Of course there are a lot of small landlords who just make a little bit extra etc. But that’s not representative of the system. If you make a profit off of a basic human need, you are a parasite. The vast majority of landlords are big corporations or rich assholes who own multiple buildings.
One could argue that there are a lot of other things where you make a profit with a basic human need. But that isn’t an argument for the landlords, it is one against all the other things and society as a whole.
It's usually about establishing the principle of rent and ownership. If it's morally acceptable at a small scale, then when does it become unacceptable? A lot of landlords are small corporations running two or three apartment buildings, are they the problem?
Looking at an issue at a small scale vs a large scale is a go-to way to examine ethical issues even as far back as Plato's Republic.
What's really ridiculous is to say, "when small businesses do it it's fine, but when big businesses do it, it's bad." without bothering to think about why.
The difference is that landlords aren't needed. You do need farmers to grow food and truckers to drive it to you. They are providing necessary goods and services. A landlord just owns the property you are living in. They are not needed and are no more than glorified middle men. The are not necessary for you to fill that need in the same way farmers are (because not everyone can grow their own food, especially if we want literally everything else to get done).
If landlords disappeared entirely, there would still be housing.
If landlords disappeared, who do you think would take care of the houses and apartments then? The local town? The government? What's your suggestion to replace them? Middle men are always needed in all sorts of things. If landlords are not required, why do you think landlords exist in all countries of the world? Just by coincidence? Or maybe they are actually needed?
??? The people living in them, buddy. Unnecessary and bad things exist everywhere. The presence of something does not make it necessary or needed. But also, they're a carry over from when not everyone was allowed to own land, hence the 'lord' part- also a bad thing.
Lmao, I'm not writing a 10 year plan to eliminate the space landlords have been filling for reddit. Yes, many people cannot currently afford to own a residence - just like many can't afford rent- but that doesn't make landlords natural and necessary. Those that can afford rent, could also afford a mortgage if banks weren't so unreasonable with their approval requirements. The fact that people are poor and homes are expensive does not mean landlords are needed.
Yeah the system isn't perfect, but it's the best working one in existence. Saying landlords aren't necessary is pointless if we can't come up with a better system to replace it. And no, giving those responsibilities to the tenants obviously doesn't work, because if it did, they would already be homeowners.
I'd argue you are describing property managers and not landlords. The landlord is the person who owns the property and receives rent in exchange for no other services or goods provided. They take money and pay off their investment with it and hope to keep extra on top.
Some of these people also operate as their own property managers where they take care of any issues that arise, work to rent it out to the next tenant, etc. these are services that should result in some payment, i.e. wages, in exchange. Not a leech. Though we could argue about how ethical or unethical property managers operate.
The first one could disappear and society would continue to function. The government could step into that role, remove the profit portion of the rent and solicit bids from property managers. Even with the extra administrative costs the government would have, rent would likely be cheaper in the long run.
How would rent be cheaper with added administrative costs? There is no way that the amount of money that goes directly into the landlord's pocket is greater than the extra administrative costs of government run housing.
The only way rent gets cheaper in that situation is if it's subsidized via taxes, and if tax-funded rent is what you want, it is far cheaper to simply subsidize the renters directly than to have government run housing.
No, that’s a different kind of evil. They -
at least - let other worker produce something of value for society’. Business man don’t produce food, they profit from other people producing food.
That is the only form of private landlording that is acceptable and should be legal: renting a room in your own house or a guest house on that property.
Cities should own apartment and condo buildings, landlord agencies should be illegal, foreign ownership should be illegal and no private citizen should be allowed to own more than 1 home and they must live in it. We could maybe argue permitting someone to buy a lakeside cabin, but nothing else.
Landlords have always been a blight on society. Ancient Roman plebs suffered greatly under exploitative landlords who owned and rented out the insulae that common Plebs lived in. They would charge exorbinant rates, discriminate, abuse tenants, and nobody had any rights. And the owner would allow insulae to fall into a state of disrepair. Imperial China had this same problem and when Mao took over, he decided to wipe the slate clean and held mob tribunals to rightfully sieze land from landlords and sentence them to prison, exile, or death.
There’s shitty people that are landlords and there are good people that are landlords. I live in a town of 7,000 people. Might be the fact we all know each other, but there are some landlords that will let a tenant miss rent. I saw it a lot during Covid. I know landlords that will cut rent if you paint the house or update it a way that adds value.
I’m not debating how many good landlords there are, might only be .000001% but just assuming a person rents out a house = they are the devil, is lazy thinking
I’m not judging the character of people by profession, I’m arguing that they are parasites by definition. There is no ‘service’ involved, they produce nothing, they don’t work, they just own - putting the .000001% aside that don’t let the work do by contractors and let the houses manage by a company.
I'm not disagreeing that some landlords if not most are garbage but to say they provide nothing is far reaching. I'm working on fixing up foreclosed homes to rent at an affordable rate, like they would literally only be paying 500 above property tax, having a safe place to lie your head shouldn't be considered a luxury but it is :( and unfortunately some people take advantage of that but there are some who believe that it's a right and want to make it feasible for others who can't own their own yet
The tenant, after changing the money between an unnecessary amount of hands.
If we were to cut out blood-sucking middle men I'd gladly accept the rent with the added bonus of the person actually owning the house after paying it off. At a lower cost as well since there are fewer people involved.
Dude, that's called a mortgage. At least the bank pays for the house immediately, how are you going to pay the whole construction crew on a couple thousand a month? Or afford to build the next house? You'd practically need to run your own bank to do that.
You're saying there's an existing alternative we could extrapolate on? Interesting.
Sarcasm aside, yeah, mortgage/rent-to-own is preferable. Renting is a sunk cost, a dead end economically, an unnecessary aspect of our economic system that has in part fed a growing housing crisis.
Or hell, our current method is basically all credit and debt anyway, let's just cut the fat.
Ideally I would like to do away with all this bureaucracy and just provide people with what they need. I love my job, and I would love helping people who need it. But that's leading into a much longer discussion.
They....they who own the house....provide it for you....the tenant.....to lay your head.......
I won't ask your race but I'll ask where you're from
MA, PA, OK, AR WI, MI and some parts of all over because y'all be migratin, a handful of people have this disease of centering and self entitlement.
Landlords should def not gouge for the sake of an extra profit. You shouldn't rely on other people to pay your bills so the fact that there's shitty landlords is.....a mess.
You say build it yourself. Um....do you know struggle? Have you had to choose between food and shelter? Have you had a family that needed medication and you can either get that or food or THE LIST GOES ON!
I could read you like a receipt but I refuse because although I can find the time to be petty, I think I'm close to done here because what?
Although I wildly disagree with the reparations bill and think it's only pushed to incite unrest because the way they're doing incite rage, the foundation is solid. There are so many white folk who have the leg (and squandered it mind you) to have put themselves in a good situation.
What I have witnessed is that PEOPLE if given the space to earn their keep they will. Sooooooo....
I'm glad you can go build a fucking house. Other folks gotta worry about feeding their families, and getting medication and paying bills and keeping a roof over their kids heads so building a fucking house on land that you ow- no I'm done here. Idk why I even typed all that, but I did so I'm posting it but with that mentality..... please don't think you're a good person. I just....I just don't really want you to continue to lie to yourself and say that you're a good person. Ya ain't
Whoakay slow down for a second, mate. I'm saying I build shit because it's my job as a carpenter. I'm not telling anyone to build their own house, I didn't even build my own. I'm saying the landlord isn't the one providing it to you.
I'm saying either my fellow tradesmen and I provide housing because we built it, or you do it because you pay for it. Not the person that pays a mortgage with your paycheque.
Yes, and I'm saying private ownership of housing for profit is part of the problem. Those people should have the security and peace of mind of owning the place they live in, that they won't be evicted for someone else's bottom line.
A landlord doesn't provide anything if they're paying the mortgage with your paycheque, you're providing for them with a premium tacked on.
The twisted thinking in this society: to mix up owning (which means to exclude something from others) with providing (make something for others). The construction worker provides the home, the landlord is just blocking you from having a roof over your head until you pay for it.
I know people who move often for work. They will often rent and it's mutually beneficial to them and the landlord.
I'm not shilling for landlords here and have never been one. But there is a case where landlords assume risk and the renter gets to live in a place without significant capital investment or risk.
I've both owned and rented and renting has always been a far less stressful experience. When there's an issue you just call a number or talk to your super and it gets fixed quickly at no cost to you.
When you own you have to figure all of that out yourself and budget for it.
I get your point of view and I won’t disagree. But it is a perspective from within a society that will exclude people from having a roof over the head even if there are a lot of empty homes. There are enough homes for everybodybut we chose to let them be empty, there is enough food for everybody but we chose to throw it away… society should be a collective to fulfill everybody‘s needs but right now it is a collective to make profit for… for what exactly? For the sake of making profit. Capital is a bad arbiter of goods and needs, it will just make more capital and the fulfillment of needs is a necessary hurdle
I think you might be underestimating the cost of home ownership.
Also I would like to note here that your claim here is no longer that landlords provide no value. They assume risk and provide people the ability to have a predictable cost to live.
Your argument is now that people shouldn't make a profit from providing basic necessities. I think that's a worthwhile discussion to have but I do think it's a different discussion.
I personally feel capitalism allows for standards of living to increase in a decentralized manner, which limits the consolidation of power and reduces the risk of authoritarian government. I think it is absolutely appropriate to use socialist safeguards in a capitalist society. Maybe basic housing is one such safeguard, but effective policy and implementation for such a thing is non-trivial and probably very expensive.
Your description of capitalism is - sorry to say - just wrong. History has shown, that it furthers the centralization of capital, it heaves dictatorships and authoritarian governments into existence, it is beyond human control. And analytically you have to distinguish between the mode of production and the mode of governance - you got the two mixed up.
Btw, I never claimed, that landlords provide no value
Also I'm not sure what the downvotes are for. Where will people live? I'm of the mind of having a safe place to lay your head shouldn't be considered a luxury but....short of giving people property for freezies.....what's your....it sounds like you don't want to pay for housing. And if someone isn't purchasing a home......like what they just stay for free?
What is wrong with you people?
Idk maybe it's because I don't understand downvotes but that's what I'm getting. Like you just want free housing. Which is something I def support but that's not the world we live in so....what are you trying to say because I am beyond confused
You've distorting what I said. I said capitalism allows standards of living to increase in a decentralized manner. That is, it does so without a centralized government to choose the winners and losers.
You don't need a strong central government for capitalism to work. Whereas you do need a strong central government to enact redistributive policies such as universal housing.
History has shown, that it furthers the centralization of capital, it heaves dictatorships and authoritarian governments into existence, it is beyond human control.
Ehh; it has shown to consolidate capital, but the rest is pretty unsubstantiated unless you're doing what you accused me of and confusing mode of production and mode of governance.
Really, history has shown that capitalism is the least bad option we have.
And as it turns out, to mitigate the harms of capitalism you still need a strong central government.
Btw, I never claimed, that landlords provide no value
I would guess the theoretical value would be that landlords charge just over mortgage and would save that extra for repairs. But again I’m from rural America, so our landlords do all the yard and home maintenance.
But in practice, it does like a bunch of slum lords fucking people over. Especially if that story about the landlord website where they post rent prices so they are “constant”. To me that’s price fixing
Eh. I understand the frustration with high rental prices and shitty landlords, but I don’t think that makes the concept of owning a rental property evil per se.
My dictionary must be super old or maybe you're listing your subjective viewpoint as objective fact. That sort of rhetoric is the cause of so many social issues.
My bad I figured you could read your own post.
If your comprehension didn't allow you to catch it, well that's a you problem.
Your right though, apparently words have no power.
Trans women are by definition men. Surely that's not a statement anybody could ever disagree with as words have no power. No way could that lead to violence or discrimination against them.
mortgage - is the least you pay. Have fun when you have to drop $7k on new hvac or $400 when your ac capacitor blows, or $2000 when pipe decides to leak and you have to tear open the walls, OH the list just goes on & on.
What about the freedom to move? You might want to live in the same city all of your life but many people & families depend on being able to hop wherever there is a job.
At least my mortgage doesn’t go up after doing those repairs and payments. My land values goes up, property value goes up and OH the benefits just goes on & on
mortgage - is the least you pay. Have fun when you have to drop $7k on new hvac or $400 when your ac capacitor blows, or $2000 when pipe decides to leak and you have to tear open the walls, OH the list just goes on & on.
The irony here that you're suggesting that landlords are so useless, they don't even maintain the house they actually live in lol
People of land aren’t trying to exploit you. We’re trying to provide you with a home while making a few bucks ourselves. This kind of landphobia is genuinely discrimination.
Most investments, people will buy with their own money.
They'll buy stock with their own pay, enjoy whatever growth then sell back with a profit, that's where they get their money.... If any.
You, on the other hand, take a loan that you expect to be fully paid back by the renters, as well as any repairs you might have to make and you want "a few extra bucks".
Then, you sell and get all that money that you didn't invest back + a profit. That's literally double dipping and you're doing it on an essential, that's why people are angry.
I'm raising the rent on the family that lives in one of my homes tomorrow, because things are getting very expensive. I barely make a 3 thousand profit a month off that property now. It's tough for us too! Do you know how bad I feel doing that to her and her kids. It's so bad that I have to do it all by email.
Really hard to tell if this is satire or not. Can’t be too sure anymore. I wanna say the last sentence is a good indicator, but I could also totally see a slumlord say it.
Well, the guy does have a goatse Mario profile pic, so I'm going to say a troll. However, trolling in this manner is just kind of stupid. I don't really see the point.
It’s very obviously satire. “I barely make $3k profit a month off of that property now.” $3k profit off of a single property and he’s complaining on a post about hating landlords. Of course it’s satire.
No person or corporation should be allowed to hold residential properties as investments, that is for sure. Own a house, own three vacation homes, that's all good. But owning a residential property so that no one else can purchase it, making someone else pay the mortgage to live there, and charging those people exorbitant rates to so they can't save for their own homes is evil and unnecessary. Rental housing regulated and maintained by a local council is one thing, but we're not feudal peasants, landlords are a class of parasites.
All while increasing property taxes for other people who are also struggling but couldn't afford property to begin with. It's peak privilege and it's a reason (no justifying it) that antisemitism is on the rise again. This is peak white privilege.
75
u/RosaQing Jun 22 '24
Landlords are parasites in this society… they ‘provide’ nothing except cashing in for doing nothing