There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

DJDarren ,

ITT: Poor, downtrodden leeches landlords talking about how hard it is to be a landlord, when the easiest way to end their suffering is to just sell their extra fucking house(s).

Littleborat ,

They have once a year paperwork to do and still bitch and moan and they still call it work.

It’s disgusting.

The one “person” I know also drags tenants to court over stupid shit (he always loses 🤣)

Kusimulkku ,

Where I live landlords (if they’re renting directly at least) are in a big legal responsibility over all kinds of stuff. The easier way is to rent through some company that deals with the renter.

starelfsc2 ,

sadly if you try to be a good landlord and make a slim margin, you’ll get dumped a huge repair bill/tax increase/other expense and now you’re running the appartment at a loss. At that point you either sell it to a company willing to exploit it or you have to be less nice to your tenants and ignore repairs or charge more. Most people choose the first which is why we end up with terrible landlords.

aside: heard someone in that exact situation running low income housing, on a phone call with an expert talking to the government. The expert said “any prudent management would raise the rents the maximum allowed amount”

ntma ,

ITT: economic incels

OurToothbrush , (edited )

Shelter is a need, owning women as property is not. It is disgusting to compare people complaining about landlords and people complaining women won’t be their possessions.

arc ,

So apparently buying a house, furnishing it, maintaining it, complying with various codes and regulations, and making the house available for someone to live in for a period of time for a sum of money is “parasitic”. Not sure why, or why the same logic wouldn’t apply to anything of value someone makes available to others for a fee.

Waltzy ,

The same logic applies to all rent seeking behaviours

Atomic ,

It’s a very US-centric view because their states seemingly doesn’t enforce rules and regulations while also not having rent control. Creating a situation where landlords can demand pretty much whatever they want in a housing crisis while also not spending their revenue on actually maintaining the apartments they rent out.

The complaint is fair. For them.

socksy ,

You wouldn’t do this if it weren’t profitable. The tenant will end up paying for the furnishings and maintenance many times over in rent, and you will get an appreciating asset that you are gradually paying off the debt for. You’re not getting paid for management, you’re profiting from holding capital in a system designed to benefit those that have capital, and seeking rent for the ownership of that capital.

I wouldn’t hold it against someone in this system we have if they end up buying a property to safeguard their money, but let’s not pretend that landlords are not a parasitic relationship that reduce the amount of housing stock available for people to buy and act as a middle man between a tenant and a property management company.

arc ,

Why on earth do you think anyone would rent out a house, or pay for all the ancillaries - furnishings, repairs, insurance, legal etc. if they didn’t get a return on their investment, time and effort? Do you also accuse Marriott of being parasites for renting rooms? Or Hertz for renting cars? They do these things because they spent a lot of money to provide something of value that people can utilize for a period of time but they still expect to make money.

Renting is a business. It’s as “parasitic” as any other business were a person pays for something with money and receives something in return. If you are not prepared to rent then don’t. There are other options to having a roof over your head. Buying a house would be one option but there are others.

Martytix ,

If you equate rental cars and hotel rooms as the same as shelter used every day I don’t know how you are going to begin to understand the other person’s argument. I hope you can educate yourself about this.

arc ,

Yeah how dare I make an obvious point that people rent houses to make money. They aren’t charities. It doesn’t make them parasites or evil. They’re not responsible for the price of houses. They’re not responsible for social housing. They’re not responsible if you cannot afford what they charge to cover their costs & make money.

Colorcodedresistor ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    arc ,

    I’ve rented plenty in my life. Then I bought a house and paid it off. Sobbing that people who rent properties actually want to make money or that they’re all “parasites” is laughable nonsense.

    Zurr ,

    “Buying a house” lol, imagine being so out of touch you think that’s an option for people who can barely handle rent.

    arc ,

    Imagine being so out of touch that you think people who rent property should do so out of the goodness of their hearts.

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    Except nobody is saying that.

    They're saying landlording shouldn't be possible. That the provision of shelter should be done by some other means.

    krush_groove ,

    Because of nasty landlords happy to evict people or raise rents, Reddit and now Lemmy are full of people saying all landlords are awful morlocks feeding off the pain of everyone. Like everything else nowadays there’s no middle ground in the common arguments either way. Landlords evil, renters saints.

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    This is a misunderstanding though. People aren't complaining about individuals who happen to be landlords being nasty. They're making a systemic complaint about rent-seeking.

    A landlord can be a perfectly polite and pleasant person. They're still engaging in rent-seeking. And that's the complaint.

    ComradeKhoumrag ,
    @ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub avatar

    Every landlord I’ve had doesn’t do shit. In principle, sure yeah being a landlord can be a bit of work. In practice? They expect it to be a source of passive income

    purprain ,

    I’ve had the exact opposite relationship with all but one landlord. The one bad landlord relationship I had I sued and won. But I’ve lived in about 6 or 7 places with amazing landlords that took care of the maintenance and everything else. Hell I fell down in a shower busting a big ass hole in the tub once and the landlord replaced it at his own cost.

    the_third ,

    I’ve calculated if it would pay off to build a house with four units on a piece of land that I already have. It would barely pay for itself after 30 years but let’s be honest, 30 years is when the first big renovations are in order. I’m not sure if the “landlords are rich leeches” - trope holds up outside expensive cities with inherited properties.

    Knightfox ,

    It really depends on the nature of the rental and your area. If instead of building a house you build 4 closely stacked duplexes and charged each one double what the mortgage would be you’d definitely make money, but you’d also be an extortionate leech. In my area someone built 4 nice duplexes on a double lot (probably around 1.5 acres) and is now renting them at $1800 each. The land was probably less than $55k and the cost of construction was likely less than $1 mil. At 5% interest on a 30 year loan their monthly payment would be $5,600, but they’re bringing in $14,400 per month.

    $1800 for rent is an extortionate price in my area (it’s big city apartment rental prices, with a pool and gym), even after interest rates went up.

    On the other hand, I knew a couple who were landlords for nearly 20 years. They rarely raised the rents and even in 2022 they were still charging <$1000 per month for a full house because that paid the costs and for them it was an investment, not a source of income.

    They finally sold their rental homes and made about $70k over what they originally paid on each house. Doing the math that comes out to be a roughly 8.5% annual percentage return without counting the rent gained each month. That’s a fairly solid investment without being a sucky person.

    buzz ,
    @buzz@lemmy.world avatar

    Best minds of Lemmy.

    I’m just surprised you are not building these 4 duplexes - you did the math its super profitable

    Restaldt ,

    Needs a small loan of a million dollars

    buzz ,
    @buzz@lemmy.world avatar

    Get a loan, get some other person to combine money. If this is so profitable u should have no issues

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    It literally is no problem if you already have assets to use as collateral. The problem is that most people don't.

    Knightfox ,

    This is the answer, literally this is what millionaires have been doing for ages. It’s just unique that the COVID era interest rates were so low that it made it so that 100-thousand-aires could do what millionaires had already been doing.

    Knightfox ,

    Well for a couple reasons.

    • I don’t have a million dollars
    • I couldn’t qualify for an investment loan worth a million dollars without making some really poor/speculative decisions
    • Being a full time landlord is super profitable and trouble free until it isn’t. If you get some troublesome tenants your sweet business decision can become a freaking nightmare.
    • This estimate doesn’t include taxes or insurance
    • I think these rental prices are outrageous and I’m surprised anyone agreed to them. Not sure who these people are, but someone took the deal. Maybe there was some sort of arrangement so that they didn’t pay the listed rental price (like x number of months free, waived deposit, etc).
    • I wouldn’t be surprised if the owner is overleveraged unless they were already independently wealthy or they got in before the interest rates went up.

    For a while between 2020 and 2022, if you had your home paid for, you could take a mortgage out on that property and invest that money and make more money on the return on investment than the payment for the mortgage and the taxes owed on your profits. That’s how low the interest rates were for a while. I have a coworker who refinanced his house for 2% on a 30 year fixed rate, inflation is generally higher than his interest rate. Doing that sort of thing, taking a loan out on one house to invest with, is stupidly speculative but I wouldn’t be surprised if people did it.

    Thranduil ,

    My former landlord avoided increasing rent for as long as he could but eventually he was just in red and had to do it.

    boonhet ,

    Guidelines for buying rental properties say they should pay off in 10 years.

    the_third ,

    Yeah, well, here they don’t. Currently, building from new costs about 3200€/m^2^, provided you own the ground already.

    Average rent for a newly built, low energy appartment with fibre to the home and covered parking including a wallbox (so, basically the optimum you could build with a high rent in mind) around here is about 9 to 10€/m^2^. So that’s 26 years before the building is paid off and that does not include interest for a loan or upkeep for the building. With 4 percent of interest which seems to be the lower end of the market right now I’d never break even.

    boonhet ,

    Buying here is cheaper (1600 per sq meter in the commie blocks part of the city) and rent is about the same. Outside of those blocks you’d usually get copper and no real insulation, with street parking. A brand new apartment in a nice place might net you 15-20 eur per square meter.

    Of course, I live in the ass end of Europe where wages are half of what they are in the west so it makes sense our rents, food costs, etc are higher. The peasants shouldn’t have too much to their names.

    Tenants also pay any loans associated with the apartment building repairs, or the repair fund collection, not by law but because apartments are in demand and tenants are not. The law actually says it’s the responsiblity of the owner, but there’s literally nothing saying that responsibility can’t be shifted.

    Blackmist ,

    I think the main money maker isn’t rent. It’s owning (or at least having a mortgage on) property that doubles in value every ten years.

    The rent often just pays for the mortgage and upkeep. The main payday comes when they sell it all off to the next parasite.

    the_third ,

    Sounds like a dangerous game, it assumes that property always appreciates value faster than inflation progresses.

    Fiivemacs ,

    That’s risk

    Blackmist ,

    It would be a dangerous game if the politicians and their donors weren’t also playing it and rigging it in their favour.

    michaelrose ,

    Would you like to look up a graph of home prices over the last century?

    Luvs2Spuj ,

    That’s how it should work, but home hoarders want an income from rent and so the system doesn’t work.

    Blackmist ,

    I disagree. Property prices should not be spiralling out of all sanity at the rate it’s doing, especially in city areas.

    That’s what’s causing people to buy them, because it earns more than stocks and shares.

    Bricks and mortar should never have been viewed as an investment.

    phoneymouse , (edited )

    Whenever I do the math on buying a multi-family, I find you’d either not be breaking even or barely breaking even with the mortgage, insurance, and taxes by charging market rent. The current landlord is basically claiming future rents as his own when he sets the asking price at level that takes all of the current market rent price for himself.

    If you buy the property and want to have enough to do repairs / renovations and cover unexpected risks like tenants that can’t pay and won’t leave, you HAVE to go up on rent, otherwise you will go broke and lose the property.

    Maybe there was a golden age when being a landlord meant instant cash flow and money making opportunities, but I find most of the stuff on the market today are just people looking to cash out all future value in the property and assuming the next landlord will basically just jack up rent to cope with the high cost of that cash out.

    Being a landlord is pretty risky. You could end up with a bad tenant that ruins your property or won’t pay and won’t leave. You also are responsible for costly repairs and renovations that can have long breakeven timelines. You have to cover that cost some how, and that is by charging rent. Who would assume that risk without a reward?

    abraxas ,

    Real Estate long-term ROI - 4% per year

    NASDAQ long-term ROI - 11% per year

    It’s about diversity, and the various tax advantages to owning the property/business/etc.

    workerONE ,

    Good luck getting 11% a year in the stock market. I think your stats include the pandemic and I don’t think we’ll see increases like that again, at least we can’t count on it.

    abraxas ,

    11% has been a financial planning standard since time immemorial (ok, well, since after the great depression). If a hedge fund or other investment isn’t hitting 11%, you should be in S&P or NDQ which flattens to 10% over time… or “only” 6-7% after adjusting for inflation.

    The last 30 years are considered “below average”. The market only grew 9.9%/year on average. Which apparently that 0.1% is a big deal for investors.

    Here’s a fairly good breakdown on SOFI. Obviously, we’ll never know what the future holds, but 10% over time is the “bad return” that rich people talk about.

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    “Landlords are rich leeches” is still true because the vast majority of property in the US is not owned by hard working people who are investing their earnings owning a handful of properties at most, but by property companies and hedge funds.

    Crozekiel ,

    I’m not sure what you used to calculate it, but it definitely isn’t only “expensive cities with inherited properties”… I did the math on the last house I rented: lived there for 8 years. It was a duplex in a city in a very cheap cost of living state. Just my rent alone for those 8 years more than covered what the entire duplex was purchased for 3 years prior to me moving in. That means if both sides were occupied, which it was for all but 1 month in the 8 years I was there, it’s paid for in full in 4 years. Even if you “have to renovate” in 30 years, hell even 15 years, you have 10 years of pure profit even after considering insurance and property taxes and probably even maintenence costs…

    Maybe your area doesn’t have high demand for rentals or you under-valued your rent price, but there wouldn’t be so many people doing it if it wasn’t profitable.

    the_third ,

    Germany, not the US here. The market isn’t a no rules free for all here.

    there wouldn’t be so many people doing it if it wasn’t profitable.

    That’s basically our problem here, too few new appartments are getting built because of this.

    TORFdot0 ,

    That’s how a mortgage works. But the point is that after those 30 years you have a million dollar asset. That you had your tenants pay for.

    For a regular plebs like us that’s not a winning proposition because we can’t have our money tied up for 30 years but for people who don’t need their money liquid, it’s free real estate

    Jmdatcs ,

    It’s hard to get a good return on your investment in residential real estate without using leverage.

    For instance: You don’t buy one place outright. You buy 5 with 20% down. You may not have positive cash flow, but at long as it isn’t negative not only do you get all the increase in value, you also get more equity every month as the tenants pay your mortgages.

    If you bought it outright and over some period of time the tenants have paid your entire investment and the price of the property doubles, you doubled your money. If you buy 5 and over some period of time the tenants pay your mortgage and initial investment and the properties have doubled in value you have increased your initial investment 10X. And before the big expensive renovations come in, you can sell and buy something else if you’re not equipped to deal with that.

    Also if you are just breaking even to get free property but you want to start getting passive income, after a few years you can refi to a longer term and lower your mortgage payments to get in the black every month.

    This isn’t advice, fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent, just showing one way they can generate both wealth and passive income for nothing. Literally nothing if they’re using a property management company.

    Fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent. I know I already said that, but it bears repeating.

    UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT ,

    Fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent.

    It was worth one more.

    Lianodel ,

    Sure, but I think this example also commingles labor with ownership (as is often the case).

    Like you said, your plan involves building a four-family home. That’s labor and worth fair remuneration. It’s just that, in order to get that remuneration you’d be taking payment from tenants who build no equity for their money. Yeah, you’ll have to renovate in 30 years, but you’d still have property and the money paid in rent while they don’t.

    A landlord can also simultaneously do valuable work supervising and managing a property. That’s not mutually exclusive with profiting from ownership, and we can separate how we evaluate the two. It even comes up with billionaires: Bill Gates obviously did work worth payment as CEO of Microsoft, it’s just not where he got most of his fortune. It can simultaneously be true that he’s a talented guy who deserved to be paid, but most of his fortune came from exploitative business practices and profiting off of the labor of others.

    Also, to be clear, there’s a difference between structural and individual criticism. Obviously slumlords are pieces of shit, but there’s a difference between that and someone who really does work as a property manager doing right by their tenants, or a family renting out a part of their home to make ends meet. I can think that landlords should be judged on an individual basis, while landlording as a thing shouldn’t exist.

    Woht24 ,

    I’m on your side mostly but the property prices going up in those 30 years would net you a fortune alone. You could likely sell it as is and triple your money

    Kusimulkku ,

    Wouldn’t that depend a lot on the area?

    Woht24 ,

    Well yes it would but not entirely.

    The old saying ‘buy land because they aren’t making anymore of it’ is true. As the world population grows, owning large amounts of land will be scarcer and scarcer. Most young people can’t afford a home in any western nation across the world and it’ll only get worse the world over as time goes on and the population continues to grow.

    Kusimulkku ,

    Some areas are losing a lot of their value. Waiting for population growth to fix that is playing the really long game

    WaxedWookie ,

    If it’s a poor investment, why do it?

    the_third ,

    That’s the point, I won’t. And so do many others and that’s why we have a shortage of appartments for rent here right now.

    Uncle_Iroh ,

    The big money’s isn’t in the rent, the rent is just to pay the mortgage and upkeep. It’s that you’re getting in debt that someone else is paying for you while they gaurd your asset which is only gaining in value, you then sell that somewhere in the futute.

    abraxas ,

    On average, the same amount of money dropped into the NASDAQ will have much better overall returns. Real estate ROI is about 4% per year, where the stock market has held close to 11% over the long haul nearly a century.

    For small-time landlords, it’s often about “I have a place for me or a family member to live if things go bad”. For bigger ones, it’s the tax-shelter and the low volitility of real estate, as well as diversity in case you need to sell when their stock is down.

    michaelrose ,

    Being a landlord isn’t a way for someone who doesn’t have wealth to acquire it. It’s a way to park your existing wealth in quickly appreciating assets preferably purchased from other losers when they lose their asses and collect monthly rent too.

    If on day one you have 700k and you purchase an existing property and in 30 days after you rent it out your property is still worth 700k and you are now ahead of the game in 30 days not 30 years.

    If you purchased at a reasonable time a year later its worth 750 and you’ve collected 84k 1% of property value per month.

    Most owners are in the top 10% to start with.

    abraxas ,

    quickly appreciating assets preferably purchased from other losers when they lose their asses and collect monthly rent too.

    I wouldn’t say quickly appreciating, though. It’s a fairly slow growth rate for someone with that kind of money. They diversify into real estate because it creates some tax protections (your costs) and it’s fairly stable. Like buying into a terrible small business, but one that magically won’t fail. The things that could cause total loss to real estate are usually handled in standard insurance, unlike a business that can just tank.

    The thing is, as you and the other person said, it’s all about the big companies who own tons of real estate AND the big companies that manage rental properties.

    pm_me_your_quackers ,

    ITT People who vote third party and expect things to change

    AlDente , (edited )

    Lol, I’m not sure what that has to do with this post, but imagine voting for the same two parties and expecting change.

    HorriblePerson ,
    @HorriblePerson@feddit.nl avatar

    Depends on the voting system tbf. In FPTP, unless one party is extremely unpopular, it often supports your political opponents when you vote third party.

    AlDente ,

    But what if both current mainstream US parties are my political opponents? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    HorriblePerson ,
    @HorriblePerson@feddit.nl avatar

    Well, if you don’t care if either party wins, vote third party. However, if you really dislike the idea of one party winning over the other, despite hating both, you should really think about how that vote is actually going to affect the future.

    That’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is.

    Ukuli ,

    I like that crab face, lol. Which cartoon is it from?

    gunpachi ,

    SpongeBob SquarePants duh.

    EternalNicodemus ,
    @EternalNicodemus@lemmy.world avatar

    Nah mf, is Spongetron Squarelacks

    buzz ,
    @buzz@lemmy.world avatar

    Wtf. So you get a house.
    You get a house and be your own landlord - its that simple. If u think landlords are parasitic

    disgruntledpelican ,

    Yo know, with all that extra money I have just piled up everywhere lying around taking up space in my shitty, dirty, tiny apartment I’ll just gather it up and buy a house down at the house store! It’s sooo simple… what a great idea! 😉

    buzz ,
    @buzz@lemmy.world avatar

    Dont hate the player, hate the game.

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    Yes, people are hating the game. That's the entire point.

    Afiefh ,

    Where I live a one bedroom apartment starts at half a million dollars. A house is well past one and a half million USD. Guess I’m failing at step one: have an extra house.

    RoyaltyInTraining ,
    @RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world avatar

    Why are landlords getting so much more hate than other parasites? There isn’t much difference between them and business owners. No one should be able to profit from ownership alone.

    OurToothbrush ,

    There is actually, being a landlord is more of a feudal relationship within the framework of capitalism.

    Now, both lords and capitalists should be

    talked to about their destructive behavior and have their private property repatriated by the working class through legitimate state mechanisms, but there is a difference.

    OurToothbrush ,

    ITT leeches saying “actually consuming your blood is providing a vital service and takes a lot of work”

    Or worse, theyre just aspiring to be leeches

    nodsocket ,

    ITT angry communist noises

    PeddlingAmbiguity ,

    Holy fuck the “everything I remotely disagree with is communism” shit in this website is seriously annoying, did I time travel to 1950s America or something. Like I think lemmy might legitimately be the worst for it. it’s putting me off coming here.

    winterayars ,

    Naww, you regular traveled to modern America.

    Night ,

    Are the 50’s making a comeback over there? should i expect Elvis impersonators returning to the mainstream or something?

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Maybe branch out to another instance, I got here through lemmy.dbzer0.com, instances other than lemmy.world seem to be much more tolerable if you are tired of those sorts of comments.

    OurToothbrush ,

    You’re on lemmy.world which is an anti-communiet instance.

    workerONE ,

    https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/cfd7b9ec-ac63-4125-a701-703ea60de994.png

    OurToothbrush , (edited )

    Yes, successful land reform movements have historically been lead by angry communists, thank you for pointing that out for anyone who might be interested in a little land reform that their best bet is to look into communist strategies of land reform.

    cyberpunk007 ,

    You have to have money to make money. It’s just that first step that’s the problem…

    nodsocket ,

    Save money

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    You have to have money to save money. How does a person save money if every dollar earned is spent on necessities?

    nodsocket ,

    You do not need money to save money. You need money to invest.

    Find inefficiencies in how you spend money and fix them to reduce expenses. Then save this difference.

    The most common areas people spend too much are housing and cars.

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    You aren’t wrong, but lets take someone like me for example. I don’t have a car, I rent a studio apartment below the average price in my area, I eat less food than I should and try to reduce my power and water costs when possible. I have a job that pays well for my area and I can barely afford rent, until recently I often required help from family to afford it. I agree there are probably ways I could save some money. But look at the wealth in the US, there are incredible profits for property companies and hedge funds, this money doesn’t just come out of the air. There is a siphoning of wealth from the working class. To say that these struggling workers need to save or invest might be true for some but there are much bigger factors in the increasing inequality of wealth.

    nodsocket ,

    I agree that the rich in America are siphoning from the poor. But I think that the biggest way they steal from the poor is through debt, not living expenses.

    Think about it. Americans are taught that they must go to university right after high school. Kids are forced to make a huge financial decision without any understanding of the consequences, and there’s a lot of social pressure on them to conform by taking out a student loan.

    Next Americans are taught that they should always use credit cards, and that they need to build a good credit score (so they can get approved for more debt later.) They are again pressured by advertising and social norms to take on debt, in addition to the gimmicky rewards like airline miles and cash back, which intices you to spend more than you normally would.

    Finally people have even started using debt products like margin trading, which allows you to lose more money on the stock market than you even have, and apps like Afterpay allow you to buy expensive items you can’t afford. It’s just a never ending cycle of debt.

    If people were taught about the debt trap from an early age they could protect themselves and actually save their money, not become a wage slave like so many Americans have.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Please just read any communist literature about class oppression instead of making up wild theories about why the working class is so poor. You’re trying to reinvent the wheel without any idea about how a normal wheel functions in the first place.

    nodsocket , (edited )

    Sorry professor, I didn’t realize I interrupted your communism 101 lecture. Unfortunately I live in the real world where not everyone is out to get you and not everything is hopeless.

    OurToothbrush ,

    I’m not trying to be passive aggressive, I am trying to be earnest:

    Youre wasting your abilities by not educating yourself on marxist analysis. You come close to a bunch of points that are made by marxists but don’t have the base of knowledge to develop them properly and do further analysis on them. Modern Marxists actually do write on the debt economy and you have the very start of their analysis but you veer off.

    This is not an attempt to call you stupid, this is pointing out that you’re trying to do something and having the right tool for the job would make your life easier.

    nodsocket ,

    It is probably possible for me to write this in terms of philosophical theory but I would not consider that a good use of my time. I’m more concerned with addressing the practical ways someone can improve their life regardless of the current state of the economy or how the current state came to be.

    Some people are doomed from the start. But there are so many more people that could be thriving right now if they would just stop and think before taking out a loan and at least gain some basic financial education.

    On the subject of Marxism, if people stopped getting into debt a lot less money would be flowing to the top. Banks would have fewer profits and their power would shrink. Therefore abstaining from debt could even be considered a kind of activism. The best kind of activism really, because it actually makes you wealthier.

    OurToothbrush ,

    On the subject of Marxism, if people stopped getting into debt a lot less money would be flowing to the top. Banks would have fewer profits and their power would shrink.

    See, this is an example of getting so close and missing analysis that you could have just read.

    nodsocket ,

    If I put this in Marxist analytical terms then no one would understand it and no one would learn anything.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Most people don’t understand calculus either, doesn’t mean it isnt necessary for certain applications.

    And marxist analysis is generally more useful to the average person.

    veniasilente ,

    And now you just reminded me of the retarded secretary of commerce in Chile who said, when complained to that people had to wake up at 5 AM, spend two hours in a commute to start a shitty 7-to-5 jobs to earn less than a living wage, he answered them with “lol just wake up at 3 AM, you just gained two hours”.

    chakan2 ,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    You don’t really even have to save money if you’re smart with the first time homebuyers credits and grants.

    UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT ,

    Or just work for a living

    PatFussy ,

    Step 1: have an extra house

    Custoslibera OP , (edited )

    That seems like a completely sustainable aspiration for everyone!

    sailingbythelee ,

    Step 1: Use the equity you’ve built up in your primary dwelling to put a down payment on a second house, which you can rent out. Congratulations, you now have a second job to fill your evenings and weekends.

    Step 2: Hope like hell you get a decent tenant who pays the rent on time and doesn’t destroy your property.

    Step 3: Pay all of the taxes, mortgage payments, maintenance costs, repairs, legal fees, etc., which the rent will just barely cover. Of course, most of the mortgage payment goes to the bank as interest.

    Step 4: Keep crossing your fingers that you don’t rent to someone who will destroy your property, fail to pay rent, sue you, or cause any other major headaches.

    Step 5: After 20 years of doing this, you have now paid off that second house. Yay!

    PatFussy ,

    Using equity from current property to buy a new property? LOL

    My friend, you are begging for pain… but appreciate it. Live that grind til you get repo’d

    phoneymouse ,

    People do this, it’s called “refi and roll.” The idea is to find properties that pay more in rent than they cost to upkeep.

    hperrin ,

    Cool, now try being the renter who paid off your mortgage for 20 years and has nothing to show for it.

    Zastyion345 ,

    If you are a renter, there is a big probability you move a lot, and buying is simply not so convenient due to your current situation. But it is unfortunate that many people also can’t afford to buy a house or apartment and are only able to rent. What are you, as a landlord, supposed to do if you are living paycheck to paycheck with the mortgage you took for the apartment that you rent ?

    arc ,

    Depends on the country. Apparently most people in Germany rent because that’s just the way things are over there. I would say in the UK that generally people only rent if they’re living somewhere on a relatively short term basis. Otherwise they might either buy their own property or apply for social housing depending on their income level.

    trailing9 ,

    The problem is not the landlord. They made it possible that there was a house to rent.

    The problem are other voters who prevent zoning laws that allow property that is cheap enough to buy.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Landlords do not build houses, they own houses. Saying that they provide housing is equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos delivered your latest Amazon package.

    Owning things is not creating things.

    trailing9 ,

    Do you disagree with something that I wrote or are you reaffirming my point?

    OurToothbrush ,

    This part:

    They made it possible that there was a house to rent.

    Obviously.

    trailing9 ,

    Well, didn’t they? They manage the risk that the construction of the house is profitable. You cannot build houses everywhere.

    If you don’t want landlords then you need public housing. That’s where the voters come in.

    OurToothbrush ,

    No, most landlords just buy housing. Construction is usually a seperate business.

    trailing9 ,

    Housing is only constructed because there are landlords. If the construction companies don’t sell the properties, they would become the landlords.

    How do you want the housing market to work without landlords?

    OurToothbrush ,

    Housing is only constructed because there are landlords.

    Bwahahahaha

    Oh wait, youre serious, let me laugh even harder

    trailing9 ,

    How do you want the housing market to work without landlords?

    OurToothbrush ,

    There shouldn’t be a housing market, markets are inefficient, and you shouldn’t create winners and losers around basic human needs.

    trailing9 ,

    That’s what you don’t like. How do you want to organize housing?

    OurToothbrush ,

    There are countless more efficient ways that are just less efficient at generating income for the ownership class. Do I need to run over all the strategies from pre-fuedalism to the varieties of modern public housing?

    trailing9 ,

    I would like to know the strategy that you like best.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Public funding of new housing and home maintenance, people are guaranteed a living place.

    trailing9 ,

    Where is the advantage if you have to pay more taxes for it? If you look at public projects, do you think housing will stay within budget?

    OurToothbrush ,

    I’d rather pay five percent of my income in taxes and not have to walk by homeless people because they have somewhere to live and not have to worry about being homeless if I lose my job or eventually retire and have to worry about constantly increasing rent or property taxes on a fixed income than pay around a third of my income in rent so Brad and Karen can go on another vacation to the Bahamas this year.

    trailing9 ,

    How does that add up? If you pay 33% to Brad and Karen, where does the civil servants get the building sites, construction workers and materials for 5%, ignoring the extra space needed for the formerly homeless?

    Do landlords have more than 500% profit margins?

    OurToothbrush , (edited )

    I’m basing this off of real world data taken from socialist projects. Rent in the USSR was 5 percent of income for example.

    They do not have 500 percent margins because capitalism is incredibly inefficient and they’re only one small actor making money from the situation in a broader ecosystem of developers, construction companies, etc.

    trailing9 ,

    If you go for standardized housing with an abundance of construction sites then you also get your 5% rent within capitalism.

    The problem is not the landlords but the voters and buyers. The landlords will offer 5% housing if the demand is there, together with construction sites.

    OurToothbrush ,

    but the voters

    The US is objectively an oligarchy based on many longitudinal studies. The problem is the oligarchy, which contains property owners.

    trailing9 ,

    That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.

    If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords. All it does is reducing the number of participants which worsens the situation.

    Renters can decide elections. Unionize and negotiate with the parties how many construction sites they will create. Then vote accordingly. Then rent will go down.

    OurToothbrush ,

    That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.

    No, it has nothing to do with how landlords are parasites, it is just explaining that it isnt the voters fault that parasitism is allowed.

    If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords.

    It helps to oppose the landlord class and abolish the idea of rent.

    Renters can decide elections.

    The US is empirically not a democracy. Is this going in one ear and out the other?

    trailing9 ,

    Landlords are not parasites. If you have enough competition then profits will go down until it’s barely rewarding to manage property, which somebody has to do.

    Housing just costs so much becsuse of zoning laws and lack of public transport.

    Unless you pull of a revolution, competing landlords are key if you want rentable housing.

    But you want to abolish the idea of rent. What will happen? People have to own their housing units. This requires credit. People who don’t get credit now, where will they live?

    Of course you can establish Socialism. But you don’t believe that voters can change politics.

    What’s the most possible change?

    I think making the housing market competitive is possible. But it’s still difficult because there needs to be a decision about how to handle collapsing housing prices and the defaulting on most mortgages.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Landlords are not parasites.

    The father of classical economics and the father of Marxian economics are in agreement about landlords being parasites but you have been blessed with divine knowledge that says they aren’t. Please, impart your wisdom on the masses. /s

    Seriously, imagine the ego to think you know better than literally the people behind the two major competing economic analysis systems.

    But you want to abolish the idea of rent. What will happen?

    Literally look into how much nicer housing is in places that succeeded at communist land reform. Talk to Vietnamese and Cuban people about how housing is handled. Plenty of them speak English if you’re monolingual. (Not vietnamese american or cuban American, people who actually live in the current systems)

    trailing9 ,

    You are appealing to authority. They are right in the sense that the owning class will try to maintain their position. Now, what do you want to do? Stage a revolution without weapons from the means of production?

    Hegel for sure is proud to know that those two reached the end of philosophy.

    I don’t question that communism and Socialism can create better housing. My point is that as long as you are in capitalism, you have to play by capitalist rules. This means you should increase competition. It’s not the fault of landlords that there is not enough opportunity to build affordable housing.

    Blaming landlords is counter-productive because renters don’t feel the need to build the power to influence the next election.

    OurToothbrush , (edited )

    You are appealing to authority.

    Yes, and it is an appropriate appeal. It is the equivalent of pointing at physicists while arguing with a flat earthen.

    I don’t question that communism and Socialism can create better housing. My point is that as long as you are in capitalism, you have to play by capitalist rules.

    Okay, so stop doing capitalism. You just said that socialism produces better outcomes.

    Blaming landlords is counter-productive because renters don’t feel the need to build the power to influence the next election.

    That won’t do anything. Build tenants unions and then find where your landlord lives and have a pleasant conversation with them about collective bargaining and what collective bargaining is the historical alternative to, at the minimum.

    trailing9 ,

    I leave the possibility of revolution to the other thread.

    You cannot force cheaper rent. The landlords don’t have 500% profit margins. All you do is fix the housing situation with nobody left to organize renovations or new constructions because landlords will seek other opportunities.

    The resources for housing are too expensive. You have to change that.

    trailing9 ,

    It is the voters fault.

    Voters are responsible for politics.

    Even if they are manipulated, it’s still their fault. Like drunk driving.

    OurToothbrush ,

    You are empirically incorrect, studies show the US is an oligarchy. Bribery is literally legal in the US as long as the right procedures are followed.

    trailing9 ,

    Yes. As long as you don’t believe in Santa Claus, who is there to make a change?

    OurToothbrush ,

    I would maybe research historical examples where land reform has worked instead of continuing to pester me.

    trailing9 ,

    Give me a hint. Are there reforms without staging a revolution? How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?

    OurToothbrush ,

    How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?

    You’re the one who doesn’t believe in the masses.

    trailing9 ,

    I don’t believe in revolutions, that’s a difference.

    Let me ask again:

    How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?

    OurToothbrush ,

    I don’t believe in revolutions

    Like, that they historically exist and have resulted in massive gains for the working class, or what?

    Do you think not believing voting can affect change is the same as thinking the masses aren’t capable of affecting change?

    trailing9 , (edited )

    Revolutions needed 2% of the population to fight. Voters are 50% and you need a majority, so in total 25% of the population.

    That made revolutions easier historically because you just needed guns and food for those 2%.

    Now look at Ukraine, are guns and food enough?

    You have to convince the population anyway or there will be a counter revolution. So I think if something is worth changing, it should be changed by voters.

    That said, let me ask again, why do you prefer revolutions?

    OurToothbrush ,

    I didn’t say I prefer them, I said that historically over and over again they get the goods. The problems you’re asking about are questions all successful revolutions have succeeded at grappling with.

    trailing9 ,

    What does that mean? Should we perceive landlords as members of the ruling class and make owning property as difficult as possible because rising rent will lead to the revolution which will ultimately reduce rent?

    Or should we perceive landlords as cogs in the capitalistic machine and increase their supplies to increase their output to reduce rent?

    OurToothbrush ,

    These both are relying on thinking you’re the person in charge of the economy in a system were you aren’t.

    trailing9 ,

    Then why bother at all?

    OurToothbrush ,

    You have a serious poverty of imagination. Think about how you can do things if you had an organization of people in your same class position.

    trailing9 ,

    I don’t have much imagination. What can I do?

    arc ,

    Who rents for 20 years and then acts all surprised that they don’t own the house? If your end goal is to own a house, start by buying a house. If you can afford to rent and pay off someone else’s mortgage then you can certainly afford to pay off your own mortgage.

    hperrin ,

    You certainly can, right? But that doesn’t mean you’ll qualify for a loan.

    dditty ,

    That and I can’t save up enough for a down payment cause rent/inflation/student loans/car payment. I was a teacher for 6 years and couldn’t save a penny. If I wanted to make more money I needed a master’s degree which I also couldn’t save up to afford.

    OurToothbrush ,

    How is someone supposed to save for a mortgage when they’re busy paying off someone else’s mortgage?

    arc ,

    How is that the landlord’s fault?

    OurToothbrush ,

    Well, because as a class they raise the cost of land, meaning that many peoples only option is to rent. And then you have to pay off their mortgage for them.

    Note that in the USSR apartments were 5 percent of income. That is what the actual cost of maintaining homes for people is, when you remove all the rent seeking and property speculation.

    sailingbythelee ,

    There is a huge difference between small and large landlords. The example I gave was clearly related to small landlords. If you have two houses and two mortgages and are doing your own maintenance, you aren’t driving up the cost of housing significantly. If you are a small landlord, as I’ve described, the only “profit” you’re making goes straight into the payments on that mortgage, most of which is interest for the bank. Also, those “profits” won’t be realized for 20+ years. Of course, I’m talking about averages over time. Clearly, housing is unbalanced right now, and bubbles create exceptions.

    Large landlords, hedge fund investors, foreign investors, large AirBnB investors… these are a different story. They are the ones on large amounts of property, creating artificial scarcity, jacking up rents to unreasonable levels, etc.

    Spasmolytic ,

    That’s why this is such a frustrating conversation, and it’s similar to many other hot button issues. It gets treated like a black & white problem and folks start slandering whole groups when the issue usually arises from some sub-set of opportunistic assholes, or extreme bigots/mysoginists/what-have-you. (I my mind I’m also thinking about social issues that pit left-leaning people against right-leaning people, where everyone treats the other side as if each person were an example of the most extreme in that camp.)

    So in this thread there are folks talking about overthrowing landlords en masse, when it’s the large investors from outside the local community (plus some scumbags in the local community) who are adding to the suffering in the world.

    Small landlords of the sort that you described are indeed just making long-term investments that are likely to yield a decent return or become a source of stability as an appreciating asset. It’s the kind of investment that we should want lots of people to be able to take advantage of.

    We need a more efficient way to get to the heart of the matter in these conversations because just scrolling through the comments it seems like a lot of ignorant or misguided anger.

    Spasmolytic ,

    That’s why this is such a frustrating conversation, and it’s similar to many other hot button issues. It gets treated like a black & white problem and folks start slandering whole groups when the issue usually arises from some sub-set of opportunistic assholes, or extreme bigots/mysoginists/what-have-you. (I my mind I’m also thinking about social issues that pit left-leaning people against right-leaning people, where everyone treats the other side as if each person were an example of the most extreme in that camp.)

    So in this thread there are folks talking about overthrowing landlords en masse, when it’s the large investors from outside the local community (plus some scumbags in the local community) who are adding to the suffering in the world.

    Small landlords of the sort that you described are indeed just making long-term investments that are likely to yield a decent return or become a source of stability as an appreciating asset. It’s the kind of investment that we should want lots of people to be able to take advantage of.

    We need a more efficient way to get to the heart of the matter in these conversations because just scrolling through the comments it seems like a lot of ignorant or misguided anger.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Your problem is you are viewing this as some sort of moral argument. I am not claiming landlords are sinners, Im saying that their class existing is harmful and land should not be commodified as it currently is.

    Small landlords of the sort that you described are indeed just making long-term investments that are likely to yield a decent return or become a source of stability as an appreciating asset. It’s the kind of investment that we should want lots of people to be able to take advantage of.

    Except by its very nature it is extractive. The renter is always getting fucked over in the situation.

    Spasmolytic ,

    That’s why this is such a frustrating conversation, and it’s similar to many other hot button issues. It gets treated like a black & white problem and folks start slandering whole groups when the issue usually arises from some sub-set of opportunistic assholes, or extreme bigots/mysoginists/what-have-you. (I my mind I’m also thinking about social issues that pit left-leaning people against right-leaning people, where everyone treats the other side as if each person were an example of the most extreme in that camp.)

    So in this thread there are folks talking about overthrowing landlords en masse, when it’s the large investors from outside the local community (plus some scumbags in the local community) who are adding to the suffering in the world.

    Small landlords of the sort that you described are indeed just making long-term investments that are likely to yield a decent return or become a source of stability as an appreciating asset. It’s the kind of investment that we should want lots of people to be able to take advantage of.

    We need a more efficient way to get to the heart of the matter in these conversations because just scrolling through the comments it seems like a lot of ignorant or misguided anger.

    OurToothbrush ,

    I’m not casting blame, I am talking structurally. As a class they do this behavior. Small landlords also contribute to the commodification of housing.

    arc ,

    When you find yourself comparing to the USSR I think you’ve already lost your argument. Since it boils down to “eradicate capitalism and rent becomes cheaper”. Maybe it does and everything else becomes a lot shittier too.

    OurToothbrush ,

    Except life expectancy, women’s rights which still haven’t been replicated in the west, nutrition, the eradication of homelessness(not the homeless like the US wants to do) political agency for the proletariat, the list goes on.

    And lgbt rights in Cuba, east Germany before its collapse, and increasingly in countries like Vietnam and China.

    arc ,

    If you overlook the surveillance, political oppression, the beatings / torture / disappearances, the labor camps, the subjugation of minorities & religions, the squalor everyone is subject to, the censorship, the run down infrastructure, the lack of luxury goods, the imposition of “social” systems to punish non-compliance, the lack of free enterprise. It’s also amusing you hail women’s rights when the USSR banned abortion and made divorce practically impossible. Or LGBT when was and still is marginalized and persecuted in most Communist countries. Maybe ask the Uyghurs think of their lives in their re-education centres. But maybe you’re hailing Cuba taking enormous strides to recognize LGBT rights… in 2022. Well that certainly makes up for 70 years of life under Communism.

    Oh they’re all such a veritable workers paradise! It’s weird why so many people attempted to escape, enduring arduous journeys, even risking drowning, being shot or entangled in barbed wire. It’s weird how so many countries got rid of Communism and the people rejoiced about it. Strange that.

    OurToothbrush ,

    I’m not going to debunk all of that. It is much easier to say bullshit than fact check it.

    It’s also amusing you hail women’s rights when the USSR banned abortion

    When did the USSR legalize abortion the first and second time? When did the US legalize abortion? You don’t actually have to answer this, it is a rhetorical question, but you should know the answer

    Also, read “why women had better sex under socialism.”

    Or LGBT when was and still is marginalized and persecuted in most Communist countries.

    In east Germany lgbt people lost a lot when the wall came down. In general socialist countries are better on practical lgbt rights than capitalist ones. Especially when you include the neocolonialist capitalist subjects where being lgbt is explicitly a serious crime. Cuba has the best lgbt rights in the world.

    Also, communists spearheaded lgbt rights movements in capitalist countries. Taking credit for their work and recuperating it into capitalism is intellectually dishonest.

    It’s weird how so many countries got rid of Communism and the people rejoiced about it. Strange that.

    statista.com/…/russia-opinion-dissolution-of-the-…

    arc ,

    egalize abortion the first and second time? When did the US legalize abortion? You don’t actually have to answer this, it is a rhetorical question, but you should know the answer

    Sure thing comrade. Go back and finish your first year political studies semester. That, or emigrate to one of these socialist paradises.

    TORFdot0 ,

    The system is exploitative to both sides if they have low capital. The only winners are the capitalists who already have more than enough.

    OurToothbrush ,

    They wouldn’t be landlords if they didn’t think they wouldn’t make money off of it. However the petite bourgeoisie are often squeezed by the haut bourgeoisie, and if that happens enough we get fascism as class warfare on the part of the big beautiful boaters and car dealership owners.

    phoneymouse ,

    I agree there is a problem where people that rent and want to own can’t because of affordability. However, renting is less risky. Renters aren’t on the hook for major problems with a property. Imagine a leak goes undiscovered and causes major damage and mold to your apartment. What do you do as a renter? You move out, find a new place, and maybe even sue your landlord for damages and health impact.

    What does your landlord do? Try to find enough money to cover the repairs, vacancy, and hire a lawyer.

    Let’s not act like renting isn’t without its benefits. I think the factor most people overlook when they think about owning property is RISK. Risk means you could lose something or be liable. Renters have limited risk. If you’re taking on risk, you should be rewarded for it, otherwise you wouldn’t do it. Also, the reward is supposed to make you resilient to risks materializing. If the reward isn’t big enough, then when a risk materializes into a real problem, you won’t have enough capital to recover from it and you’ll go bankrupt.

    hperrin ,

    I can’t even imagine how devastating it would be to have to sell my second home.

    phoneymouse ,

    I mean, it’s more than that though. You could sell the property at a loss or have it foreclosed on. Selling incurs fees of roughly 6-8% of the selling price… so, even if you sell it for what you bought it for, you could still be in the red. You might walk away $100ks in debt.

    You can be jealous of people in that position of having multiple properties all you want, but ask yourself if you were in their position whether you would somehow respond differently to the incentives and risks?

    If you had enough money to buy multiple properties what would you do?

    hperrin ,

    I would do what I do now and invest in companies making products I really care about. I wouldn’t own two houses. To me, that’s unethical. I understand that not everyone considers it that way, but you should also understand that I do.

    Che_Donkey ,
    @Che_Donkey@lemmy.ml avatar

    You forgot the step where wealthy investors & hedge funds crash an artificially inflated market, you go bankrupt and they swoop in to buy the property from their friends at the bank for half of what you paid for it.

    collegefurtrader ,

    Really? Nothing?

    doctorcrimson , (edited )

    Yeah, honestly, small town landlords and building owners have to keep up repairs and constantly monitor the situation so that the tenants don’t burn down or cause an infestation that tanks a 200k USD miminum (it goes a lot higher from there) investment that wouldn’t have been payed off for 13 more years as per the contract for deed.

    They also have to file all the receipts, run background checks and keep documents on their tenants, and keep their leases up to date. All of this has to be securely stored for like 6 years.

    There is a lot of risk involved in getting shelter to people who need it the most in the USA. Not everything can be a charity, if you’ve got a problem with that system then you don’t have an issue with landlords you have an issue with corporatocracy and real estate moguls on a much larger scale using a necessary resource as a semi-fungible currency. More than 1 in 20 homes in the USA are owned by Chinese investors. I’m sure there are some bad apples but the majority of non-affiliated landlords are just doing what they need to do to minimize financial risks and stay afloat.

    Sometimes things like Lawyer Consultation Fees, Eviction Serving fees, Vacancies, and Water Damages forcing you to replace the flooring, the boards, some insulation and vents… It can run into the negative multiple months in a row. Sure they get some of it back after Tax Season, but they still had to pay in Quarterly Taxes up until that point so in order for it to work they need a lot in savings.

    Annoyed_Crabby ,

    Yes, nothing. Except for repair and maintenance and servicing all those cost and insurance and worrying the tenant doesn’t pay and all those headache people never forsee. Nothing.

    lolcatnip ,

    You mean all the stuff they can easily outsource and still make a profit? You make it sound like landlords are doing us a favor.

    Annoyed_Crabby , (edited )

    Nope, i make it sounds like you’re someone that’s never think beyond their own perspective.

    Edit: to add, it’s survivor bias to think that all home owner on earth are earning huge money from the property and can afford to outsource the work and still make profit.

    lolcatnip ,

    “Anyone who disagrees with me is living in a bubble!”

    Childish actuations make you sound like a child.

    Annoyed_Crabby ,

    Ohh you’re not? Because your point doesn’t seems like you’re anywhere outside the bubble of your own. Maybe try a better argument perhaps? Or you can keep whining idk i don’t really care.

    Flumsy ,

    Then do it and become a landlord if its that easy.

    lolcatnip ,

    Why don’t I just become a billionaire too while I’m at it? Oh right, because I can’t just opt into having the money to be part of the ownership class.

    Flumsy ,

    Exactly and where did the money come from? They earned it until they had enough to invest in a house.

    lolcatnip ,

    Right, because rich people “earned” their money. Good one.

    Flumsy ,

    Yes, actually. Where do you think their money came from? (Alternatively their relatives may have earned it, that shouldnt make a difference for you though).

    norbert ,
    @norbert@kbin.social avatar

    that shouldn't make a difference for you though

    How convenient, next you'll be telling me to just take out a small loan of $1m from my parents.

    Flumsy ,

    Im saying it doesnt make a difference to you if they got it from their relatives or not, the point is: somebody earned it (or usually they earned it themselves.

    norbert ,
    @norbert@kbin.social avatar

    Them inheriting it is what took that house off the market.

    I'm aware large corporate landlords are more of an issue with housing supply, but the slumlord that owns 30 rentals and doesn't reside in the area is a problem too.

    lolcatnip ,

    Exploitation of the working class, mostly.

    jaackf ,

    “if you can’t fix the problem, just become part of it!” Great advice mate 😂

    Flumsy ,

    How dare they provide so much value to you that you feel the need to give them a good amount of your money.

    What part is the “problem” exactly?

    toomanypancakes ,
    @toomanypancakes@lemmy.world avatar

    Exactly, as a person of land myself this crowd doesn’t appreciate the amount of effort I put into making the houses I own livable for you profit streams. There are costs associated, which means I’m the one truly being exploited here, not the people paying me to live in my extra home.

    ssboomman ,

    Repairing property you already own isn’t a job.

    collegefurtrader ,

    What?

    Annoyed_Crabby ,

    Yes, it’s not a job it’s a business

    ssboomman ,

    Repairing property you already own isn’t a business either.

    Annoyed_Crabby ,

    Renting a property you own is a business, and repairing property that you rent out is, unsurprisingly, a business expense.

    Flumsy ,

    They seem to provide some kind of vakue to you, otherwise you could just buy a house.

    doleo ,

    You could just buy a house.

    Can you just step back from the keyboard and realize how stupid what you’ve just said is?

    Flumsy ,

    The fact that you cant buy a house shows that your landlord is providing value to you, because they make living there affordable where it would otherwise be unaffordable.

    My statement still stands: IF they werent providing any value to you (eg. making living there more affordable) then you could just buy a house. (But they do provide value which is why you can afford to rent but not afford to buy a house).

    doleo ,

    Paying a higher amount in rent than a mortgage would be is not making living affordable. They’re exploiting the fact that many people can’t access credit or afford to make a required down payment/stamp duty/legal fees, etc. up front.

    Flumsy ,

    Alright but wouldnt you then say banks, for example, are also exploiting you (because you have to pay an interest when takking out a loan)? Isnt that also exploiting the fact that many people dont have the money upfront"?

    hperrin ,

    Landlords do a lot! They own the house. They move your money from your account to their account. And once in a while, they spend some of your money on fixing the sink that you pay them to use.

    Jamie ,
    @Jamie@jamie.moe avatar

    Better than the neighbors from where I grew up turning their land into two big trailer parks.

    It used to be a nice little place, just out of town right off the main road. We never even really had to lock our doors. Later on, shitheads from the trailer parks would break in, steal anything not nailed down, made the whole area crap.

    One of the landlords had their house broken into when she was staying with her husband at the hospital for a couple days. Complained that the trailer park people don’t pay and just hitch and leave if you try to force anything.

    Still has the trailer park going strong over a year later.

    Honytawk ,

    People who use their property are distincly less of a blight on society than those that just own stuff.

    Jamie ,
    @Jamie@jamie.moe avatar

    And all it cost was everybody else’s peace of mind, windows, and property.

    MrBusiness ,

    You sound like an HOA goon.

    BamBamToxico ,

    My landlord’s two brothers who inherited a bunch of properties from Daddy. One of them lives in Scottsdale and the other in Hawaii. It really gets my goat knowing that 1 out of every 3 dollars I make goes to some overprivileged daddy’s removed boy. I probably pay their golf membership or marina docking fees.

    camelbeard ,

    What’s the problem? If you don’t buy a house you need to rent one, houses aren’t free. Yeah those owners never worked for it, but isn’t that the case with every rich kid? Why don’t you buy a crappy house you can fix up yourself?

    doctorcrimson ,

    Most people living paycheck to paycheck don’t qualify for a 20 year loan for land and a home even in the case of crappy manufactured homes. Plus, if they ever defaulted, they would lose the home and probably quite a bit of the equity as well, depending on local laws.

    jackoneill ,

    lol just buy a house and stop complaining it’s so easy, said the completely out of touch boomer

    Ser_Salty ,

    Because I have 200 bucks to my name

    fruitSnackSupreme ,

    That’s strictly a you-problem.

    workerONE ,

    Pull yourself up by your ball sack

    PatFussy ,

    Thats the american dream isnt it? To be exploited until you do the exploiting? God I love America

    Ser_Salty ,

    “Ferengi workers don’t want to stop the exploitation. We want to find a way to become the exploiters!”

    LinkOpensChest_wav ,
    @LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Now come on, this isn’t fair to all the mom-and-pop landlords who speak to you politely while exploiting the fuck out of you and your family

    Custoslibera OP ,

    But they’re entitled to the results of my labour!

    Why?

    Because!!!

    LinkOpensChest_wav ,
    @LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    They’re just trying to pay for their grandma in the nursing home!

    Oh, what about your grandma? Fuck her, pay your rent.

    slackassassin ,

    If someone’s grandma goes into assisted living, how does selling their house help anyone who can’t afford a house? Especially given the cost of assisted living. That’s a ridiculous criticism. It’s the people who own a dozen houses, or complexes, who are the problem.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    The “kill landlords” crowd doesn’t care for this nuance.

    collegefurtrader ,

    Because they provided you with shelter?

    norbert ,
    @norbert@kbin.social avatar

    Did they provide me shelter or did they sink their temporarily excess capital into the local single-family home market driving up prices?

    I'm paying a fair bit to live here so it seems I'm providing my own shelter.

    collegefurtrader ,

    Both

    nick ,

    No, you pay off their mortgage in exchange for not being homeless. All renting should be rent to buy. No renting without equity in exchange.

    sailingbythelee ,

    “Rent to buy” already has a name. It’s called a mortgage and you get it from the bank. As a bonus, you get to do all of your own maintenance and take all of the risk. It’s awesome.

    nick ,

    The downside is all these greedy landlords make the prices outrageous so nobody can get a deposit on a house. It’s easy when you already own one house because you can use it as collateral and also your tenants will pay off your mortgage.

    Custoslibera OP ,

    The landlords built those homes with the sweat of their brow?

    Once the home is paid off they’ll reduce the rent to only cover the outgoings on the property?

    The speculation on property as an asset class has no effect on pricing people out of the market for ownership?

    pascal ,

    Once the home is paid off

    HA HA HA! That’s funny!

    I bought a house last year after renting for 20 years since I moved out of my parents’ house.

    My kids will probably still pay for my house.

    Honytawk ,

    You can blame the investment landlords for that

    Flumsy ,

    Because they provide something that is so valuable to you that you give them a good amount of money for it. Thats why.

    You choose to give them money because their house seems to be a huge quality of life improvement, otherwise you could always find a cheaper house.

    jaackf ,

    If anyone was free to buy a house whenever they liked, renting wouldn’t be such a problem. The problem is, renting nowadays is the only solution and therefore those who own properties are free to charge what they like and people either put up with that or be homeless.

    Renting should be a temporary measure, however nowadays people can’t afford to actually buy homes because renting means they don’t have money for deposits.

    Renting isn’t a choice for most people, it’s a means to keep them off the streets. The landlords have the monopoly.

    Flumsy ,

    Serious question: Cant you just take out a loan from a bank, buy a house, move there, cancel your rental apartment/house and then pay off the loan?

    Of course houses are expensive but is there a genuine lack of availability?

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    Except there really isn't a choice. You pay rent or... What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.

    "Just find a cheaper house" isn't actually an option available to people who you know... Want to have a job. It's just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn't engage with the actual issue.

    Flumsy ,

    … and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

    You also dont have a choice not to buy food but that doesnt mean that the farmers shouldnt be payed for it. I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    That isn't comparable, and you know it.

    The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.

    The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

    I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

    Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.

    It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.

    And I'm not envious of landlords, I don't think they should exist.

    … and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

    In your previous comment you said "You choose to give them money".

    So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.

    Flumsy ,

    The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

    Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

    And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

    So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

    … and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

    In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

    You said you dont have a choice, and the question refers to that statement. Those are both your statements (“I dont have a choice” and “they dont deserve my money”). That doesnt mean that I agree with either of them… I still stand by my point.

    Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

    So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

    So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

    Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

    Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

    That's not my argument.

    I don't thing parasitism is healthy for society. That's why landlords shouldn't exist.

    The fact that we don't have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

    Flumsy ,

    So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say.

    (?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

    About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

    I dont know anything about zoning laws but after looking it up it sounds pretty dumb, we dont have that here where I live (large city in central Europe).

    darq ,
    @darq@kbin.social avatar

    (?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

    Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

    About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

    Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

    It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.

    pascal ,

    I don’t understand, is lemmy flooded by reddit kids now?

    Comments here make it sound owning a house is free and doesn’t cost money to not make it fall apart (houses tend to do so if left unmaintained).

    I’ve rented for 20 years since I left my parents’ house and finally bought my house last year, with great expenses and time waste. I’m still wondering today if renting was a better choice financially.

    andy_wijaya_med ,
    @andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world avatar

    This is one of the reason why I think the price of property should be regulated somehow by the government. The cost/ tax of a second house should be exponentially higher to discourage people doing this, so that a renting a second house should be a financial catastrophe. Capitalism, free market does not work, especially for basic human needs (food, shelter, health, energy, and if I may say education).

    I myself bought my house 2 years ago, and the price was already ridiculous. Let’s say I paid almost 100k€ more than the estimated worth of the house (cause of market price). I’m pretty sure the price will collapse after some time. The price can increase 30-40 percent in 3-5 years. It’s crazy. The money invested here is much higher than I did when I was renting an apartment tho.

    phoneymouse ,

    I don’t think the government should control the price. That just leads to problems. The government should control supply, by changing zoning laws from single family to multi-family. It should also fund building new housing units that can be sold or rented. This is how Singapore solved its housing crisis. We should build denser. There is no reason to have a housing shortage in America when we have so much land. We just use it terribly.

    andy_wijaya_med ,
    @andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world avatar

    The Singaporean are forced to do that because of how small their land is. In places where single family unit shouldn’t be a problem (Europe or States), it shouldn’t be forced to make the people to live in a multi family unit.

    Owning an extra house should be punished (financially) to discourage people buying houses only to rent them away.

    pascal ,

    One political party suggested that recently in my country. Nothing happened because every study showed it will just increase the rents.

    LinkOpensChest_wav ,
    @LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    I’m actually a grown adult who works my ass off and is lucky enough to own my own home.

    None of this changes the fact that landlords are predatory capitalist leeches.

    Winning life’s lottery doesn’t make me lose all empathy and become an ignorant buffoon who abandons my ideals and the hope for a better world for the sake of all people.

    Mutual aid, autonomy, and horizontality – these are all beliefs that I hold for a better world.

    Landlords are making the world worse by exploiting renters. They are at best class traitors, but in reality they are much, much worse. They are actively making the world a worse place for other people. They do not “provide housing,” as some would say – these are the true words of the foolish child. Instead, they create homelessness and exploit the misfortune of others for their gain.

    Landlords aren’t alone in this, of course. Anyone who is an actual capitalist has to go. Either they will do so willingly and live, or they will be unwilling to abandon their position and perish.

    chakan2 ,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    Renting was probably a better choice in this market.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •