Although I agree with the sentiment - I am curious how the system works with landlords having so many unoccupied units in some cities. Especially business/commercial/industrial landlords. It keeps rent artificially high, while reducing some types of overhead I would guess.
Speculation. Some investors are more interested in holding the property until they can sell it in the future for a profit, rather than the rent they would earn now. Some landlords will have negative cashflow even if they are charging rent because they know they can sell the property for a profit later.
How does the business of being a landlord not work out to a “yes and” solution? You could make money on rent and sell at a later date. Is risk too high due to the cost of proper upkeep when a unit is occupied? Is it the cost of management?
I think that a lower price for the rent translates into a lower valuation of the property. So an empty apartment at $2000 a month is still theoretically worth more at sale than a rented apartment at $1500
My family has a few houses they rent out. Not nearly enough income to live off of as they all have other jobs, but it’s some. As a rule, an empty apartment is better than a bad tenant. Not only will a bad tenant not pay and take months to remove, they will actively destroy the place causing thousands in damages. “Just sue them” someone may say. Well, they don’t have any money for rent, they surely don’t have 10 months of rent + $4k in repair + legal fees. Sure, we can garnish their wages. What’s 5% of $0 in reported income per month?
Yes, some landlords deserve the hate they get but let’s not pretend everyone is the perfect tenant either. The people of Walmart need to live somewhere.
So if the housing market crashed like really bad, by say everybody owning multiple homes being suddenly unable to afford the loans for that many homes, what would happen?
The banks would have to repossess the properties. And sell them on the market, but with many homes to sell, the price would come down crashing.
housing are people to live in. shouldn’t be used for speculation. a landlord in my building owns like 7 or 8 apartments. insanely hight rent prices. this should be fucking ilegal. greed destroying society
Paying a bank hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest is also robbery. what did the bank do? Were rich and did paperwork. Wow so irreplaceable and valuable. Think of all the poor people they swindled to get there! Amazing 😍
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.
A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn’t get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.
All that said - that doesn’t mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don’t have to call it a loan, and it doesn’t have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.
The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption. If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where “the workers own the means of production” trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.
In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying ‘loans R bad’ makes it sound like you’re advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.
I think a lot of folks have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans work. The banks don’t get to just magically conjure up as much money as that want. It is backed by actual money/assets and federal regulations require a certain ratio between what the bank has loaned and the amount of money they have readily on hand.
I agree that it’s not a perfect system, and I definitely think “businesses” that offer those sketchy payday loan arrangements should be illegal, as they often price gouge the shit out of the interest rates (in fact, I believe many states have outlawed them). But I don’t know of a better solution that isn’t dependent on a utopian-esque idea.
Wow, I thought they’d raised it back up after COVID “ended.” How ridiculous, you’d think that would be one of the first tools they’d use to address inflation outside of just raising interest rates.
You are incorrect. Banks do create money from nothing. And I don’t know if it’s unlimited but I’m not sure why it needs to be unlimited to feel weird and/or unfair.
That is not true. This is typically how bank loans work: You make an account at a bank and deposit, say, $1000. Before 2020, the Fed would require the bank to retain something like 10% of that $1000 (just using 10% in this example, I haven’t looked up what the ratio was pre-2020). So they’d deposit $100 of your cash to keep on hand and could then loan out the other $900 to those seeking a loan.
However, the Fed set that reserve ratio to 0% in 2020, which is idiotic in the long-term and also likely a main contributor several banks collapsed in 2022/2023 as the Fed started raising interest rates (I’m no economic expert by any means, so I could be wrong on the main contributing factor).
I think you’re mixing up regular banks with the federal reserve, who definitely can just print money out of thin air.
From the very source you linked–which isn’t even a good source to begin with since very little of the actual responses there use their cited sources correctly, often quoting shit out of context or misinterpreting the source material:
The “out of nothing” aspect of your question is more complex. In my personal view, and I guess that’s only an opinion, is that because banks are government regulated and insured institutions, forced to back each loan with reserves, and regulated to have capital for each of those loans, they cannot really be said to make this private money out of nothing.
But again, that’s just one user’s response. Not a credible source. So here:
Creating money
Banks also create money. They do this because they must hold on reserve, and not lend out, some portion of their deposits—either in cash or in securities that can be quickly converted to cash. The amount of those reserves depends both on the bank’s assessment of its depositors’ need for cash and on the requirements of bank regulators, typically the central bank—a government institution that is at the center of a country’s monetary and banking system. Banks keep those required reserves on deposit with central banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and the European Central Bank. Banks create money when they lend the rest of the money depositors give them. This money can be used to purchase goods and services and can find its way back into the banking system as a deposit in another bank, which then can lend a fraction of it. The process of relending can repeat itself a number of times in a phenomenon called the multiplier effect. The size of the multiplier—the amount of money created from an initial deposit—depends on the amount of money banks must keep on reserve.
Banks also lend and recycle excess money within the financial system and create, distribute, and trade securities.
Banks have several ways of making money besides pocketing the difference (or spread) between the interest they pay on deposits and borrowed money and the interest they collect from borrowers or securities they hold. They can earn money from
•income from securities they trade; and
•fees for customer services, such as checking accounts, financial and investment banking, loan servicing, and the origination, distribution, and sale of other financial products, such as insurance and mutual funds.
Banks earn on average between 1 and 2 percent of their assets (loans and securities). This is commonly referred to as a bank’s return on assets.
Which is a more detailed explanation of what I originally said. Yes, they create money. But it’s coming from somewhere and backed by something and not just magically imagined.
In the US, the Fed can just print money, and they have numerous times. But that’s because they’re legally allowed to. Banks don’t have the authority to straight up print new cash without something backing it up (e.g. reserves, assets, securities, transactions, etc.)
How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing – money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan.
And I’m just curious. Why in the hell did you think you could tell me I am wrong when you clearly knew nothing about the topic? It’s kind of depressing that this thread is full of this shit. It is a backbone concept in our society, and instead of questioning yourselves, you fuckers are in here correcting people, spreading false information.
I mean I get doubting it. It’s insane. But use a damned search engine and question yourself.
You clearly didn’t read. After 20 seconds this page didn’t load, but doesn’t matter… It’s pretty obvious you don’t care about facts so I can’t imagine you understood or read it yourself
What if the bank decides to keep all $1.000 and loan out $10.000? While money wasn’t printed, phantom money was most definitely conjured out of thin air. And with the magic I don’t see how a bank couldn’t have, say, bought Disney with the phantom dollars
You’re misunderstanding the basics of banking like the other fellow I responded to. I provided a link by the IMF that explains the fundamentals in another reply. I’ll provide another one: investopedia.com/…/fractionalreservebanking.asp
Normal commercial banks cannot just print money, which is exactly what you’re implying with “phantom money.” The money has to come from somewhere and/or be backed by something. So no, a bank can’t just magically turn $1000 into $10,000 without something securing the additional money or the extra money coming from other funds. Only the Fed (or other countries’ central banks/governments) can print money on a whim.
I think the most generous interpretation of what they seem to be trying to explain is the “phantom plans” created from loaning loaned money.
A deposits 1k into bank Bank loans B 1k B loans C 500
There’s only 1k in circulation, 500 in B’s hands and 500 in C’s, but there is technically 1500 in total loans.
I could be off base that this is what they’re talking about, and I don’t necessarily think it’s all that relevant to the conversation, just spitballing.
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
Making things affordable (or just priced within reason) if they are considered a necessity to live in society.
Yes, there are survival necessities ie. food, water, shelter. But in modern society, we can add Internet, phone, car (depending on where you live) or bus pass etc, and probably tuition for at least a bachelor’s degree.
If you want to buy a boat or some shit, then sure, you should have to take out a loan.
Love your optimism, but “making things affordable” is not a valid plan for managing resources. It provides a goal without a solution.
Are you suggesting price fixing? That has a lot of associated outcomes that typically cause worse situations than doing nothing.
You can introduce a guaranteed buyer at fixed price points which alleviate some of the negative consequences, but add others.
These are not simple problems. The reason these problems exist isn’t solely because “rich and powerful people are evil” as nice as that would be. These problems still exist because they’re complicated and ‘one size fits all’ solutions haven’t been found for them.
Again, love the lofty goal you’re setting, but you pretty blatantly don’t mention an alternative system. Easy to point out a problem, much harder to build a real solution.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
March of history. When material conditions are right you transition from feudalism to capitalism. When material conditions build up further, you get the transition to socialism and then communism.
I think a better goal may be to make plans affordable. Loans are a valuable tool, if they’re at a decent rate, so restructure them. Interest never compounds. Rates have to be reasonable. Payments always come out of principle, with interest tacked on and paid at the end of the loan’s life. It’s also a reeeeeeally hard task to say just “make things affordable”
I don’t know that the loan concept is what’s broken as much as the idea of the bank itself. To me, the idea of credit unions makes a pretty good alternative to banks. At least every CU I’ve belonged to has been owned by the members, and the profits they made were used to subsidize interest rates for members needing a loan or, in some cases, a portion was paid out as a dividend at the end of the year to members.
Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.
You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I’ve seen no specific citations. Are there any you’d reccomend?
How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing – money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan.
I think the answers to the question are generally isaying it isn’t as simple as ‘creatijg money out of nothing’. They may be creating money but that money is backed against assets which they do own.
because banks are government regulated and insured institutions, forced to back each loan with reserves, and regulated to have capital for each of those loans, they cannot really be said to make this private money out of nothing.
The context you left out there said right before that “in my opinion”. In any case though, before it was “backed” by a fraction of the loan. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t new money that did not yet exist. It just means if the bank folded there was something to go toward repaying those whom they owed. But in any case that fraction was reduced to zero in the US under trump. Something I learned in this thread. So really, now that backing doesn’t exist any longer.
How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing – money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan.
I agree with you. And yeah it’s bizarre that loans are literally just a privilege that banks get…to create new money out of thin fucking air. I agree–Biggest scam in history.
Simply put, when enough people deposit money into their accounts, banks will simply take the money and lend it to someone else. It is not “their” money, but crunch enough numbers and do enough predictions and you might make it out.
That’s why “run on the bank” is such a feared things - if everyone starts withdrawing cash or sending it to a different bank, the bank can’t really do that because they don’t have the money.
I don’t know what you millenial z’s or something keep complaining about - just buy a detached single family house with a backyard in the city for 125k and pay up your 1% interest rate mortgage within 10 years while your wife keeps it clean and drinks herself to death while resenting you daily, like any civilized 30 year old with a job for life and guaranteed payout pension does!
Man. Every time I see it again spelled out, how smooth these disingenuous decrepit assholes had it when they were my age, I start wishing for a claymore and a stump.
Landlords out here in lemmy dot marxist lenninists comments deadass pretending their right to steal wealth is more important than ones fundamental human right to housing.
Let this be your reminder that “Landlords” do nothing of value. Anytime they claim they are, they are doing the work of an occupation that possibly does, like an electrician or developer or architect or carpenter or handyman or painter or realtor. Ticket scalpers don’t create tickets. Don’t let these antisocial freaks rewrite the dictionary, or excuse their own refusal to read anything about their own behavior.
If they try to cosplay as a pitiable person who only owns a house and doesn’t want to be broke, tell them that their victims don’t want that either, and only the landlord hates working for a living more than they hate parasitizing the wealth others. Their “ethical and reasonable” rent seeking is enabled by the threat of violence from the other “unreasonable” rent seekers, therefore acting as a single unified class.
They could have sold their houses to profit, but that’s not enough for them. They must do their part to squeeze every drop of blood from that soil so that they don’t accidentally decomodify housing even slightly by providing their smidge of housing to the captive market.
The business in this case being what? Landlords didn’t create the land, nor did they build the residence, nor did they improve its value by building a community around it. They are benefiting off of the work of others simply because they “own” it. The most common arguments I hear in support of landlords are:
Landlords take care of maintenance. Maintenance costs don’t increase 20% a year. If rent was simply maintenance costs it would be a fraction of what it currently is
Landlords allow people who cannot afford a home a place to stay. Why do you think they can’t afford a home? It’s like saying without scalpers people wouldn’t be able to see concerts because the tickets are instantly purchased by bots.
Two years ago I became a first time homeowner. I’m moving in 6 months and am going to keep this property and rent it out. I cannot afford to buy another house almost anywhere in the US. I will be renting. However, I closed on this place with 3% interest and pay $1500/mo for the mortgage, plus about $250 for utilities. Round up to $1800/mo. Anyone buying at today’s interest and value with 20% down is looking at a mortgage of about $2300/mo, before utilities.
I absolutely resent this market, but I refuse to let this place go into the hands of anyone like Blackrock. And since I don’t care about maximizing profit, I can keep the rate on the lower end and help someone live here for a few hundred a month less than they could with a new sale. I can rent it for $1700-1800/mo to cover incidentals and repair and still let a renter live here for less than a new mortgage.
I’ve been toying with the idea of counting every dollar the renter pays against the mortgage and selling to them at the difference when (if) rates come back down.
Certainly not ideal, and a little bit apologetic, but in this situation it’s about as close as I can get to a win-win. Or least lost-least lost.
You could always sell it at a low enough price to break even and just refuse to sell it to anyone besides someone who plans on actually living in it. You’re allowed to do that. Real estate agent might look at you like you’re crazy, but fuck em. It’s your house right now.
Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I’m pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn’t want to be responsible for that.
More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you’re mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it’s actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It’s just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.
So while I see your argument that landlords don’t “deserve” the money they make, practically they’re an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.
What do you mean no choice? There’s always a choice.
Realistically many people don’t have a choice to buy, because they don’t have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don’t see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?
Because plenty of folks would have a solid down payment, or better credit score, if rent wasn’t so damn high. Likewise affordable rent would make it easier for folks to move to places where they could get the type of stable job necessary for a mortgage, etc. It’s not the only reason folks don’t have the economic resources at hand, but it’s usually the biggest expense in ones budget, no?
Greedy landlords are the problem, imho, and unfortunately every landlord except exactly one I’ve rented from (out of about ten in total) have been greedy assholes.
As for a fix: housing is a right, imho. I’m not an economist so anything I offer will be full of holes, but some way of securing that people have stable, safe, comfortable housing is essential. Making sure people can’t exploit the need for shelter is a big component of whatever fix we need.
I think a big component of the problem is location. I may have a different perspective living in a low cost of living city. Just a few years ago I lived in a two bedroom apartment that was $650/mo. It was old and not very nice, but totally functional and reasonably safe. It was a bigger complex so the landlord was a management company. They weren’t amazing or anything, but they held up their end of the lease. I understand the situation somewhere like NYC or California is going to be radically different.
I think that’s where a really interesting question comes in though, do people have a right to housing? Or a right to housing in the place they’re currently living? It’s a big difference. Forcibly relocating people is… Problematic at best. But there are places like LA where it’s almost physically (geologically) impossible to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live there.
If you haven’t already I’d recommend listening to the podcast mini series “according to need” by 99 percent invisible. I really appreciated the perspective it offers into some of the practical challenges of trying to get homeless people housed.
Ultimately I don’t know that I’d call housing a “right”, purely for semantic reasons, but I do think the very existence of homelessness and housing insecurity is a devastating critique of our social and economic systems. I didn’t think we’ll ever have a system that completely eliminates renting/short term housing, but we do clearly need to change a lot of things about how housing works now.
I had an enormous reply essentially “yes-and’ing” your reply (I agree with it, but wanted to add a “but” in a few places), but…into the ether it went. I’ll listen to that podcast mini series.
One thing I wanted to add is that I grew up in Atlanta, so I agree that plenty of folks should leave NYC and LA. However, there’s plenty of folks there necessary for the city to function, and I think that legislation is probably the only viable way that things will change for them, since lower-income folks are just being squeezed from all directions, given how much of a commodity real estate has gotten since the last big housing bubble burst.
Again though, I’m not an economist, so my ideas are certainly not immediately viable, and I agree there’s little chance of “solving” most of this under the best of circumstances. I just think there’s too much greed, especially related to housing, that can be improved. We’re a rich enough nation that we can do better. Also I just wanted to be sure to give your nice comment a thoughtful reply, because the internet is too toxic in general, and we need to try to make it otherwise. Have a nice end of the year
I live comfortably in a 2 story, 3 bedroom that I own and I’m able to put enough into savings each month that I’m easily able to afford any emergencies that come up.
Looking at local prices, I would not be able to rent of a much smaller unit where I live.
The actual ‘need’ for rent could be easily covered by people renting out their basement suite or having a boarder. There’s no benefit to society for allowing people to purchase properties they don’t live on just to profit off someone else’s rent.
I’d be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn’t afford the house you’re in now if you had to buy it today. I’m in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “landlords” though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.
Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren’t landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let’s a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.
Risk doesn’ t create value, what the heck are you talking about? I’ll spin a revolver with a single round in it and fire, what fictional wizard signs my check?
Renters are the real ones at risk, being forced by an entire class of sociopaths acting in solidarity to parisitize their wealth. In a disagreement, landlords can commit asymmetric harm with impunity because legal defenses require capital, which the renting class lacks by definition.
Your “good” landlord only appears to be so because of the ubiquity of normal landlords. The handyman needed to help you that day cost pennies compared to what rent seekers steal, thats why they call it “passive income.” In this case, you are describing work performed by a property manager, not a landlord, that created value to you. The landlord performed that managerial labor, and still pocketed disproportionally more value than he provided, because his earnings come from ownership, not from labor.
If its cheaper to rent than buy, why do landlords do it? Out of the goodness of their shiny little hearts? Thank you my lord for saving me from myself.
Landlords do not create housing. They destroy housing by turning what would have been a sold unit of housing into a rented unit of housing. They are directly incentivised to keep housing scarce.
That’s the ideal solution, but not the only solution.
So there should be no land ownership
There already isn’t, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.
Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a “usefulness” score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn’t have increased taxes. Empty houses aren’t useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?
That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.
You do come off as a bit obtuse, and I think that what Gabu is trying to say is that only people should own residential property, not banks/hedge funds/corporations/etc. People should own their residence, and it shouldn’t cost half their income. Renting can be beneficial, but it shouldn’t cost as much as getting your own mortgage.
A cap on how many properties each person can own would help; no one needs more than a few properties. If residences aren’t treated like an investment, prices would be more reasonable, and the barrier to entry lower. Then you could actually move place-to-place every 3 years, sell, and not get robbed by realtors who don’t deserve the huge commissions they get on the already over-inflated housing prices.
Did you know that in some places, a seller’s agent won’t even talk to you unless you have a buyer’s agent?
Anyway, small landlords aren’t really the problem. It’s the big boys who own whole buildings and neighborhoods, driving up prices just because they can. Stricter regulations need to be put into place to make those firms go back to gambling over their shitty stocks and not the roofs over our heads.
Well that’s not what he said. He said it shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit. He did not specify whether the owner is a major corporation or an individual.
First of all: “Just asking questions” is not an argument. It’s disingenuous at best and done by people who have a strong opinion on a subject but can’t articulate why. They feel they are correct and think they are cleverly avoiding having to actually defend their stance by never actually stating what it is.
And why shouldn’t they buy the house?
Because the necessities of survival shouldn’t be a source of profit. Companies shouldn’t be allowed to purchase all the air or water and force you to buy it from them for inflated prices because “what else are you going to do?” In the same why they shouldn’t be allowed to buy all the property and force you to rent from them because “where else are you going to stay?”
What’s the limit on houses?
That’s exactly the problem. There should be a limit on houses, and we’re seeing the consequences of a limit not existing. People are calling for a limit to exist.
Personally I think it should be illegal to rent out a property you don’t live on, and any property you own beyond the first should be taxed at a much higher rate.
First of all, maybe I’m not trying to argue, maybe I’m asking questions because I want to understand the other person’s side and making sure that person has fully thought through his position. How can I agree or disagree if I don’t even know the rules. On this topic people seem to be pretty certain that ALL landlords are basically stealing a living from their renters. I don’t care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations. There are heroes and villains in every industry. Landlording is no exception.
I did not set up the rules, I’m just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.
First of all, people are able to state their opinions on a subject without first having to ask questions like:
So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?
This is exactly what I mean by “just asking questions” being disingenuous at best. That’s not a questions someone asks a person if they are legitimately “wanting to understand the other person’s side”.
How can I agree or disagree if I don’t even know the rules
What rules? They made pretty clear statements about their position (unlike you). You can ask them clarifying questions and state your own position on the subject at the same time.
I don’t care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations.
It’s possible for something to be wrong for both individuals and corporations to take part in. If someone is saying “slavery is bad” I don’t need to hear some bullshit “Corporations who use slave labour are worse than individuals who use slave labour. Leave the individuals alone!” Both are bad. Corporations are worse, yes, but that doesn’t give individuals a free pass. Both need to be stopped.
There are heroes and villains in every industry.
Yes, and the role of government should be to step in and stop the villains.
I did not set up the rules, I’m just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.
That is exactly the point. This is how it functions and it shouldn’t be. That doesn’t change by people shrugging their shoulders and saying “it is what it is.” It changes by people making noise about it until the rules are changed.
I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you’re wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.
This is why I’m not going to argue with you anymore because I’m pretty sure you’re not going to change your mind and I’m sorry I don’t live up to your expectations of not grabbing my sign and marching in front of congress.
I have never seen a successful positive movement toward the kind of government you portray. Instead what I have seen is my dollar going for positive change and corporation’s billions of dollars going the other way. Given the fact that as a society we choose the worst examples of humanity to govern us, I don’t see this changing. I only have one life and I’m just not heroic enough to donate it to one of the many causes that need it. I don’t break the rules that I follow and I try not to make things worse, but I would be curious to know what arm waving you’ve done recently to change this predicament. Did you write your congressman? Get interviewed on TV? Write a book pointing out the tragedy? What exactly have you done and has it made a difference?
I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you’re wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.
Asking someone
So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?
Is not an attempt at understanding why a person believes something. It’s the passive aggressive equivalent to yelling at them that they’re wrong.
I am not surprised in the slightest that when pushed to actually define and defend your stance you respond with
At the age of 18 I got my first job working my way through college pushing 1200 packages an hour in a UPS warehouse. Back then $20 was a lot of money to me. That would fill my gas tank for a week. But I pulled that out of every paycheck and I continued doing that from every paycheck I got after college and beyond, increasing it to 30% of my professional income over time.
After 30 years of working to make someone else rich I looked at my now substantial investments, both personal and 401k and realized, Holy crap, these are just numbers in a computer. What would I actually do if I looked at those investments and one day the number was zero? I mean, in one form or another they were really all just stocks. If the market crashed I could lose a lot and have to build back up. What if the bank collapsed? Theoretically, government insurance might cover me, but I don’t know what the fine print says. What if I didn’t qualify for some reason? Even if I did, how long would it take? What if I was hacked and from the bank’s perspective, I had simply withdrawn the money?
My answer was to diversify. If I bought a house and everything turned to shit, at least I could LIVE in the house. So me and a buddy each put in $50k to buy a gutted house near the beach. Then we foolishly spent 3 years of our lives working nights and weekends, putting in a kitchen, floors, paint, doors, plumbing, tearing out walls to fix termite damage. We paid to have the wiring brought up to code. We made it nice and spent $68k.
We got a great renter in there for market price and then Covid hit. I talked to my partner and we decided that if she couldn’t pay, she was going to stay rent free. Fortunately, she never missed a payment but it didn’t feel right to raise the rent and price her out of the house. Rents in the area are $2500/ month. She’s paying $1900/ month. If you do the math you know we are essentially giving up $600/ month of potential income.
Now let’s see how I’m stealing this income. Last year was just great. A tornado hit the neighborhood and damaged the roof, the fence, some of the exterior and left debris, like someone’s front door, in the yard that had to be hauled away. Total cost including the roof $13k. We got lucky.
So, $1900 rent x 12 months is $22800/ year. Subtract $13k plus $3600 for property taxes, plus $300 for inside pest control, plus $300 for termite treatment plus $600 for incidental things that needed fixing. That’s $5k. Divide that by 2 because I only own half and I raked in a whopping $2500, on which i get to pay income taxes. Let’s not forget the time it takes to contact 3 roofers to get quotes, meet them to pick colors and sign the contract, clean up the yard, write up the lease and bring it to her to sign, arrange for any and all repairs or emergencies and the myriad of other things that crop up over the years.
And now that I’ve found out how I’ve been robbing my renter by just sitting around collecting money I don’t deserve, I have to call my buddy and tell him we have to sell the house for zero profit and of course, kick the renter out so she can… I don’t know… spend $600/ month more finding another place to live.
Like I said, I don’t make these rules. I paid rent too and now a mortgage. Would I like to live in a country that didn’t allow corporations to buy up everything and jack up the price of those living there? Hell yeah.
So I vote. What else can I do? I didn’t crush anyone under my heels to get what i have. I literally saved the money i made. And if I want to protect everything I’ve spent my whole life to create I can put it in… what… diamonds? Like those don’t have blood on them. Make my own business. Isn’t that like joining the enemy. I mean the goal would be to grow, right? Boats, cars? What is socially acceptable?
I’m sorry but I’m just not this horrible robber depicted in the meme and I’m not apologizing.
“I bought a limited resource people require for survival, what should I have done?”
Not do that. I have plenty of investments, none of them are houses. This feigned ignorance of “what else am I allowed to invest in?” Doesn’t work. Go talk to an advisor, they’ll provide you with plenty of options.
Why do you people have to be so hateful, “feigned ignorance”. It’s not feigned ignorance it’s the fact that any tangible investment will upset SOMEONE.
Again, all of those are in essence stocks that can be lost in a crash, if someone hacks my account, the bank fails, etc. When it comes down to it, those are just numbers in an account that one day could go to zero. One could argue that is not likely to happen, but if it did, what recourse would I actually have?
I retired at 52. I don’t need financial advice. My point was that I wanted a tangible asset. If I choose diamonds or gold someone here would get just as upset that those were essentially covered with blood and they are. I wouldn’t want to do cars because I don’t consider it wise, don’t have storage, don’t want to pay the insurance, etc. Real estate is an obvious choice. It makes a very good investment, but clearly in this thread it’s evil.
So you’re well aware that alternative investment options exist and all this “what am I to do? Rental housing is the only thing to invest in” is just nonsense.
clearly in this thread it’s evil
Yup. Just like if someone invested in diamonds or gold, people upset about it wouldn’t give them a pass if they said “I just wanted a tangible investment”.
You complained about spending 30 years making someone else rich, and now you’re retired off the back of your renter making you rich. Your example of a “bad year” was $2500 profit after paying for repairs from a tornado, for a property you don’t need or use.
Some people don’t want to be locked down to one place for long. When I was in my twenties I moved to a different town every year when my lease was up just to see if I would like it better somewhere else. Or I’d get a raise and be able to afford a better place the next year. For people that want relatively short term housing, renting is a far superior option.
If I took out a mortgage on a place and then sold it a year later, I’d have almost no equity since you pay almost all interest in the front part of the loan.
No one said that landlord’s are poor, landlord’s quite literally leech off of their tenants pay checks, making them even richer than they were to start, without lifting a finger, or contributing anything to society.
It sure sounds like the cases you’re talking about are landlords who are building mechanics, accountants, and living just as paycheck to paycheck trying to stay afloat just like all of you.
Sounds like a rich people laughing at poors fighting each other problem to me.
But yeah, keep blaming your neighbor and the one who you literally have to work with to live in your overpriced city. That’ll really change things this time you fake ass propaganda pushing gullible sap.
The British repeatedly gave blankets they new had smallpox. Todays evidence is that nothing happened, the virus was already dead. But it’s worth mentioning that from a Native American perspective this still happened, they received blankets and shortly after they had an epidemic. Whether they contracted it from the blankets or not is sort of besides they point, they intended to infect Native Americans with smallpox and local tribes ended up having a smallpox epidemic shortly after. Maybe they found another way, or maybe someone got infected by coming in contact with the British during one of the conflicts. But does it really matter? With or without blankets they still murdered millions (thought to be the largest genocide in human history) of native people on their own land simply because they wanted to steal all the land. They didn’t need smallpox to do that, they did it with guns, and forced starvation.
You’re welcome to Google or read my profile rather than just pretending like you know everything rather than contributing to false history and slowly changing your statements into ones I’ve already made lol.
It’s literally whitewashing the reality of native deaths. And you accuse of me of making a joke of it? My name is there for a reason.
Ohhh got it, just the end portion. Yeah that was more for… 1nk.
Disregarding that, what you said is untrue. As I told the other person, you are welcome to just Google or search my comment history. I reply regularly with the same thing when white folk get reminded of their white guilt then have to white knight my own race without realizing how blankets with smallpox was never a thing lol.
Yes, yes they are. Which is why you pay for their services.
If a you pay a mechanic to fix your car, and it breaks down on the way home, you take that shit back and tell them to fix it.
If you pick up your car and the mechanic complains of an overdraft fee from the bank, because everything hinged on you picking up your car at noon instead of 3pm, that isn’t your problem.
Is this post saying that if the landlord CAN afford the house without you paying rent, then it’s justified, and in that case they ARE providing you housing?
Yeah I had the same thought, this post doesn’t make a very good anti-landlord argument if in the case the renters stop paying, then both they and the landlord lose their homes.
This is called a risk investment. The risk is that nobody rents the place, in which case the landlord would lose the property.
As a renter, you have the freedom to call out that bet, but it’s quite probable that somebody else will rent instead of you. Also, if the markets are efficient, it’s almost 100% that you’re not getting a better deal anywhere else for your place of residence.
lemmy.ml
Oldest