Reason I’m asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say “city” think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn’t seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I’m not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don’t overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.
I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don’t see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.
Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the “landlords are bad” sentinment?
So as always, it depends and there is a spectrum. The scum of the scum are slum lords, i.e. landlords who buy property, do not fix up or maintain it, fill it with any old tenant that is desperate enough to take it, will evict someone at the drop of a hat, and constantly charge exorbitant amounts on property the own outright because the property value went up this year. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that bad, but people that buy property simply as an “investment”, i.e. get passive income from people with less money than them to buy property, are leeching off the less fortunate. There are certainly scales of badness to that, but that idea is simply immoral.
But there are other situations where one may be a “landlord” and it’s not really a moral problem. For example, a cousin of mine had to work overseas for a bit over a year and was put up in a hotel during that time. He didn’t want to sell his home, as he would be returning to it later, but also didn’t want it to sit empty. He ended up signing a year long lease over to a couple students, charged them little more than the mortgage (enough to cover the mortgage, taxes and any minor repairs that may be needed after they left) and returned home to a house that was still in decent shape, hadn’t had any break ins, infestations, or damage from the elements, and the students got some inexpensive housing for the year. No one was taken advantage of and he wasn’t just milking poor people for profit. Everyone won. That is clearly different.
it is not possible to have a property as an investment, without screwing someone else over. So yeah, her too.
The landlord charges enough in monthly rent to cover mortgage, house maintenance, and provide profit. So the argument about it being a service to tenants is BS as the tenant could afford this on their own.
Landlords rely on the credit system for denial and cost of entry into property ownership to exploit tenants.
I would argue that nobody should own a home they don’t actually live in. All renting out does is increase the housing cost overall because nobody would ever operate at a loss or to break even. This is the issue people have with say, Blackrock who buys hundreds of homes at a time and rents them out.
Your family aren’t bad people but the business they decided to take up is inherently bad by design. If the law changed tomorrow saying all multi homes must sell to non homeowners, everyone would watch prices drop and be able to afford it.
Using homes as an investment is at its basics, exploiting a need by interpreting it as a want or practical goods. Homes are for living in. The housing industry views homes like commodities as if people have a wide choice and selection when it’s really “Omg we can afford this one that popped up randomly, we have 12 hours to decide if we want to pay 50k more to beat others away” and then lose anyway after bidding to Blackrock who pays 100k over asking.
Homeowners also treat their home as an investment. Which also makes housing more expensive and inaccessible. Moving away from renting is not the solution, we need a more comprehensive change in the system.
The context here is quite different; in other words, you got an apples vs oranges issue here. A single home owner does not expect to profit from that investment; the increase in value is more of an insurance than anything (mortgages are taken out to cover emergencies, or the increase in value provides the means to move to a new home, etc). So, again, the context is extremely different.
Besides, if the expected inflation in value were the issue, shouldn’t I expect increased wages to make up the difference? I.e. no, that would not contribute to making the housing market too expensive for the average person to find accessible.
A single home owner does not expect to profit from that investment
What are you talking about? People definitely buy homes as an investment so that they can sell it and retire.
increase in value provides the means to move to a new home
What is this, if not profiting off an investment?
What are you talking about? People definitely buy homes as an investment so that they can sell it and retire.
That’s insurance. The “profit” goal is not to rent seek or enrich themselves. And in this market it’s a risky gamble, anyways.
If the so called profit is intended to be entirely consumed to take care of moving or retiring, it’s insurance to allow you to move or retire; it’s not profit you add to your income. It’s not even properly described as “profit” since it’s, by definition, unrealized gains.
These are not circumstances where you “cash out” and buy something fancy, or even pay your day to day bills. Context matters.
Lots of good answers here, so here’s a fact that might help you understand why people have these positions:
I love how the fact checker rules the original post false… because there are fewer homeless people and more homes than the original Facebook post? Meaning that the waste is even more egregious than claimed? 🤔
Right? 😂 Never fails to get a chuckle from me when I go to cite it.
Both. A better statement would be “Landlords and real estate investors” are parasites. If you can afford a home you don’t live in them you are driving up prices on homes that others could live in, fuck you.
Yes. You shouldn’t be allowed to have a second house to rent out. The problem is limited supply in a given area, and if everyone buys a second, third, fourth house (or townhouse) then there is no supply left for people that want to actually buy to live in that house. Frankly I think it’s unethical. There are plenty of other ways to invest your money.
I also don’t think this position is limited to leftists, although yes the leftists here have a very dramatic take. I think anyone that thinks about this should see the problem.
Who is allowed to rent to the people who don’t want to buy?
Should the city own property just for that and run it as a non-profit?
Yes.
Yes, that’s ideal. In Germany (where there is a culture much more oriented towards renting than owning) there are a lot of state run landlords and they are great to rent from, reasonable rents, reasonable to deal with (in the local context), etc. And of course they have good laws to protect tenants to back it up. Not necessarily a perfect system but definitely one the rest of the world can learn from. Unfortunately things are still heading in the wrong direction there too right now.
That’s not true in any big city. While the laws keep the landlord madness limited, real estate and rent prices are out of control because of speculation, and there are tons of horror stories to go around - and by experience, I would say they are even more common with individual landlords than with large companies, at least large companies don’t usually do anything obviously illegal and have less venues to make their tenants homeless.
Yes, I’m talking about the state owned companies versus both private companies and individual landlords, rents with the state owned ones are like 20% or more lower than the others and they are usually more responsive to fixing problems, don’t play too many games
But I totally agree rents are way out of control the last few years
Yes. The ability to have a place to live should be a basic human right and therefore be affordable.
If that means the government* subsidises it for the low income families (as in owns them and rents them at below market value), so be it.
We used to have “council houses” in the UK for exactly this purpose, but in the 70s, Thatcher came up with a “right to buy” (at a decent discount) and then made two mistakes - there were no restrictions after buying to stop you selling to anyone else, and there was no building of replacement stock after they were sold. So the result 50 years later is that there are nowhere near enough council houses any more, and a lot of the old ones are privately owned and being rented out at market rates, which are (depending on the area) very expensive.
*local or national, I don’t really care which
Those definitely weren’t mistakes.
Hah. I meant socially, not that it happened by accident!
I know, lol
If that means the government* subsidises it for the low income families (as in owns them and rents them at below market value), so be it.
Not everybody who doesn’t want to buy is low income. I’m too lazy / risk averse to maintain everything myself, so I happily pay my landlord a reasonable premium to bear the risk of shit burning down (or breaking in less dramatic ways) for me. I also like that I would be able to pack up and move without worrying about selling my old place. I might change my mind later on, but right now I’m good.
Why should governments subsidize the lifestyle choice I’m consciously making?
To be clear, I wasn’t trying to say ALL rental housing should be subsidised, just that there should be a healthy supply available for local councils to make available to people who need it based on whatever criteria they set for that.
Even when I was renting, I’d earn too much to qualify. People with young children would take priory over single people. That sort of thing.
It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than companies gaming the system to maximise profits at the expense of the most vulnerable.
For houses? Essentially no one, houses should not be for rent. Apartments in my mind are fine to rent because you can build a fuckton of apartments on a small amount of land. But there can still be a problem if there aren’t enough apartments available to buy.
The community should have ownership of whatever rentals are necessary and it should be not for profit.
How is “the community” defined and how is this ownership managed?
Public housing is not a novel concept.
No sheet.
Ok, so you want all housing to be publicly owned? That would be interesting…
If you’re aware of public and social housing then why are you asking how community ownership and management works?
In any case, yes, of course all rental housing should be publicly owned. Vienna’s Gemeindebauten and Singapore’s HDB, among others, have proven that pretty definitively.
I’m not certain that all housing should be public, though. Privately owned primary residences are probably fine, in the grand scheme of things. But rental housing for profit should obviously be abolished.
First up, so it’s clear, I actually agree with you. But I also don’t think this is an easy thing.
If you’re aware of public and social housing then why are you asking how community ownership and management works?
Because there is a hiccup in your logic as far as I can discern it.
On the one hand you say: “of course all rental housing should be publicly owned.”
And on the other, “I’m not certain that all housing should be public”
So how does that work?
- How does the housing become public? That’s trillions of dollars worth of property. I actually got the figure of US$7 quadrillion but I don’t believe it. What’s more, 70% of the 19.3 million rental properties in the US are owned by individual investors, meaning you’d have to either confiscate or buy from millions of individuals. I mean, it wouldn’t make sense to just build all this housing if it’s already there. Maybe a combination? But where on earth does that money come from? And how do you convince people invested in a $1.4 trillion market to give up that income?
- So let’s say somehow #1 happens over some period of time. How then do you meet ongoing demand? I get what your saying - there are examples of this working (for some values of “work”) on a small scale but over the entire rental market?
- If the public via governments has paid for all this housing at current prices, how do we then ensure rents are low? Over time yes, we can forgo all but the bare minimum rent increases to match inflation, but initially we have to foot the bill somehow. Because presumably that money has to be borrowed and we have to pay interest on it on top of ongoing maintenance, etc - there are real costs involved.
Your Aunt sounds like she is working with the system we have. Lemmys heart is in the right place but practically speaking most of the vitriol you read on here would need a genie in a magic lamp to come true. We need to squeeze the top the hardest, not squeeze everyone with more than us.
Once they abolish people buying properties and parking them empty just to make money on the property value increasing, then they abolish corporations owning hundreds or thousands of houses while colluding to fix the rental market, then they abolish people buying family dwellings and turning them into airbnbs, then the property developers churning out acre upon acre of McMansions with zero affordable housing, then the foreign investors, then maybe listen to their criticism of mom and pop investors owning a handful of properties and making what is probably the safest and most lucrative investment honest hard working people can make.
Your Aunt should be paying enough taxes that owning a second property should be more or less unfeasible.
A fair system would have her seeking other retirement vehicles.
Depends on the leftist, but generally I think hoarding land you’re not personally using, especially during a housing crisis, is wrong.
I also think that charging rent from people to simply exist in a place you aren’t using anyway is wrong. When she pays the mortgage she’s buying equity, when they pay the rent they’re buying jack shit. It’s an enormous parasitic drain on the economy.
But I don’t think she’s, like, evil. Not the same way that major landlord companies are. And I understand the motivations. I still disagree with the methods, but until the great commie revolution/rapture (/s) comes we all have to engage with problematic capitalist systems to a greater or lesser extent.
Are they renting out for as cheap as they can afford? Modest profit aside is fair.
If they’re like “oh wow. I can raise from 1800$/mo to 2500$/mo bc everyone else is”. That’s where it’s concerning.
Personally, if I was in their shoes, I would interview and find a struggling family and subsidize their rent from the other tenants for two of the 5 houses for as long as I could afford to.
(I own nothing right now, it’s looking bleak)
Depends on who you talk to. I personally am against making money off merely owning land or buildings, but that’s just me. Most people seem to loosely define an evil wealth level as “significantly more than what I have”.
Owning houses you don’t live in is bullshit
I do believe a lot of landlords don’t care and will make decisions based on what makes them more money versus the well-being of the people living in their property. But I don’t agree that landlords as a concept are bad, and that they all should sell their extra properties to reduce the crazy prices we’re having.
There are plenty of reasons someone would prefer to rent than to buy, and if there are no landlords or rental houses what happens to those cases? I personally have attended university not at my home city, and I rented an apartment with other students. It makes no sense to buy in that situation. People who intend to live somewhere temporarily would mostly prefer to rent, what would happen then?
There is a problem with regulation, big companies owning whole apartment buildings, and generally small greedy landlords what will make their tenants life hell. But cutting out the whole concept is trading one issue with another.
People who are renting out their basement or spare room are fine. They are living on their property and making space for someone else to live there as well.
Someone who owns property they do not live on, and are profiting off their renters just because their name is on the deed is the definition of parasitic behavior. There’s a reason “rent seeking behavior” is a derogatory term.
I don’t know if I’m leftist, but the US spectrum is well right of most of the world.
The question is multi-layered. Your aunt may or may not be a bad person, I don’t know her. Them renting out property may or may not be for good reason, even if they’re doing it to “survive” in the capitalistic economy.
The real issue is that capitalism itself is exploitative, and (depending on where you draw the line) participating may fall under being complicit.
My understanding of parasitism is extracting resources for their own benefit, with little to no benefit for the exploited/system.
The first hint of parasitism is amassing resources they aren’t using for living. Your aunt and husband made surplus money to be able to afford buying the properties. Unless they did that by extracting resources, refining them, working them and making provisions for them to be recycled and ecologically compensated - others will have had to pay the cost. Either by working harder than them, or suffering more than them, for example due to an imbalance of ecology. This is one form of parasitism.
Another perspective of parasitism is inserting themselves as a middle party. Your aunt almost certainly isn’t providing the housing at cost, where rent barely covers their labor and property upkeep. That means they are keeping someone from a home, unless they pay extra to your aunt. Just like a bully.
Now, this doesn’t mean that your aunt has any malicious intent. The point is that the system itself is evil, like a pyramid scheme of bullies, where each layer extracts something from each underlying layer. This is useful for making ventures, but at the cost of ever increasing exploitation and misery. Especially when capitalists are allowed to avoid paying for restoring the exploited, or incentivised to do it more. I’m sure you’ve heard of enshittification.
Now, example time!
I’m sure you’ve thought that air is important for you to survive. And maybe you’ve ever worried that traffic or other pollution might make your air less good for you?
Enter the capitalist! For a small premium we’ll offer your personalised air solution, a nifty little rebreather loaded with purified air you carry with you all day. The price is so reasonable as well, for only $1/day you can breathe your worries away!
Now, producing the apparatus means mining and logging upstream of your town, removing natural air filtering and permanently damaging your environment, but they only charge for the machines and labor. Restoration is Future You’s problem. Selling and refilling the apparatus happens to also produce pollution, making the air worse for everyone. But that makes the apparatus more valuable! Price rises to $2/day.
Competitors arrive, some more successful than others, all leaving ecological devastation and pollution that can’t be naturally filtered. Air gets worse. One brand rises to the top, air is more valuable and lack of competition makes it so that air is now $4/day.
Then an unethical capitalist figures that if we just make the air slightly worse, profits will go up! They don’t want to be evil, but cutting corners when upgrading the production facility means the pollution gets worse. Other adjacent capitalists see that they also can pollute more without consequences. Air gets worse and price increases to 6$/day.
Air is starting to get expensive, rebreather sharing services, one-use air bottles, and home purifyers crop up, increasing pollution and raising costs, air is now $8/day for most people.
People start dying from poor air, new regulations on apparatus safety and mandatory insurance come up, driving prices further to $10/day. You now also need a spare apparatus and maintain it in case your main one breaks down.
Etc.
The point of the example is that through a series of innocuous steps, all making perfect sense within capitalism, you are now paying $300/month more to live than before capitalism, with little real benefit to you, and no real choice to opt out.
Each and every step is parasiting on your life, by requiring you to work harder for that money, and/or suffer more due to pollution and ravaged environment.
The only solution to not work/suffer into an early grave is to have others work on your behalf, perpetuating the parasitic pyramid scheme. This is where your aunt is, is she evil? Probably not. Is her being an active part of an evil system bad? Yes, yes it is. Capitalism bad.
My understanding of parasitism is extracting resources for their own benefit, with little to no benefit for the exploited/system.
This defines almost every transactional function in our society.
If landlords are so evil, would their tenants alternatively buy the apartment where they rent? People rent for many reasons - perhaps they can’t afford to buy , or perhaps they like paying a fixed amount so someone else can fix the house when things break.
Either way it isn’t the landlords fault that many cities have restrictive zoning laws and we are still reeling from missed housing development during the great recession. Demand for housing has well outdated supply and inflation has made the inputs more expensive, thus prices have gone up. More supply will help reduce the rate of increase, but real prices will not decline without another deep recession, and the impact of that would still be temporary.
If landlords are middleman, would you prefer everyone lives in government housing? Explain the alternative in your fantasy land related to housing, not some ridiculous anecdote about charging for air.
That was over a decade ago. We absolutely could have covered the gap by now if we were serious about it.
And yes government housing is fine.
deleted by creator
Yes, landlords are responsible for the demand for housing outstripping supply.
I’m curious how that makes sense to you. In theory and practice landlords want to landlord and thus rent out their property, not withhold it from the market.
I’m not a landlord. And you’re just incorrect. This is no stupid questions, but there are plenty of stupid answers. The great recession was caused by homeowners and banks making loans they shouldn’t have with adjustable rates and predatory practices (ever heard of a NINJA loan?) that greatly increased demand for housing, and then the banks created derivatives on derivatives that all went up in smoke when the underlying loans defaulted. This resulted in many people losing their homes, but more broadly financial markets tightened and housing starts plummeted, which is responsible for the housing shortage today. We had like 5-10 years of development well below replacement.
I would also point out that most local zoning laws make multi-use housing like apartments that we lust for in the 15 minute city difficult to build in favor of the single family home. I would argue that is actually the average homeowner’s fault more than a landlord.
“The alternative to landlords is not everything being government housing, but also that’s not an issue if you take away landlords and stop them from having any power…”
What the actual fuck does that mean? Do you hear yourself? The alternative is not the thing I said, but something else that still remains imaginary.
You know housing costs money to build right? So, for that to happen, someone has to invest. There are these institutions called banks, maybe they haven’t made it to lunatic Island where you live, but they charge interest so you can have money today to build or buy rather than waiting years to accumulate that money.
Now that housing is built, the person that built it wants to sell it. Someone buys it and then someone lives in it for a cost. Without government intervention, what is the alternative?
The problem is not OP’s Aunt or even most apartment management companies, but I will give you that Private Equity getting into single family housing is a problem. That should be addressed, and I seriously doubt it will.
deleted by creator
Do you know what’s so hilarious?
I am willing to bet with actual genuine monopoly money that 95% of the people here who are complaining about landlords will be totally on board with landlording once, later in life, they are in a position to do so.
Edit: Check back in 10 years. You’ll see.
deleted by creator
I am in a position to be a landlord and choose not to be.
IOW, you are in a position to not need the income. I.e. you could afford the usurious prices for real estate.
My point is, if you read “aunt” as “landlord”, my comment is not about the landlords as much as the system.
Without landlords, we’d not have a housing crisis. There would be enough housing for everyone, we have plenty of resources and land to build them. The US, not to mention the world, is still big enough for everyone to have their own plot of land and housing.
How did people live before Capitalism? I’ve read that housing existed before even banking was invented. Somehow there wasn’t a housing crisis back then, until/unless we had exploitation.
You’re not wrong in what you’re saying though. The basic difference of perspective between you and I, I believe, is that you’re viewing this from inside the capitalist system, where landlords do indeed provide a function. But if we’d not have capitalism, we’d still have housing, and with less value extraction/parasitism.
As for the obscure anecdote, let’s instead use the simile of marketing. They add no value to you as a consumer, and if there weren’t so many marketers finding what you need would be easier and cheaper (as there would be no marketing cost). For the capitalist they add value, for the rest of us they’re an ever increasing drain on resources - a parasite.
Without landlords, we’d not have a housing crisis.
Maybe. Or maybe it’s not so simple. Because:
There would be enough housing for everyone, we have plenty of resources and land to build them.
But would they be built? I’m in no way saying this is “right” but for them to be built builders have to know they are going to make a profit. The smaller that profit the more pressure to build fewer. Now maybe we get lucky and all this downward pressure on prices balances out. But I’d guess that far far fewer homes would be built and so the question ends up being is it still enough? Some say there are plenty of houses already and it would be, but that assumes those who paid the inflated prices are willing to accept less money now.
tl;dr we’re fucked.
Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.
Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.
Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.
If you include cedar bark as a major construction material then sure. Not knocking cedar bark here - it’s great. But not quite the same investment in time or durability.
Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.
What exactly do you mean by that?
In a circular or planned economy, those aren’t really significant measures, neither in a subsistence living context. Which are strategies that have housed all of humanity until the last few hundred years.
In a post-capitalist economy, we might be able to provide the human necessities without exploitation. I don’t know how, but I know it’s not through more capitalism.
Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.
If you include cedar bark as a major construction material then sure. Not knocking cedar bark here - it’s great. But not quite the same investment in time or durability.
As mentioned in the last reply, the Palace of Knossos, as well as the Petra were marvels of craftsmanship and engineering, staggering investments, and have stood for over 2000 years. Would probably have survived longer if maintained properly.
The pyramids, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos, the Taj Mahal, all are landmark (literally) feats for the contemporary technology and societies.
You comparing them with modern construction methods necessitated by capitalism, and with modern technology seems an unfair comparison, as well as circular reasoning.
In a circular or planned economy, those aren’t really significant measures,
Ok, sure - you just said “different” and did not specify.
As mentioned in the last reply, the Palace of Knossos, as well as the Petra were marvels of craftsmanship and engineering, staggering investments,
That involved massive exploitation and slave labor. And let’s not forget significant taxation, looting, etc.
You comparing them with modern construction methods necessitated by capitalism
I’m comparing them because I’m making the point that profit, price pressures and inflation obviously arise when private entities make huge capital investments.
So now that you’ve actually specified “different” as meaning non-capitalist systems, it leads me to wonder if you thought King Minos sought out volunteers… or did he pay everyone fairly? Are you really using “public” works built under autocratic rule as positive examples we can replicate?
How did people live before Capitalism? I’ve read that housing existed before even banking was invented. Somehow there wasn’t a housing crisis back then, until/unless we had exploitation.
In self-built primitive mud shacks under a very low population density.
Agreed.
But also in groundbreakingly advanced multiresidential complexes, condos, and palaces for thousands of people.
The world will indeed be different if we have different priorities. Capitalism requires high density to sustain the economic engine, other systems might not.
Under capitalism, capitalisming harder is indeed the only solution. I don’t know how to get you to be able to imagine something without assuming capitalism, but humanity and society did indeed thrive even without it.
Dont forget how the secondary real estate market drove prices up and as been doing so since the 70s
