I’ll say it once and I’ll say it again. Even the father of capitalism thought landlords were parasitic leeches on the economy. Even the father of capitalism hated landlords
Making an investment out of a necessity is immoral any way you cut it.
Health should be public.
Food needs to turn a profit, that’s understandable, but also food food is not finite where the rich can hoard it all… Or maybe that’s their next thing 🤔 nah won’t happen because it’s perishable
That’s what the capital is for. Why hoard something that rots and can’t be easily moved around? Capital knows no borders and actually increases in value just by moving it around.
It’s basically an infinite food hack, but not just for food - for everything
He also argued that his system was best used to build the market up in the short term, and be eased out of in the long term.
What’s the alternative? Not defending landlords; I genuinely don’t understand. If you don’t have money to buy a home/condo, you’re going to have to rent from someone. Until housing is not subject to scarcity, there will always be landlords.
Most mortgages are lower than rent.
But due to overinflated housing prices banks refuse mortgages for the poors.
If housing prices matched the actual monetary value mortgages would be more accessible for the average person.
If you want to rent go to a hotel.
If so many jobs didn’t stupidly require college degrees and if college wasn’t stupidly expensive and if wages had kept up with production for the last 50+ years and if corporations werent allowed to own vast swaths of housing and if the world wasn’t run by greedy power hungry capitalists then maybe, just maybe, PERHAPS people might have a few extra bucks to be able to afford something.
Just a thought. Maybe, the issue is money has been taken from the people in so many ways.
Henry George wrote about this extensively. The solution is a tax on all land at just under 100% of it’s rental value. That allows landlords to profit from the structures they build and maintain, but not from the land itself. It disincentivizes real estate speculation, lowering the cost of land and housing and improving accessibility to people who use it productively.
The government/social housing
If something is a need then it’s provided through taxes
housing cooperatives
social housing
banning private rental so that more people can afford to buy.
in approximately that order of priority
Two (current) real world solutions: Most people in China outright own their homes with no mortgage, as the government owns the land itself and subsidizes housing purchases and even outright gives housing to its citizens. Similarly, most people in Singapore live in subsidized government housing.
I might be wrong, but I think even if you changed nothing else about society except abolishing landlording, supply and demand would drive down home costs and force banks to offer mortgages to the people they currently deny. Ideally though, abolishing landlording would be part of a larger change to the way housing works.
You ever think about how weird most housing is?
Suburbia is lines of houses with the same items in them not being used. Full of people who become petty tyrants comparing about a car being parked to close or a yard not neat enough.
If you start to question how we should live together it’s easier to see a way for landlords to cease to exist.
Capitalism was meant to prevent wealth
Adam Smith saw the nobility with more money than the workers (craftsmen) so he came up with a system that pays based on hours put in
In a capitalist society everyone makes the same amount per hour and it’s just the one who works the most. There can also be no inheritance because that is profiting off someone else’s work
That is to say; no shit he hated land lords
…treats for my lizard
That’ll be a $500 pet deposit and another $100/month in pet rent.
Per pet, including the treats for your lizard
They should get more ants so they can get more rent
At least 10.
Exactly ten ants
I don’t get it
Landlords arent fond of termites. The renter is not so subtly threatening the property they reside in because the landlord is threatening to raise the rent so they can continue their lifestyle despite inflation and not working.
That makes sense. Thank you!!
As someone who was also confused by this, thank you!
In my experience it’s best to make friends with the roommates your landlord forces you to live with. I live in an apartment for years that had cockroaches, I told myself they were eating the bed bug eggs. Probably not true but I felt better. Landlords are scum-bags.
Not for you, silly. It’s for the lizard!
Yummy
deleted by creator
A lot of landlords are in fact huge holdings companies.
I hope this clears things up.
People on the internet seem to think a landlord is one guy scamming hundreds of people.
If you’re landlord is an individual, most of the time they’re renting the house and using the funds for a big expense, most of the time mom’s nursing home bill
Bullshit.
Most of them are people trying to earn passive income so they claim they are financially independent.
It’s such a weak argument too. The majority of renters aren’t renting from your neighbor Joe who’s renting out his basement, they’re doing so from property management companies who sole existence is to exploit the fact that nobody can afford a home anymore
I never said the majority aren’t property management companies.
Im my experience landlords who actually live in the place you do. Like a two flat. Are pretty good.
Of course. At that point is basically a roommate with extra walls and entrances.
I’m guessing you’ve never talked to an individual that’s a landlord, have you
I interacted regularly with plenty of them in a former job. Most of them drove cars worth more than I made in 2 years. They weren’t renting just so they could pay for granny’s retirement
E: sp
Most landlords own less than two properties as noted here.
So they either have a higher paying primary source of income, or you do make money per year.
Keep moving the goalposts bud. Just admit you’re either a bootlicker or part of the problem
I think you may have read the data wrong, in two places it says
Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data.
and
Businesses own larger shares of units because individuals, while far more numerous, tend to own one or two properties at most, while businesses’ holdings are larger. In fact, 72.5% of single-unit rental properties are owned by individuals, while 69.5% of properties with 25 or more units are owned by for-profit businesses.
The first sounds like most (read: more than 50%) do, but, and I may be reading the census data wrong, it seems like less than 20% own a single property for rent. The use of typically would indicate that most do, but they don’t actually include the data in the article, which is odd and worrying.
The second also looks like it agrees with your assessment, but it actually kinda says the opposite- 72.5% of people who own single units for rental are individuals. This is surprising because it means there are 27.5% of single unit properties that are owned by businesses. However, it doesn’t mean that 72.5%, or even 50% of individuals (individual landlords) own a single unit to rent.
This article all comes from the 2018 census, when the 2021 census is also available, but I wasn’t able parse either very well.
It’s a “profession” built around exploiting the poor say the landlord doesn’t have to get a real job
There’s no exploitation. Paying rent is simply trading money for a service.
“forcing people to give up large portions of their income while building absolutely no equity in it simply to not be homeless due to policies we lobbied for isn’t exploitative!”
No one’s forcing anyone to rent any specific place. People have a choice. There’s thousands of rentals. They can live with family or friends.
If people want to build equity in something, they can buy their own property.
There’s nothing exploitative about trading money for a service. People trade money for services every single day. You want your oil changed for you? You pay someone to do it. You pull your car into their facility, they use their tools, and you gain a service – for a price.
-> landlords buy buildings -> less buildings available for sale -> price goes up -> people cant afford buying homes -> people rent
Do you imply that everyone would be able to afford buying a home without landlords?
No, not every landlord is horrible and renting definitely has it’s place, but it shouldn’t be the only option you get unless you want to spend 700k
Like the other comment said, it becomes a problem when large groups are buying up all properties
Landlords buy buildings --> More available rentals so people have more choices on where to live
Then there’s the real world.
Large groups of landlords/property management companies buy the majority of residential buildings in an area -> theres essentially nowhere else left to live -> they collude to increase prices
This would make sense if we were talking about something that is inherently optional for anyone to purchase.
We aren’t though. Housing is a basic necessity for everyone, and the hard reality is that working full time does not mean you can afford to purchase housing, so you have to rent or be homeless. It’s exploiting specifically the poor because they can’t purchase housing, so they have to make a choice between renting or being homeless (which is also the more expensive option).
It’s not exploitation because people have a choice of where to live. There’s hundreds of rentals in any given area and millions of rentals across the country. There’s not just one place for people to live. There’s also the option of living with family or friends.
It’s not exploitation because people have a choice of where to live.
That does not follow logically. You have a choice who gets to exploit you, but unless you have the capital to purchase housing, you are being exploited.
This is simply because renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space. Nobody is generating an equivalent in value through work. When people say they’re the main breadwinner in their landlords family, that is actually the objective truth.
This is simply because renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space.
I don’t think that’s true in all cases. If you think about the price of properties and know how much a credit costs. Properties in cities easily cost a million dollars so with 3% interest that’s 30 000$ a year you have to get just to pay interest on your loan.
Being a landlord is a job. There’s no exploitation with renting out properties. People expect to get paid for their job. This is an extremely simple concept. I can’t fathom why you’re not understanding. Maybe I need to make it even simpler?
- Landlord = self employed
- Self employed = Charges for services rendered
- Rent = Payment in exchange for services
renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space
This isn’t even true either.
Being a landlord is a job.
Because society agrees it is. Society also once agreed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction with no factual indication to.
Maybe I need to make it even simpler?
I asked you to explain the logical holes in your ideas, you ignored them. Funny you think the problem is that those simple concepts go over my head when you’re refusing to explain away basic logical problems.
“You know I don’t work an depend on your paycheck”
Said no landlord ever. This is almost as bad as the persecution fetish religious memes, same energy.
“I retired when I was 45, so your check covers the mortgage and my living expenses” - my landlord
She was upset that I auto-payed on the end of the month because she needed it to clear so she could pay her mortgage and rent. She bought in HCOL when it was cheaper, realized how much she could rent it for, “retired”, and then moved to LCOL. Landlords are cool.
She didn’t retire, she just found a serf to do the job for her.
Move that autopay to the last millisecond, friend.
Fucking amen… We aren’t giving a portion of the wheat we harvest to the landlords, but we’re effectively doing the same thing. Half of my buying power goes right to the landlord…
And to just +1 what the other commentor said, my landlord too depends on my income to pay her mortgage as did the last 3 landlords I had… So glad I could help four fucking people pay for their mortgage while I’ll never have a home of my own.
Murica!
Except this is real. Land"lords" are parasites on our society. They could easily be replaced by an overseeing body or really nothing at all would even be better.
Facts. There’s really no excuse for being a landlord. Even the “mom and pop” ones people are sucking off in this thread are a fucking scourge who are hoarding resources and exploiting the working class. I don’t care how sweet and polite they might be about it.
The only good landlord is…
Edit: Blocklist fodder itt, so many greasy bootlickers…
It’s hilarious how many people are trying to defend landlords like they’re actually somehow good for society.
Outside of the rare landlord-as-a-roomate to afford the mortgage scenario, landlords and renting are a solution to a problem they’re creating themselves. They benefit property owners and developers, while creating housing environments that encourage the rest of us to be dependent on them until they day we die.
Yeah, it’s pretty disgusting and disappointing to see that here. I just had some bootlicker write a novel about how his father in law was “one of the good ones.”
Capitalism has rotted their minds.
My FiL owns a few properties that he rents out. He “retired” at 49. Now he spends most of his day, every day, either improving empty/not ready properties, or maintaining the currently rented properties. The people he rents to simply cannot afford a house, at any price, or they do not have the time and skills or maintain their own home. He’s only evicted one person in his time as a landlord, literally because the tenant didn’t pay for 6 months, turned the property into a drug den and went on the run when the police tried to serve a warrant.
I get that landlords on the surface level can be seen as predatory, and I agree that there are a disproportionate amount of scum and anti-humam business drones in the rental business; but its important to remember that there are genuine people who buy, maintain and rent out properties so that their community isn’t rife with dangerous dilapidated buildings filled with squatters.
Anyone who buys housing to rent it out is a part of the problem. Housing is a basic human right, not an investment.
Unless your fil was providing housing for free, fuck him, and fuck off with the classist shit about squatters. I’d take a million squatters over one landlord.
The housing literally wouldnt exist if he didn’t maintain them. It takes work to keep a building standing. He deserves to get paid for his work right?
The people who owned and lived in it would maintain it, because it would be their home and they own it. He only has to maintain it because he’s getting other people to pay for it for him as an investment. The building wouldn’t just poof disappear if it were owned by a housing coop, and people could actually be earning equity with their living situation instead of paying for your FIL to spend 95% of his time fucking around doing nothing and 5% fixing leaks or whatever.
Just curious, do you eat meat?
Make everything black and white and then plug your ears when anyone brings in nuance.
Sounds about right.
Landlords are leeches. They’re not valid by any stretch of the imagination. Even the “good ones” are exploitative.
I’m just not willing to downplay this just because someone has a hard time accepting that a friend or loved one who’s a landlord is a colossal piece of excrement.
Yeah, like that.
Everything you said is a lie. There’s no exploitation. Paying rent is trading money for a service.
What service do landlords offer? Every property I’ve ever rented myself or seen from my friends is falling apart and shitty for an insane amount of money each month. If landlords charged half as much as they do maybe you’d have a leg to stand on.
Landlords provide housing.
No they don’t, they charge people to live in property that they own. That’s not “providing” housing, that’s profiting off of someone else’s need.
Rental property owners charge for the service of providing housing. Home Depot charges for the service of renting their tools. The bouncy house places charge for the service of renting their bouncy houses.
So they’re giving the housing to those in need for free, or at the very least at cost? That would be “providing” housing.
That’s not the definition in the slightest. You don’t seem to have an understanding of what a landlord does.
No they steal housing and extort its use
There’s no stealing and no extorting. The only ones who steal are tenants who don’t pay rent.
Capitalist brainrot is real, holy shit
Ew. What a gross little parasite they are… Like watching a leech suck the blood out of a person and saying at least it lowers their blood pressure…
They are my first block on Lemmy just cause they are clearly mentally deranged
But don’t you understand? This is a mom-and-pop leech, so that makes it ok
What service? They own something I need to live. Landlording is inherintly exploitative, there is really no way I can think of that renting out a property is ethical.
Before you say no I can’t live in a tent or my car that’s a crime. Sure technically I could but I wouldn’t be able to park or put up a tent without tresspassing or violating a no parking order, also not allowed to live in a caravan park either.
They provide a place to live that you can move into almost immediately with little upfront money, and with no worry about any maintenance costs that are associated with owning a property.
It’s very useful for social mobility as it allows people to move around for work relatively easy if they plan on relocating, especially when they’re young.
Buying a property not only takes a sizeable upfront amount of capital but it’s also a very slow process. I think it took 6 or 7 months for us to go from putting an offer in to getting the keys.
That’s the service and that’s why a rental market is important. I’m not defending scrupulous landlords here, they’re 100% an issue and there definitely needs to be changes to address that.
Problem is that the upfront cost for renting is still steep. One months rent as a deposit (which 9/10 you won’t even get back even if you left the property pristine) on top of your first months rent is quite expensive, and most mortgage payments people make are also usually cheaper than what they would pay renting but they do not have the startup capital to even get on the ladder.
you also have to ask permission to even decorate the place and more than likely if you do you then have to put it back the way it was. So you are stuck with lovely magnolia walls, and if you want to redo the bathroom you best be careful that the landlord doesn’t decide your renovations increased the value and charge you more rent because of it.
Of the people I know who rent, which is basically everyone in my age bracket, they want to own a property but cannot afford to it’s a massive issue.
I agree buying properties takes ages I cannot dispute that, and you can still get screwed by unscrupulous sellers.
The place I live now is the best rented property I have and that is only because the estate agents actually listen to me and fix issues promptly. Which as far as I am concerned is the bare minimum which most just don’t do, you also have no recourse because the landlord has way more power over you.
Don’t get me started on flat inspections every 3 months is a piss take.
No, owning rental property is not exploitative. It gives people a choice of where to live. No one rental property is required for anyone to live – there’s millions of choices in the United States alone for places to live.
And yes, camping is legal. People camp every single day in the United States. And yes, people own RVs. They live in them and travel around the country. This is legal. Both of these give even more options for places to stay.
It doesn’t though you get a property you don’t own and you enrich someone else instead of making enough money to actually own a property which you won’t be able to afford anyway
Good for the USA I suppose not for me though, and that falls apart if the person wants to live in or near a city
Paying rent is trading money for a service.
Owning a property means shelling out money, sometimes unexpectedly. The furnace goes out in the middle of winter? Better fix that quick. Don’t have the money? Let it get to freezing now your pipes burst and that’s just thousands of dollars more to spend on top of the thousands of dollars to replace the furnace.
I was gonna say, I’m a landlord and I work Monday to Friday… and I rely on your rent check.
Yeah. I think there is a pretty big difference in the dynamic between a person who owns and directly manages rental properties and a corporate land lord that exists purely to extract as much money as possible from a tenant.
Ya, I don’t love the mom and pop landlords who own a few rental properties as a way to actually retire at a reasonable age. They aren’t the same as fucking blackrock and the other corporate landlords who grew at exponential rates after the 08 collapse and have worked so hard to make housing unaffordable. At least the small guys seem to give a shit about their property even if they’re scumbags. So if there’s a water leak, mold etc they’re probably more interested in fixing it so it doesn’t get worse.
Exactly what I was getting at. Funny how we’re saying the exact same thing but I’m getting slammed, isn’t it.
I think it’s the “said no land Lord ever” bit. There’s a lot of investment property owners with hundreds of units that can be shady AF. It’s just tough to be the " I can handle this mortgage if I get a basement suite rented out and work really hard" and get lumped in.
If it is the landlord’s primary home then they should not be lumped in. Renting out a room to help pay mortgage on the home you live in is not the problem. It’s the second homes, the third, fourth, tenth, hundredth homes where it is an issues, and I do think we can lump all of those together. They are using our limited housing supply as a portfolio piece, inserting themselves as profit-driven middle-men and making it less attainable for lower income families.
Entities that buy and own homes purely for “investment” at any scale are the problem. For-profit housing should not exist at any level. Want to own a second home and rent it out to cover the costs? Sure, but require that it be a non-profit.
The corporate owners and management companies have always been the problem. Individual owner landlords of course have a risk of being picky, nosey and overbearing, but 99% of the time they just want to preserve the investment value of their property while ensuring it pays for itself instead of being a huge money pit. Corporations are in it to maximize profit extraction by doing the minimum legally required maintenance (if even that), and literally nothing else.
Yeah one of my better landlords was a sparky that worked hard af. This is Aus though so might be different. Any time we reported shit with the house he was out the immediately when he didn’t have a job to fix it personally and you could tell he was hot shit at his work too because he had his own business.
Is a sparky an electrician in Australia?
When I worked in construction (Midwest US) we called 'em sparkies too
I was gonna say I hear it heaps in Aus but I’m pretty sure Americans use it too.
It’s considered more polite than “elekchicken.”
Seriously lemmy disappoints me.
Most of Lemmy’s users disappoint me.
Humanity disappoints me
All the time while also being insanely inspirational on small scale
