenarios
Someone else is litteraly paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it otherwise. How out of touch do you have to be to say that with a straight face?
Thanks for the insult and making my point, I can afford it but in my country you have to make a downpayment of 20% of the value and that ate into my savings, I want to recover some of my savings before moving to another city and eating into those savings more, plus I have to wait a year for my wife’s job, is it wrong to rent it for that year before I move?
How am I making your point? You litteraly said that you could not afford the place, so you rented it out instead.
Someone is paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it, and then you will kick that person out when you want to. That person will then have to move again in a market that gets worse by the month.
I’d say that is pretty bad all around.
How can I not afford the place? This is just to make my life easier I would not artificially make it harder on me if I can rent it to some europeans that will stay on a sabatical in my country.
What is my other choice? Leave the place abandoned for a year until I move? Prices get worse every year and I found a great opportunity to buy now instead of wait until I could buy it without a bank loan. Prices doubled because I waited so this time I don’t want to wait. My mortgage is 25% of my salary that’s not bad is it?
So you’re keeping home ownership away from someone who can afford to pay your mortgage is what you’re really saying.
How did you come to this conclusion? If someone is renting it means they they can’t pay for mortgage. Otherwise they would’ve done so. He said, that he needed to make a 20% payment to even get the mortgage. Idk how much money that was for him, but where I live that would be around 130k$. Clearly not everyone has that kind of cash.
And what’s your solution? Disallow renting properties for which mortgage wasn’t posted in full?
If you buy it, live in it. Stop contributing to the housing crisis. Greed got us here, it certainly won’t get us out.
Like you’ll ever buy a house yourself and support all of the taxes and upkeep with your nonexistent pay
If the rent is covering the taxes and upkeep then the renter is paying it anyway through a middle man.
If the rent isn’t covering costs then the landlord is bad at this and won’t be a landlord for long.
No it’s absolutely not. Your comment displays a complete ignorance of the business.
Wrong.
I’d make a point, but you didn’t bother. Typical landlord unwilling to put in the work.
Another person who doesn’t know what they’re talking about who is anti-business.
It’s not a business, it’s a scam to take advantage of people
Not a scam. Not taking advantage of people. You’re just wrong on all accounts.
Well, renting out property is the only way for most people to achieve some moderate wealth.
You should never achieve wealth by the oppression of someone else. Housing is a human right, not a salary.
Should farmers not make money? Healthcare workers? Mechanics? Bus drivers? You can argue that this should be socialized, but it is still a salary.
I said achieve wealth. These people aren’t generating large amounts of personal wealth by withholding a basic human right from someone
Small-scale landlords also usually have full time jobs and use rent to supplement their income. Not every landlord is just rolling in cash.
Choosing to use a basic human right as a form of income is scummy. All landlords are scum, whether they are rich or not.
People need a place to stay and not everyone has piles of cash for a down payment. Vote for the change you want, but in this system we need rentals.
Those rentals should be a social project not a profit driven one.
There’s more demand for rentals then there are government resources to provide social projects.
In a lot of places if you own any land you are a millionaire, it’s coming to the point that if you own a condo you are a millionaire.
You people are so naive its cringe.
Go back to watching your Fox News
I am my hamsters land lord. Ask me anything
my cat and I started as roommates but now I’m pretty sure he’s my boyfriend.
The amount of communists in this thread is simply astonishing. I thought we had accepted the concept of property rights. Why even stop at immovable property and not movable?
