this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
1062 points (91.8% liked)
Memes
45578 readers
1257 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But Isn't that how all business works?
Customers pay for things and that payment pays to keep the business going.
The business in this case being what? What good or service is being provided? Landlords didn't create the land, nor did they build the residence, nor did they improve its value by building a community around it. They are benefiting off of the work of others simply because they "own" it. The most common arguments I hear in support of landlords are:
Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I'm pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn't want to be responsible for that.
More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you're mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it's actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It's just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.
So while I see your argument that landlords don't "deserve" the money they make, practically they're an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.
And people who have no choice but to rent, and get fucked over repeatedly because of it?
What do you mean no choice? There's always a choice.
Realistically many people don't have a choice to buy, because they don't have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don't see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?
Because plenty of folks would have a solid down payment, or better credit score, if rent wasn't so damn high. Likewise affordable rent would make it easier for folks to move to places where they could get the type of stable job necessary for a mortgage, etc. It's not the only reason folks don't have the economic resources at hand, but it's usually the biggest expense in ones budget, no?
Greedy landlords are the problem, imho, and unfortunately every landlord except exactly one I've rented from (out of about ten in total) have been greedy assholes.
As for a fix: housing is a right, imho. I'm not an economist so anything I offer will be full of holes, but some way of securing that people have stable, safe, comfortable housing is essential. Making sure people can't exploit the need for shelter is a big component of whatever fix we need.
I think a big component of the problem is location. I may have a different perspective living in a low cost of living city. Just a few years ago I lived in a two bedroom apartment that was $650/mo. It was old and not very nice, but totally functional and reasonably safe. It was a bigger complex so the landlord was a management company. They weren't amazing or anything, but they held up their end of the lease. I understand the situation somewhere like NYC or California is going to be radically different.
I think that's where a really interesting question comes in though, do people have a right to housing? Or a right to housing in the place they're currently living? It's a big difference. Forcibly relocating people is... Problematic at best. But there are places like LA where it's almost physically (geologically) impossible to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live there.
If you haven't already I'd recommend listening to the podcast mini series "according to need" by 99 percent invisible. I really appreciated the perspective it offers into some of the practical challenges of trying to get homeless people housed.
Ultimately I don't know that I'd call housing a "right", purely for semantic reasons, but I do think the very existence of homelessness and housing insecurity is a devastating critique of our social and economic systems. I didn't think we'll ever have a system that completely eliminates renting/short term housing, but we do clearly need to change a lot of things about how housing works now.
I had an enormous reply essentially "yes-and'ing" your reply (I agree with it, but wanted to add a "but" in a few places), but...into the ether it went. I'll listen to that podcast mini series.
One thing I wanted to add is that I grew up in Atlanta, so I agree that plenty of folks should leave NYC and LA. However, there's plenty of folks there necessary for the city to function, and I think that legislation is probably the only viable way that things will change for them, since lower-income folks are just being squeezed from all directions, given how much of a commodity real estate has gotten since the last big housing bubble burst.
Again though, I'm not an economist, so my ideas are certainly not immediately viable, and I agree there's little chance of "solving" most of this under the best of circumstances. I just think there's too much greed, especially related to housing, that can be improved. We're a rich enough nation that we can do better. Also I just wanted to be sure to give your nice comment a thoughtful reply, because the internet is too toxic in general, and we need to try to make it otherwise. Have a nice end of the year
Risk my ass, they take in profit off of doing nothing.
Guess what? In the mean time, you've paid for these repairs with your rent, plus the repairs of any other property the landlord has.
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.
Non sequitur, none of your arguments support this conclusion.
If you want the current rent model so much, do you know who could do the exact same job much cheaper? The State itself.
I live comfortably in a 2 story, 3 bedroom that I own and I'm able to put enough into savings each month that I'm easily able to afford any emergencies that come up.
Looking at local prices, I would not be able to rent of a much smaller unit where I live.
The actual 'need' for rent could be easily covered by people renting out their basement suite or having a boarder. There's no benefit to society for allowing people to purchase properties they don't live on just to profit off someone else's rent.
I'd be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn't afford the house you're in now if you had to buy it today. I'm in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it's a lot more complicated than "landlords" though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.
Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren't landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let's a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.
Risk doesn' t create value, what the heck are you talking about? I'll spin a revolver with a single round in it and fire, what fictional wizard signs my check?
Renters are the real ones at risk, being forced by an entire class of sociopaths acting in solidarity to parisitize their wealth. In a disagreement, landlords can commit asymmetric harm with impunity because legal defenses require capital, which the renting class lacks by definition.
Your "good" landlord only appears to be so because of the ubiquity of normal landlords. The handyman needed to help you that day cost pennies compared to what rent seekers steal, thats why they call it "passive income." In this case, you are describing work performed by a property manager, not a landlord, that created value to you. The landlord performed that managerial labor, and still pocketed disproportionally more value than he provided, because his earnings come from ownership, not from labor.
If its cheaper to rent than buy, why do landlords do it? Out of the goodness of their shiny little hearts? Thank you my lord for saving me from myself.
Landlords do not create housing. They destroy housing by turning what would have been a sold unit of housing into a rented unit of housing. They are directly incentivised to keep housing scarce.
The two big main ones I can think of.
They provide short term housing. If your only planning to say 1-2 years in a location it often doesn't make much sense to buy a house.
They also take on all of risk of the property.
Obviously I am not saying landlords are the greatest thing in the world but they do serve a purpose.
Two years ago I became a first time homeowner. I'm moving in 6 months and am going to keep this property and rent it out. I cannot afford to buy another house almost anywhere in the US. I will be renting. However, I closed on this place with 3% interest and pay $1500/mo for the mortgage, plus about $250 for utilities. Round up to $1800/mo. Anyone buying at today's interest and value with 20% down is looking at a mortgage of about $2300/mo, before utilities.
I absolutely resent this market, but I refuse to let this place go into the hands of anyone like Blackrock. And since I don't care about maximizing profit, I can keep the rate on the lower end and help someone live here for a few hundred a month less than they could with a new sale. I can rent it for $1700-1800/mo to cover incidentals and repair and still let a renter live here for less than a new mortgage.
I've been toying with the idea of counting every dollar the renter pays against the mortgage and selling to them at the difference when (if) rates come back down.
Certainly not ideal, and a little bit apologetic, but in this situation it's about as close as I can get to a win-win. Or least lost-least lost.
You could always sell it at a low enough price to break even and just refuse to sell it to anyone besides someone who plans on actually living in it. You're allowed to do that. Real estate agent might look at you like you're crazy, but fuck em. It's your house right now.
Some people don't want to be locked down to one place for long. When I was in my twenties I moved to a different town every year when my lease was up just to see if I would like it better somewhere else. Or I'd get a raise and be able to afford a better place the next year. For people that want relatively short term housing, renting is a far superior option.
If I took out a mortgage on a place and then sold it a year later, I'd have almost no equity since you pay almost all interest in the front part of the loan.
So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?
They shouldn't buy the house to begin with, how are you having trouble following such a simple argument?
And why shouldn't they buy the house? What's the limit on houses?
First of all: "Just asking questions" is not an argument. It's disingenuous at best and done by people who have a strong opinion on a subject but can't articulate why. They feel they are correct and think they are cleverly avoiding having to actually defend their stance by never actually stating what it is.
Because the necessities of survival shouldn't be a source of profit. Companies shouldn't be allowed to purchase all the air or water and force you to buy it from them for inflated prices because "what else are you going to do?" In the same why they shouldn't be allowed to buy all the property and force you to rent from them because "where else are you going to stay?"
That's exactly the problem. There should be a limit on houses, and we're seeing the consequences of a limit not existing. People are calling for a limit to exist.
Personally I think it should be illegal to rent out a property you don't live on, and any property you own beyond the first should be taxed at a much higher rate.
So let me relate my story.
At the age of 18 I got my first job working my way through college pushing 1200 packages an hour in a UPS warehouse. Back then $20 was a lot of money to me. That would fill my gas tank for a week. But I pulled that out of every paycheck and I continued doing that from every paycheck I got after college and beyond, increasing it to 30% of my professional income over time.
After 30 years of working to make someone else rich I looked at my now substantial investments, both personal and 401k and realized, Holy crap, these are just numbers in a computer. What would I actually do if I looked at those investments and one day the number was zero? I mean, in one form or another they were really all just stocks. If the market crashed I could lose a lot and have to build back up. What if the bank collapsed? Theoretically, government insurance might cover me, but I don't know what the fine print says. What if I didn't qualify for some reason? Even if I did, how long would it take? What if I was hacked and from the bank's perspective, I had simply withdrawn the money?
My answer was to diversify. If I bought a house and everything turned to shit, at least I could LIVE in the house. So me and a buddy each put in $50k to buy a gutted house near the beach. Then we foolishly spent 3 years of our lives working nights and weekends, putting in a kitchen, floors, paint, doors, plumbing, tearing out walls to fix termite damage. We paid to have the wiring brought up to code. We made it nice and spent $68k.
We got a great renter in there for market price and then Covid hit. I talked to my partner and we decided that if she couldn't pay, she was going to stay rent free. Fortunately, she never missed a payment but it didn't feel right to raise the rent and price her out of the house. Rents in the area are $2500/ month. She's paying $1900/ month. If you do the math you know we are essentially giving up $600/ month of potential income.
Now let's see how I'm stealing this income. Last year was just great. A tornado hit the neighborhood and damaged the roof, the fence, some of the exterior and left debris, like someone's front door, in the yard that had to be hauled away. Total cost including the roof $13k. We got lucky.
So, $1900 rent x 12 months is $22800/ year. Subtract $13k plus $3600 for property taxes, plus $300 for inside pest control, plus $300 for termite treatment plus $600 for incidental things that needed fixing. That's $5k. Divide that by 2 because I only own half and I raked in a whopping $2500, on which i get to pay income taxes. Let's not forget the time it takes to contact 3 roofers to get quotes, meet them to pick colors and sign the contract, clean up the yard, write up the lease and bring it to her to sign, arrange for any and all repairs or emergencies and the myriad of other things that crop up over the years.
And now that I've found out how I've been robbing my renter by just sitting around collecting money I don't deserve, I have to call my buddy and tell him we have to sell the house for zero profit and of course, kick the renter out so she can... I don't know... spend $600/ month more finding another place to live.
Like I said, I don't make these rules. I paid rent too and now a mortgage. Would I like to live in a country that didn't allow corporations to buy up everything and jack up the price of those living there? Hell yeah.
So I vote. What else can I do? I didn't crush anyone under my heels to get what i have. I literally saved the money i made. And if I want to protect everything I've spent my whole life to create I can put it in... what... diamonds? Like those don't have blood on them. Make my own business. Isn't that like joining the enemy. I mean the goal would be to grow, right? Boats, cars? What is socially acceptable?
I'm sorry but I'm just not this horrible robber depicted in the meme and I'm not apologizing.
Housing shouldn't be an investment.
"I bought a limited resource people require for survival, what should I have done?"
Not do that. I have plenty of investments, none of them are houses. This feigned ignorance of "what else am I allowed to invest in?" Doesn't work. Go talk to an advisor, they'll provide you with plenty of options.
Why do you people have to be so hateful, "feigned ignorance". It's not feigned ignorance it's the fact that any tangible investment will upset SOMEONE.
Stocks, Bonds, Index Funds, 401k. Go talk to an advisor.
Again, all of those are in essence stocks that can be lost in a crash, if someone hacks my account, the bank fails, etc. When it comes down to it, those are just numbers in an account that one day could go to zero. One could argue that is not likely to happen, but if it did, what recourse would I actually have?
I retired at 52. I don't need financial advice. My point was that I wanted a tangible asset. If I choose diamonds or gold someone here would get just as upset that those were essentially covered with blood and they are. I wouldn't want to do cars because I don't consider it wise, don't have storage, don't want to pay the insurance, etc. Real estate is an obvious choice. It makes a very good investment, but clearly in this thread it's evil.
So you're well aware that alternative investment options exist and all this "what am I to do? Rental housing is the only thing to invest in" is just nonsense.
Yup. Just like if someone invested in diamonds or gold, people upset about it wouldn't give them a pass if they said "I just wanted a tangible investment".
You complained about spending 30 years making someone else rich, and now you're retired off the back of your renter making you rich. Your example of a "bad year" was $2500 profit after paying for repairs from a tornado, for a property you don't need or use.
First of all, maybe I'm not trying to argue, maybe I'm asking questions because I want to understand the other person's side and making sure that person has fully thought through his position. How can I agree or disagree if I don't even know the rules. On this topic people seem to be pretty certain that ALL landlords are basically stealing a living from their renters. I don't care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations. There are heroes and villains in every industry. Landlording is no exception.
I did not set up the rules, I'm just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.
First of all, people are able to state their opinions on a subject without first having to ask questions like:
This is exactly what I mean by "just asking questions" being disingenuous at best. That's not a questions someone asks a person if they are legitimately "wanting to understand the other person’s side".
What rules? They made pretty clear statements about their position (unlike you). You can ask them clarifying questions and state your own position on the subject at the same time.
It's possible for something to be wrong for both individuals and corporations to take part in. If someone is saying "slavery is bad" I don't need to hear some bullshit "Corporations who use slave labour are worse than individuals who use slave labour. Leave the individuals alone!" Both are bad. Corporations are worse, yes, but that doesn't give individuals a free pass. Both need to be stopped.
Yes, and the role of government should be to step in and stop the villains.
That is exactly the point. This is how it functions and it shouldn't be. That doesn't change by people shrugging their shoulders and saying "it is what it is." It changes by people making noise about it until the rules are changed.
I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you're wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.
This is why I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I'm pretty sure you're not going to change your mind and I'm sorry I don't live up to your expectations of not grabbing my sign and marching in front of congress.
I have never seen a successful positive movement toward the kind of government you portray. Instead what I have seen is my dollar going for positive change and corporation's billions of dollars going the other way. Given the fact that as a society we choose the worst examples of humanity to govern us, I don't see this changing. I only have one life and I'm just not heroic enough to donate it to one of the many causes that need it. I don't break the rules that I follow and I try not to make things worse, but I would be curious to know what arm waving you've done recently to change this predicament. Did you write your congressman? Get interviewed on TV? Write a book pointing out the tragedy? What exactly have you done and has it made a difference?
Asking someone
Is not an attempt at understanding why a person believes something. It's the passive aggressive equivalent to yelling at them that they're wrong.
I am not surprised in the slightest that when pushed to actually define and defend your stance you respond with
I guess you're right. It IS horrible and I'm sure that some day society will understand it and put an end to it. Thank you for opening my eyes.
Are you capable of quantum superposition? Or can you perhaps only use one house at a time?
You're really not very bright...
Well I'd say you're really not very polite and that you didn't answer my question.
Why don't you educate me since you're so smart. Are you saying the only people who should own a house are those who are going to live in it?
I'm saying "owning" land shouldn't be a viable way to acquire profit. It's a really basic statement, and it's not a new idea either.
So there should be no land ownership? The government should just build housing for people on land they own, I mean have. Like communism then?
That's the ideal solution, but not the only solution.
There already isn't, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.
Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a "usefulness" score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn't have increased taxes. Empty houses aren't useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don't think that's a very productive topic...
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
That would be incentivised, yes.
This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?
That's the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren't currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.
You do come off as a bit obtuse, and I think that what Gabu is trying to say is that only people should own residential property, not banks/hedge funds/corporations/etc. People should own their residence, and it shouldn't cost half their income. Renting can be beneficial, but it shouldn't cost as much as getting your own mortgage.
A cap on how many properties each person can own would help; no one needs more than a few properties. If residences aren't treated like an investment, prices would be more reasonable, and the barrier to entry lower. Then you could actually move place-to-place every 3 years, sell, and not get robbed by realtors who don't deserve the huge commissions they get on the already over-inflated housing prices.
Did you know that in some places, a seller's agent won't even talk to you unless you have a buyer's agent?
Anyway, small landlords aren't really the problem. It's the big boys who own whole buildings and neighborhoods, driving up prices just because they can. Stricter regulations need to be put into place to make those firms go back to gambling over their shitty stocks and not the roofs over our heads.
Well that's not what he said. He said it shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. He did not specify whether the owner is a major corporation or an individual.
Right, which is why I said what I think they're getting at. Profit on a necessity/right is scummy.
Something Something housing should be a right not a business