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?
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”.
I have no problem with landlords.
Those who own apartments are also taking some big risks I’m not comfortable with. When something requires maintenance, it’s usually something very expensive.
This means that either the landlord has to have like 50 k€ ready for emergencies or be willing to borrow money from a bank and pay back with interest.
An alternative to a landlord is for the apartment complex to be collectively owned by the tenets, making it a housing coop. That would mean any big expenses would be dustributed amongst everyone, making it more nsnageable. Collectively owned buoldings tend to recieve more maintainence, as the tenents have an incentive to maintain the value of their property.
A similar setup can also be seen in the ownership of apartments buildings. You can have a limited liability company that manages major renovations and other expenses that concern the building as a whole. The idea is that you own shares in that company, which gives you the right to live in a specific apartment. In practice, you can still treat the inside as if you owned everything, although technically everything is still owned cooperatively.
Landlordism is parasitic. The point of Leftism isn’t to attack individuals, but structures, and replace them with better ones. Trying to morally justify singular landlords ignores the key of the Leftist critique and simplifies it to sloganeering.
Any landlord that uses a residential family home as an investment is a parasite.
If you want to invest in real estate, purchase commercial, retail, and industrial properties. Nobody needs those things to live. The reason why this is harder is that the companies who tenant these properties generally have the leverage and means to not get exploited (though some small businesses still do get exploited)
I’m sure your aunt doesn’t mean any harm, but she is still part of the problem. Those 3-5 properties are 3-5 fewer homes available to own for new families and are a small part of perpetuating the housing crisis.
Yes all landlords.
I would still consider this horizontal violence. That equity could be used to make the world a better place instead of extracting value from fellow workers to pay for their kids college and inheritance … and where the debts incurred buying 5 properties?
You’re right that they are good people, because no one sees themselves as the villain in their own story. That insurance CEOs wife isn’t lying when she says good things about him. Capitalism not only alienates you from your labour but also from your exploitation of others.
The sheer weight of human misery in your immediate surroundings is immeasurable and you never pay it any mind.
I would say that if you live on site, in one of the units of the rental property, then no, you are not a parasite. So, live in one side of a duplex, or in one unit in a quadplex that you own, no problem. But, if you’re renting out a unit where you don’t live, you’re some degree of parasite, yes. Maybe you’re just an an annoying little gnat, rather than a 40’ intestinal worm, but yeah, you’re still a parasite.
There are other, less-parasitical methods of investing involving real estate. Your aunt could offer the propert(y|ies) for sale with a private mortgage, or under a “land contract” (a sort of rent-to-own arrangement). Because equity is transferring to the occupant, and the terms are fixed for the life of the agreement, this arrangement is mutually beneficial, rather than parasitical.
As bad as lenders are, lenders are far less parasitical than landlords.
No raindrop thinks itself responsible for the flood.
I’ve never heard this phrase before and I love it.
Quit exhaling! We have a climate crisis!
But this is my regulated breathing minute!
deleted by creator
Yes, but I don’t blame the small ones for it.
If you can make a profit by hoarding properties and renting them out, then the system is broken.
The large ones are the ones lobbying for the systems to remain broken.
“Leftists”
Hmmm…
My landlord sends me a legal 14-day notice to pay or leave the day after my graceperiod(first of the month to the fifth) before my first paycheck of the month. This is en lieu of a simple email or phonecall. They communicate with legal threats even though I clue them in on months that would be difficult. The valuation went up on the property recently and I am halfway though a one year lease. They want to increase the rent again but can’t do it without improvements and a new tenant.
both are parasites.
It would vary depending on who’s saying it.
