When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?
When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?
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 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.
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.
Thank you! Nicely put. The problem isn't people like your aunt, its massive shareholder-controlled investemet machines that own thousands or even millions of homes. Your aunt probably knows eafh renter by name - there can exist a personal relationship. There's two things limiting your aunt becoming a money-hungry antisocial ghoul:
- raising the rent is a relatively large amount of work for relatively small of a reward. If she raises rent she has to write these 4-5 renters a letter explaining why she has to increase it. Those renters might disagree, have objections, ask for reasons and proofs (like the central heating bill or maintanance costs etc). If she raises the rent by lets say 2% it's 2% of not that much money (with her single digit number if houses).
- she is raising the rent on people she knows. She is taking money away from people she even may like - have a personal relationship with.
So increasing rent is a lot of hassle and her renters might like her less after that - which might be a factor.
Now lets think of the hugr real estate company. They have thousands of renters and maybe hundreds of employees. They have lawyers employed. If they raise rent by 2% they have to send thousands of letters. But these letters are sent by people whose job it is to do so. Tyey can calculate in advance that from their renters X% will just accept the nrew rent, Y% will require some manouvering, Z% might move out and so on. They can estimate the cost of raising rent pretty well based on experience and compare to the profits they make. And with thousands of apartmants 2% is a lot of profit. The employees have no relationship to the thousands of renters. Renters are just numbers anyway. Everything is much more efficient. Also: Shareholders. They demand profits and dont't care how. They care even less aboht the renters. They demand more profit and will just say "make it happen". If thr ceo doesn't raise profits - with whatever means necessary - the shareholders will replace the ceo.
The soltion IMHO would be some progressive tax That makes it basically unprofitable to have more than 10 apartments. And to prevent legal entities owning other legal entities owning apartments in order to circumvent this. If there exists (and can reasonable exist) a personal relationship between landlord and renter everything is alright in my opinion. People usually are not animals to eaxh other if they know eaxh other personal.
And to prevent legal entities owning other legal entities owning apartments
This is one huge issue I have with our current end stage capitalistic system. If corporations are "people" then how can they own other corporations, which are also "people" right?
If shareholders want to own shares in multiple companies, they can still do that.
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.
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.
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.
A fair system would have retirement funds guaranteed, as well as universal healthcare, free college, and UBI, so she wouldn't need to do this landlord shit that everyone hates. But we have this shitty system called capitalism and capitalism incentivises people to be evil, so here we are.
Tell her to sell the houses and toss the money in an index fund. Housing is a good investment because people treat it like one and cause scarcity.
Typically small landlords (I was one) are not the problem, But they aren't making things any easier. They still take up houses that they don't need that should be on the market, and they charge about twice what thier mortgage rate is to renters, which then artifically inflates housing prices, while also restricting home inventory. People with a handful of properteries aren't really the main driver of the issues though. One corporate landlord with 500 properties would do much more damage, but they all harm the market to an extent.
When people said "slave owners are evil pieces of shit" do they also mean the people who only owned 1 or 2 to help out with the family, or only the large plantation owners?
That's definitely not a great comparison 😂
Property can be affordable or an investment, not both.
Those using property as an investment are contributing to it not being affordable.
All 4 mentioned parties are pieces of shit! ^Although ^2 ^of ^em ^are ^far ^bigger
Owning houses you don't live in is bullshit
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)
Edit: I might not be remembering all this accurately, but the numbers I remembered overhearing them talk should be mostly correct.
Right now, listings typically start at $1600/mo with average looking at around $1800 and there are even some at like $2000 up to $2400 all the same 3 bedroom 1 bathroom houses.
I think her properties (again, I only heard her and my parents talking, a young adult like me don't typically talk about these stuff) are from $1300-$1500; with tenants that started renting maybe 2-4 years ago at the lower end of that range, and the tenants that started renting eaelier this year in the higher end of the spectrum. I think I heard her saying she had a tenant at around $950 when she stsrted doing this like maybe 7 years ago, and she didn't really raise rent much because she didn't want to lose tenants, and they oay on time, so she kept it at $950 while everyone else raise their rent. Then like 5 years after their lease, she raised it like like $50, then a year later raised it another $50. So at like $1050, meanwhile, the starting price that year was $1400 with average at $1600 and others even higher. I mean, the new tenants she got that year, she priced it at $1300, but she didn't raise those old tenants, at least not very much.
I don't know if she did this because out of the kindness of her heart or not, but mostly because she didn't want to lose tenants so she priced it about $100-200 below the market's lowest price, then keep the price mostly unchanged until the tenants decide to move out. Then start the new lease at $100-$200 below market's lowest price of that year. That seems to be her MO.
Does your Aunt get paid rent from the people living in those houses? Is that rent more than it costs to own and maintain the properties? Yeah, thought so. Yes, your aunt is a parasite. She is extracting profit from other people simply by virtue of being the one to own the property that she doesn't live in. She isn't providing value, she's restricting access.
She may be a lovely lady the rest of the time, I'm sure she lives a vibrant and full life elsewhere, but that doesn't change what she's doing. Nobody owns "a couple of houses as an investment" if they're not making money off of them, and they're only making money by extracting it from the people who have to rent.
Individual landlords can be the worst ones. Here’s what that often looks like:
- individual inherits a home
- they rent it out and quit their job
- the rent is their only income so they are really cheap about maintenance and repairs
- they make any repair the tenant’s “fault” and force them to pay for it
- they raise the rent at every opportunity to the maximum the market will bear, because that is the only way their own income ever rises
- they do repairs and maintenance themselves, even though they are unskilled, because that’s cheaper, and the quality of all the work is poor, using the cheapest materials possible (I once had a landlord paint our house puke orange because she got a deal on that awful paint).
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".
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.
If you can make a profit by hoarding properties and renting them out, then the system is broken.
Yea, to me, it seems like the root cause of this issue is capitalism, landlords existing is merely the symptom of the larger issue.
It was always a mix of government and private businesses providing. But at some point the UK decided to leave it to Maggie Thatcher's vaunted free markets to pick up the slack.
Arrested Development Narrator: They did not pick up the slack.
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.
Renting is a good choice for people who can't immediately absorb big expenses. If your furnace quits, it can be really nice to phone the landlord and ask them to fix it. Homeowners have to have ready access to cash, and not everyone is in that situation - especially when they are starting out.
I agree with this. We have rented houses when we didn't want to buy a house. Even though technically we probably could have bought one, it's a pain in the ass to purchase and expensive to maintain and even now I'm not quite convinced it's worth it. Housing is important but not everyone wants to be a property owner.
It's more like the whole system is fucked, housing is too expensive and part of that is because of rental profit but it's not the whole problem. We paid less per year to rent than we do to own, for similar properties. Even though the landlords made money.
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.
Meta commentary: note that "LEFTISTS" are not this bloc that is perfectly aligned. You need to ask the individuals whether they hate small scale as well as large scale landlords.
There is no universal "LEFTIST" belief. People exist at every point along the spectrum. Stop thinking in binary terms and you can have far more productive discussions with people.
Especially those that own a couple houses as "investment". Housing should not be an investment. With the big companies you could argue at least that they are also building houses, which we need since the government wont build enough. Not saying they arent parasites either though.
Especially those that own a couple houses as “investment”
I agree, housing shouldn't be an investment. But I also think utilities should not be a "for profit" bussiness. I think clean air and water should be a human right, as with food. I think UBI should be a thing, basically most of capitalist stuff should go away.
However, people in a capitalistic world we live in grew up and taught by society with the idea that everything you can legally buy is a legit investment. This isn't really the individual's fault, this is society's fault for telling everyone its okay to use housing, water, food, utilities, healthcare, and everything else, as a way to earn profits.
Like I think we cant really blame any individual, but its the fault of capitalism as a whole.
There are no good landlords. Every small landlord contributes to the housing crisis by hoarding housing that should be on the market for new buyers.
Landlords are an effect of the system; it's pretty pointless to shame them if you don't change the system
My biggest gripe is the system. I am deemed not financially able to own a mortgage but I am deemed able to pay nearly double to pay off someone else's mortgage.
Yes I am bitter and I don't see why someone should be able to make money off me like this.
The worst thing about investment properties is that it raises for bar for entry into owning a home for others. Lets say someone started renting, got some capital together got a house paid it off through hard work. Kudos, thats cool. Then they buy a second house and use the rental income to pay the mortage or whatever. Over time buying more and more. Eventually it's not feasible for people starting out to do the same thing. The owners all own and have multiple streams of income, allowing them to own more and pay more. Pushing up prices and edging out new home owners. Go back 20-30 years and see the difference. It used to be possible for single income households to buy a house but not anymore. Shit, its getting to the point where dual income households are starting to struggle.
Then theres the airbnb effect. Some houses on airbnb and similar are close to the areas weekly rental price for a night. Even if its hald the weekly rental cost for a night, thats still less than 3 months they need to 'lease' out the house to break even with a tradional rental. Some places have absolutly shit rental access due to the abundance of short-term stays. This too, causes rental prices to increase.
Look at the homeless problem that is going on in most western natiions, this isn't the traditional homeless issue caused by drugs or debt or what ever bad outcomes there are. It's a supply issue, caused by too many houses in too few hands. You have working families living in cars or tents all because there is nowhere to live. Which again, leads to higher rental prices due to lack of supply.
Nobody should own more than one house, and if they do, the rent should not cost more, or even equal to a mortage on the house. Rentals should be stepping stones for people after they first move out of home, or seperate from a partner or move locations. They shouldn't be a thing that people have to live in all their lives.
Also, leftist.... ffs. grow up.
Most people in Europe rent. It actually has advantages over owning depending on your situation.
Making money from merely owning things that others need and have to pay you to use as they can't get them otherwise (because you and people like you took them first) - something know in Economics as rent seeking, though it doesn't apply only to housing - is pure parasitism because that person is producing no value whatsoever, merely extorting money from others because they removed free access to a resource from them.
Well the proper lefty take is supposed to be that the system is bad - not that anyone who profits from the system is a bad person.
Here's the thing: landlords make a profit, right? Where does that profit come from? There are better and worse landlords, but any time there's a profit there's money being taken away from people.
No one is coming after your aunt, but that's where it comes from. They're leaching money away from tenants. Some are worse than others, but it is by definition parasitic if you're making a profit and not providing a service.
But... they are providing a service.
I am a landlord, I'm sure I'll catch hell but whatever. I bought a dumpster of a house in a popular metro area and proceeded to pump $300k of my own money as well as doing half the repairs myself because I'm physically and mentally able. I also do all the maintenance on the property and I'm on a first name basis with the tenants. They call me for anything they need. Not everyone has the means to operate like this, but I don't suspect anyone in this thread will listen to those realities. I now own a house that is worth a decent amount more than my total investment so I rent it way below market rate because I have two awsome tenants living in symbiosis and I don't want them to leave (selfishly, because its more work for me). But I guess according to this thread I'm a leach. I'm tired of reading these childish black and white arguments, the world is inherently grey, nothing is simple and easy to boil down but everyone sure likes to try and make a simple agreement.
It's all.
Buying a house as an "investment" is what we call "scalping" in other businesses. Not to mention the fact that this type of buying worsens housing prices and increases homelessness for personal gain, even on a small scale.
The only exception I can give is people who rent out part of their own home, as this situation actually creates available housing.
Exactly. Housing is finite and other people live here too.
renting out part of your home is being a landlord. Some places where houses are unobtanioum like the bay area renters pay all the landowners expenses without the dignity of even having a private residence. It's worse.
As an sp member in the UK I can give you the parties stance. We aren't going after small business. Your aunt while not giving to society and being a member of the owning class is more a symptom of capitalism and under a socialist programme she would not need to degrade others to live a fulfilling life. Dignity should be afforded to all but we also understand that material conditions govern us.
We go after bigger issues than your aunt.
Your aunt while not giving to society and being a member of the owning class is more a symptom of capitalism and under a socialist programme she would not need to degrade others to live a fulfilling life.
Yea that makes sense. Under socialism, retirement funds would be guaranteed and their kids would have free university, and Universal Basic Income would guarantee money to survive even if they lose thier jobs.
So its really just capitalism forcing people to do evil things to survive. Get rid of capitalism, and nobody (such as my aunt) needs to think of "being a landlord" as a way to survive.
Essentially yes.
We aren't blood thirsty ghoul's like right wingers will have people believe and even that sentiment goes to show the right wingers acting within their class interest as systemically its beneficial to appose the lower classes, socialists, communist and whatever label.
As it is within my class interest to pay less rent.
Unless your aunt is transferring equity in those homes to the tenants based on the amount they pay in rent, then yes, she's a leech. "Providing shelter" isn't the service your aunt is providing; she's just preventing someone else from owning a home.
And before anyone says "but renting is all some people can afford, they can't save up enough to make a down payment" - yes, sure, that's true. But that's a symptom of the shitty housing market (really the shitty state of the middle class in general*), and landlords aren't making it any better by hoarding property, even if it's "just" 3 to 5 townhomes.
It's not nice to call people leeches, esp. if you really don't know anything about them.
People who don't want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them. Until someone comes along to create government housing or whatever, this is the best we can offer as an individual.
On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?
People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them.
I don't understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.
On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?
If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.
You are incorrect. The service is providing someone a home if they don't want to own their own or if they don't have the financial means to do so
No landlords hoard property. The property is used by people.
No landlords hoard property.
Fine, landlords hoard property ownership.
The property is used by people.
As long as the landlord permits it, and as long as the landlord gets their premium.
Landlords profit off of permitting people access to shelter, a basic right that any human should be entitled to. It's literally modern day feudalism.
What is a person who made good (or lucky) decisions and made enough money to be comfortable in the present but not so much to retire supposed to do with their money?
Give it to you instead?
Sure, billionaires and X00 millionaires don't need to exist, but so far as I can tell "leftists" are a .ml / tankie crab bucket. Fuck me for having more money than you but not enough to take the homeless off the street as is my obligation. Please tell me how to keep leftist virtue so I can have ~30 upvotes to retire on.
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!
What's with this black and white mentality? They're absolutely leaches, but that doesn't fully define then. They are probably other things as well, that are hopefully good.
It's shades of gray. A company that rents out millions of houses is millions times worse than your aunt. Your aunt is still contributing to unaffordable housing and keeping 2-3 families from permanent housing. How bad she is is up for debate and I for one don't care to debate that. Being upset about people like your aunt is pointless when we should be insanely angry about corporate mass homeownership.
I reckon if you're doing the work involved in managing a rental property yourself, you're doing work and providing a service.
If you expect an employee/contractor to do all that for you, but to still collect profits: what would you say you do here?
The argument would be, not saying I agree or disagree as I think it's more complex and nuanced than this, is that they are taking on the risk of maintaining and loaning a very expensive asset to somebody and hoping they'll look after it and pay that cost of borrowing it.
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)
What constitutes an "investment"?
If you buy a home and have a roommate so you can afford the mortgage is that an investment?
If you buy a home and then sell it down the road for a profit, is that an investment?
I and I think many in the left would say no to both of those, especially if you lived there yourself in the second case. The abhorrent behavior is buying multiple houses and charging rent that is high enough to not just cover mortgage and maintenance but also turn a large profit, enough to where you can live entirely off of it at the expense of your tenants. And do things like raise the rent every year because "the market allows for it" even though your mortgage cost hasn't changed.
There is obviously a grey area in between that everyone will have different opinions on. But in my view it is POSSIBLE to rent a property ethically, using lower than industry rents and being generally nice about it rather than viewing it as an opportunity for exploitation
If nobody is renting out family homes, there will be no family homes to rent. Many people prefer to rent their home.
No landlords are "parasites". Rental property owners provide a valuable service.
Every house that is owned for an investment contributes to the high price of housing. People shouldn’t own homes if they’re not going to make them a home. It’s unethical in my view to hoard real estate.
This is a genuine question: what's the difference do you think between investments in general and real estate investments? I mean, technically investing of any kind is hoarding. It may not have such direct impact on basic needs, but it surely does overall.
When landlords "invest" in the housing market, they are not making the system of providing housing for people better or more efficient. They are buying up a limited supply of properties that exist in desirable areas and then charging people for the right to use them plus a nice profit for themselves. This reduces the supply for a necessary good and drives up prices, making it profitable for landlords, and a massive, efficiency draining, example of rent-seeking for the system as a whole since the landlord's basically don't work and instead take a cut of what everyone else makes doing useful work.
If you invest in some predatory companies you might be investing in companies that do that, or might do some other predatory practice, but you can also just be putting money into a business so that it has more money to grow its operations, or invest in some new efficiency that makes them run better, and that then both returns a profit back to both of you and helps improve the system as a whole.
Think about it this way, when you retire, you are going to need money to sustain you for a long time after you stop being able to work, so while you're working, you need to save that money up. That money can just sit in your bank account doing nothing for anyone, or you can invest it in a business that lets them use those resources now and lets you get your retirement money back 30 years from now when you need it (though in reality that's spread across hundreds of companies to reduce risk). That's how investment can be a net benefit to society and make for a better use of resources, characteristics not present with landlords and housing investments.
I don't think a bunch of people pitching in to fund a company is in and of itself a bad thing, but there are several considerations that are extensions of that that stray into unethical territory. foremost is the matter of fiduciary responsibility. When a company is publicly traded they have a legal responsibility to put money in the investor's pockets, and that shapes the behavior of that company in ways that can be very harmful. Intent shapes action, and the imperative to provide profits to investors changes whatever intention that company may have had when it was founded. It means if the company has a choice between fulfilling that imperative or doing something to reduce harm to the world around them they will always make the decision that fulfills the intention. Where if your intention is just to be the best at something, or to provide a service, you would make a different set of decisions. The biggest example that's particularly central in public consciousness right now is the health industry. Health insurance companies have the ability to ensure that their customers are well taken care of and that healthcare is accessible, but providing healthcare isn't the point. Providing profit to their shareholders is the point, so in every situation where the profit, and the doing the right thing, conflict they will always choose the former because that's the whole reason they're doing it in the first place. Even if the CEO wanted to lead the company in a more ethical direction they couldn't do so without courting legal action, if the investors believe their decisions aren't maximizing profits. Multiply this by time and companies gradually become worse, even if they started out great. Enshitification isn't just for the internet. Often this leads to unethical ends, as in the health insurance example where it causes thousands of deaths each year. A lot of it depends on whether the demand for something is fixed or elastic. Say you wanted to purchase a lot of something as an investment, if that thing is FunCo Pop figurines and you're hoarding them banking that they'll increase in value due to scarcity could be sold later at a markup. People can take or leave FunCo Pops, They can choose not to spend their money on your marked up collectibles. Hoarding them would be a dick move, but not necessarily unethical. If the thing you're buying up is water the landscape changes. People need water, every single person needs water. That demand is not elastic, people have to have it or they literally die. If you hoarded that resource so that you could sell it at a higher price, and that prices some people out of being able to access water, it's more than unethical. It's straight up wicked. Your intention isn't to provide water. It's to maximise your profits, and thus your decisions will always be guided by those priorities. It's nuanced. But not very difficult to understand. The world could change for the better, but the profit margins are too slim to make it a worthwhile goal for a savvy capitalist.
Yes all landlords.
This is incorrect.
All landlords, regardless of how many properties they rent out, are ultimately producing nothing. They sit on property and leech money off of the economy. The scale at which it is done does not change the core "product" (which isn't a product at all, in the traditional sense, because it is not produced). It's a classic grift.
So, yes: all landlords.
Edit: in some sense, all forms of "passive income" follow the same pattern. Capitalism relies on money being exchanged for goods and services. Passive income is a perverse adulteration of that. Free money is not a thing.
Owning property isn’t a job
No, but it requires work and time and money for maintenance, insurance, and taxes.
It's almost like... it's... a... job. How strange.
Don't take it personally, but landlordism is fundamentally parasitism. It's a matter of fact that private property, whether it's a townhouse or a factory, enables its owners to extract value from working people. If people personally resent landlords like your aunt, it's probably not so much because that's where the theory guides them as it is that almost everyone has had a bad experience with a landlord or knows someone who did. Landlords have earned a bad reputation.
You can only say that landlords extract value from working people if they take money without giving anything in return. But landlords provide housing, which is certainly of great value.
Emotional reasoning tells us this is parasitism in the following ways:
-
we believe housing is a human right therefore no one can claim they provide it as a value - it’s something we are all entitled to.
-
once a house exists it seems like the landlord doesn’t “do” anything in order to provide the housing, except sit there and own it. So this must be theft because they are getting something for nothing.
#1 I understand and if you feel this then work to have it enacted as law in your homeland, because until it is enshrined in the system, you can’t expect anyone to just give away housing.
#2 is somewhat naive, because owning a house has costs including (minimally) taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Owning housing always carries a large risk too - you could incur major damage from a flood, hurricane, earthquake. And those are incredibly expensive to recover from. Not for renters, though - they just move.
The most important question of all is: how does housing come into being? If we make housing something that cannot be offered as a value, who will build? The up front cost to build housing is enormous and it may take decades of “sitting there doing nothing” to collect enough rent to recoup that.
People make all the same arguments about lending money. It’s predatory and extracts value from the people. But without the ability to borrow money, no one could build or buy a home, or start a business.
Much could be done to improve how lending and landlording work, to make them more fair and less exploitative, but when people say that in their very essence they are evil I think they are just naive children seeing mustache twirling villains everywhere.
It's not emotional reasoning. The rental income that a landlord collects is not a wage based on any labor that they do. It is a dividend on a real estate investment. The crucial mechanism to a rental property investment is the license to withhold or take away housing from people. That's what makes landlordism extractive and parasitic. Landlords simply do not provide housing. They capture it and extort people for temporary permission to live in it.
If you want some emotional reasoning as to why people resent landlords, here's a short list I wrote from a similar thread:
- Almost everyone has had or knows someone who's had to deal with an especially neglectful or difficult landlord;
- landlords have been engaging in notoriously greedy and abusive behavior since the industrial revolution;
- landlords aren't doing themselves any favors they way some of them publicly brag and whine about being landlords;
- and there's just something that isn't right about owning someone else's home and probably everyone has some faint sense of that.
how does housing come into being?
Well one "simple" way is for all the builders to be rolled up into the civil service: the government pays them to do their job, i.e. build houses, which the government then owns and allows people to live in. This must necessarily be rent-free, otherwise the government becomes one massive landlord therefore not solving the problem, and also takes the bottom out of the mortgage market because why would anyone buy when they can just move into government-provided housing without a 25-year millstone tied round their necks. It also creates a ton of job security because it means you can just walk away from a shitty employer without fear of becoming homeless.
It also drops anyone with a mortgage into the worst possible negative equity problem, which will be a massive problem for a massive number of people, therefore has zero chance of ever being voted in. So for this to work there has to be a solution to the mortgage problem, e.g. the government buys all that housing stock for the current outstanding mortgage amount, but that's a massive investment into something that now necessarily has zero value, which would likely crash the economy. IANAE so it'd be interesting to get a real economist's view on how this might all work in practice.
-
For most of my life I was not interested in owning a home. Owning meant I couldn't pick up and move or travel when I got the urge, which I did several times. One time while in a foreign country for a stay of undetermined length, I was able to contact an old landlord and secure a place to stay when I learned my return date. How would I have had a place to stay if landlords did not exist?
"Land contract".
A land contract starts out similar to a rental agreement. You make fixed monthly payments. If you stay in the home for 3 years, it automatically converts to a private mortgage, and the first three years of "rent" becomes your down payment. If you leave before a year, you forfeit your "security deposit", just like renting. If you leave before 3 years, you gain no equity; again, just like renting.
If you ever do decide to settle down in one spot, you're already well on your way to ownership.
I would solve the rental problem by creating a massive, punitively high tax rate on all residential properties, and issuing an equivalent tax exemption to owner-occupants. A land contract is recorded with the county, much like a deed or a lien, and the buyer/tenant would be considered the "owner" for tax purposes.
I don't disagree that landlords are for the most part acting parasitically. However I would argue that in order for society to function "parasitism" is a requirement. I want to be clear and state that THIS form isn't required, but some form is.
Let me explain my thinking. Nearly half of the population doesn't work. The population of non workers can almost entirely fall within these categories: children, attending school, disabled (mentally or physically), or retired.
These populations need money even though they are not producing any. I would guess that most of the extracted profit that comes out of "mom and pop" rentals goes to providing for non-worker expenses.
Now I believe these expenses should be covered by taxations and redistribution of the factor income, but since we have a pathetic system of this in the US it's hard for me to fault someone for using investment property to hedge against child care and/or retirement
I am not as well read as I would like, but I don't think Marxist theory really faults anyone for acting in their apparent self-interest. The point is to become aware that you belong to a class with common interests, likely the working class, and that you can team up with your fellow workers and tenants to build leverage and get a better deal. Eventually, you can stop surrendering the wealth you and your class create to the minority bourgeoisie class.
To your point, a landlord who also has to hold down a regular job is still part of the working class. However, they might fall into the subcategories of labor aristocracy or petit bourgeoisie. Because they have it a little better, they're less reliable or even traitorous in the class struggle compared to regular workers, even though they rarely have the juice to make it into the bourgeoisie.
There are parasites and there are big parasites. Being a land lord is inherently parasitic to a certain extent. And we were ourselves landlords for a while. When a job took us out of state, we didn’t want to leave where we were so we rented out our house for under market rate until we returned. In my opinion, we were still being parasites to a limited extent.
I rent out my upstairs. Should I kick them out? All of my tenants have loved me, I rarely raise rent, and include Internet and utilities. Nuance.
Kick them out, then you won't be a parasite.
Yes, apparently you are a parasite but not to worry you can afford your mortgage by offering a product or service on a temporary basis, for a fee.
I your Aunt and Uncle are probably lovely people. They're trying to survive in the same system we're all stuck in.
Ask yourself this, who is paying the mortgage on those properties? If the renters can afford the rent, they can afford the mortgage and then some. Your aunt and uncle, and all landlords, are collecting a premium on housing, what do they actually provide? If they're trying to save for retirement, by renting homes, who's actually paying for their retirement? Will those people be about to afford to retire if they're spending so much on rent? They'll end up with nothing when they leave. Your aunt and uncle will still have 3 to 5 extra properties.
They own suburban townhomes, in some cases you find a renter who'd rather not own a home. In most cases, the market has progressed to a point where home ownership is impossible because people are hoarding homes and withholding access for rent.
It's an unethical system. Your aunt and uncle are small line landlords and a symptom of a larger problem. They're participating in an unethical system to gain an advantage, and it's hard to blame them for that. That doesn't make it ethical, or good.
Jefferson said he "participated in a broken system that he hated." In reference to slavery. He actively tried to reform that system and was rebuffed. He's still seen as a slave holding landed gentry today, and it remains a black spot on his (admittedly spotty) legacy. How are the people who owned 3 to 5 slaves different from those who owned 50? How are they compared to those who could afford and benefit to own slaves, and still advocated for abolition?
I think if you rent out your attic, whatever, i don't think anybody cares. If you have a spare airbnb property or an investment property or you own an apartment complex, then yes, they're part of the problem.
“Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets.”
https://lifehacker.com/why-everyone-hates-landlords-now-1849100799
That said, I do think there need to be ways to rent housing rather than buy it, since many people need that flexibility. Looks like the answer to that might be community land trusts?
Or public housing
What a magnificent comparison!
When we say landlords are bad, it's not really about the individual people so much as it's about the system as a whole. Ideally, the human right to housing should be guaranteed for everyone, along with the right to be cared for in retirement. How many elderly people don't own their own homes, and have rent to pay as an additional expense making it harder for them to retire? Sure, landlordism can provide a source of income for people who can't work, but for every case of that, there's another case of someone who can't work who doesn't have the privilege of owning a home, such that the existing system makes them even more desperate. So logically, it doesn't really make sense as a justification.
Cases like this should be considered when we're looking at how best to implement our ideals, but not for determining our ideals in the first place. The just thing is that everyone should have a secure place to live. That's the ideal. In implementing that ideal, we should consider that houses currently are used as a form of investment and many people simply use them that way without a second thought, because of social norms. If we simply seized and redistributed everyone's properties tomorrow, some people like your aunt would be disproportionately affected, compared to if they had invested in stocks that can be just as unethical. It would probably still be better for most people than doing nothing, but we ought to craft policy in such a way that we're not trolley probleming it (except regarding the people at the very top, for whom it's unavoidable), but rather such that it provides benefits while harming as few people as possible.
When society is organized justly and the wealth of the people on the top is redistributed, there will be enough to go around that everyone ought to be able to benefit from it. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem to compensate small landlords for their properties and ensure that they aren't harmed by any changes in policy.
We arent a homogenous group, but ill tell you my personal opinion.
I trust you when you say your aunt is not bad, but what she is doing is bad (and i am sure she is unaware of it). Those 3 to 5 houses she bought are 3 to 5 houses that families cant buy. A few bad side effects:
- It lowers the housing stock in the area, so artifucial scarcity brings the prices up artificially.
- It seperates families from their communities. When your children grow up and have famailies ofbtheir own, they cant afford to stay in the community and are forced to leave
- The families that do stay and are forced to rent arent building any equity for their children. In effect, it stunts upward mobility.
There are people who do want to rent, and people whoneed to rent, but that should happen in priperly dense apartment building designed specifically for that. When houses meant for families are snatched up to profit off of, it is parasitic.
I get it, they are just trying to survive. They are playing the game that exists. Thats why i personally dont belive that most landlords like you are describing are bad people. I think the ultinate issue is that out elected officials do nothing about it. It should be illegal, or have tax implications that discourage the practice.
There are people who do want to rent, and people whoneed to rent, but that should happen in priperly dense apartment building designed specifically for that.
Who are you to say what people should or shouldn’t rent. Should all renters be piled on top of each other in over packed buildings with 600 square feet to themselves? Why can’t I rent a 2000 square foot town home for my family so that they are safe while I save up to buy my own home?
And say I rent a townhome for 10 years, then buy my own townhome, then 10 years later I rent it out to someone else while I buy something bigger? What’s wrong with that.
I think what we all have a problem with is housing affordability and a lack of systematic focus by the government on eliminating poverty.
The issue isn’t some small time landlord with 5 condos, it’s the investment groups with 5000 condos which artificially juice the rents year after year.
It’s insulting to say that all of the poor people who cannot afford to buy a home should have to live in densely packed buildings.
Rent for single family properties is higher than the mortgage of that same property. In theory. So ideally no single family property should be rented as its purely a parasite relationship. Again, in theory.
The problem is that isn't always true in practice with today's market and rules. because if the previous owner has had their mortgage long enough, then it could be quite a lot less than a new mortgage. That makes a situation where rent is higher than their old mortgage (providing landlord profit), but cheaper than a new mortgage (providing a valid choice to a renter).
But many of us argue that the current situation is unnecessary and drives up overall market costs. Even when done by just small landlords, it all adds up because the system allows it to.
So its not so much telling you what to rent and what not to rent. its more that in a better system, you wouldnt ever choose to rent that way. Mortgages on small or attached single family homes would just be cheaper and affordable like they were in the past. And if you needed even less costs, renting would be the option in actual properties designed for it. Whether that is sardine packed 600 sqft, or not.
I dont think the apartments should be small, ive lived in apartments for most of my life. Msxing out square footage is also a shitty developer tactic, but thats another story
As a guy who rented out one house for a very fair price i can tell you I'm the devil.
Lol
The answer you receive will vary based on which political ideology you ask.
I will answer from the perspective of an anarchist.
Your Aunt and her Husband are not committing the greatest of evils, but in the grand scheme of things, they're a part of a bigger problem, one that they themselves would not even perceive, and in fact would have strong personal incentives not to grant legitimacy were it explained to them.
Anarchists, or libertarian socialists, are generally against the concept of private property in all forms. This is not to be confused with personal property, which are things you personally own and use, such as the house you live in, your car, your tools.
Private property is something you own to extract profit from simply by the act of owning it, and necessarily at the deprivation and exploitation of someone else.
By owning those townhomes that they themselves do not live in, they are able to exploit the absolute basic human requirement for shelter in an artificially restricted market, and thus acquire surplus value in a deal of unequal leverage.
You could argue they are justified due to offering below market rates, taking on the financial risk of owning and maintaining the property, and fronting the capital to own the investment.
But the issue is: their choice to become landlords is what in fact creates the conditions for which they can then offer solutions in order to claim moral justification.
For if we consider if landlordism were completely abolished, and people were only allowed to own homes they personally use, it would result in an insane amount of housing stock to flood the market, causing housing prices to plummet. This would in turn allow millions of lower income people to be able to afford a home and pay it off quickly, allowing them to actually build wealth for the first time instead of most of it going to pay off rent (remember, your aunt charging below market is the exception, not the norm).
Most humans would much rather pay off a small mortgage on a non-inflated home themselves, instead of paying off someone else's artifically inflated mortgage and then some.
But that's all assuming we have a housing market still. In an ideal Anarchist society, housing would be a human right, and every human would have access to basic shelter and necessities of life, like was enacted for a short time in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.
So anarchists want Basic from the Expanse pretty much?
Basic in the world of the Expanse provided people with a very basic apartment with a bed, table and a TV along with three nutritionally complete (not delicious) meals per day for free.
If you wanted anything more, you had to work or enlist.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I only read the first few chapters of the expanse, but I believe the world is still capitalist overall, yes? if so, that would make it more in line with perhaps the end goal of a social democrat, where there's a super strong welfare and social safety net, but still capital and big businesses.
The assumption from Anarchists is achieving that Social Democrat ideal is impossible under capitalism, as it would remove almost all of the leverage corporations have to exploit their workers, leaving little profit left for them, and thus inciting them to revolt, like they almost did during The Business Plot in response to FDR's new deal finally giving the working class some room to breathe.
(remember, your aunt charging below market is the exception, not the norm)
Isn't this definitionally true? The norm, by definition, is the market rate.
Yes, and charging below that would be a deviation from the norm.
It's complicated, for me personally having one or two extra properties you're providing a service, not everyone wants to buy a house at every moment, e.g. I recently moved to another city and wanted to live in a neighborhood for a while before buying something. The more you have, the more part of the problem you become, because when someone wants to buy somewhere they now can't because people own it for renting. Also, again personally, if the value of rent is higher than the value of the mortgage, then you're ripping people off, because you're essentially buying the house with their money while they can't buy a place of their own. As an example, I want to buy a place of my own, but every place here is so expensive because people buy them to rent, because the rent is higher than the mortgage so if you have the initial money buying a house is essentially free money, however rent is so high that getting the initial money is really hard and people are stuck with paying more to own nothing.
Except this logic only works if only a small percentage of homes are owned by landlords, but thats not the case because of the financial incentive. Say there are 100 people living in an area. Maybe 10 of them would prefer short term housing for whatever reason and dont want to own a house. 40 of them would love to own a house but cant, because 50 people all own 2 houses each. Now those 50 people can claim theyre 'providing a aervice' by making sure theres short term housing for those 10, but the people being forced to pay rent and never building equity aren't going to see it that way. Our society has many more people that would love to own a home than it does people who prefer to rent
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. 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
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.
Yes.
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.
Let's worry about that when it's actually a problem.
As a leftist landlord, we mean all of them.
If you make a profit for allowing another person shelter (particularly if you don't need that space for yourself and/or your own family), then you are a parasite.
A bit of a hyperbole, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say there is a house and no one can afford it but me. If I don't buy it and rent it, no one can live in it. What would be the right thing to do?
The market determines the price. If no one can afford it the price is too high.
Reduce the price of the house
If you didnt buy it in this scenario, then market pressure eventually pushes the proce down until someone is willing (and able) to buy it.
I take umbrage with the hypothetical itself. Do you believe that buying the property and renting it out is the only possible solution here?
The "right thing" would be to not have a situation like that in the first place where only one person (or one small group of people) can afford to own the roof over their head.
But, obviously, an option you're neglecting here, is letting people live in the property without paying rent. Nobody is forcing you to make a profit off people's basic needs for survival.
I lost my original comment I was typing as my device died so I’ll keep it short. Your aunt extracts money from people on the basis of owning private property (private property is property that is owned by an individual for non-personal use). She doesn’t earn the money through her own labour, she gets it by owning an asset that she herself has no use for and someone else needs and charges that person for using it. This is a parasitic relationship. Now to answer your question about if she is a bad person because of it, I would say not necessarily. The fact that landlords exist is a bad thing. We live in a system however where investment in private property (something inherently parasitic) is often the only way to retire. Every working Australian is required by law to invest a portion of their pay into an investment fund. This too is parasitic. That doesn’t however make every working Australian a bad person, they are just working within the system and doing what is required of them to live. Another thing to keep in mind is that for every house that is owned as an investment property, the price to buy a house goes up. By being a landlord, you make it harder for others to own a home.
My dad was a 'landlord' renting out the other three rooms of the house to people. He kept the rent a few hundred bwlow the market because all the rent money was icing on his cake, and he knew housing was hard to come by. Most renters liked him, but he was a poor judge of character and would often give the room to the first person that showed up, leading to drama, but mostly a good experience.
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.
Owning your place to live should be a right. Anyone who holds more housing stock than they personally need and who will only let it out if there's profit on their investment (because if it's an investment, then there is an expectation that the line must always go up, which is also very inflationary), tightens the market and makes it harder for other people to become a home owner.
The big difference between renting and paying of a mortgage, is that by paying off the mortgage, the home owner has build up equity and secured a financially more secure future. But if someone is too poor to get a mortgage to afford the inflated house prices (inflated because other people treat it like an investment), then in the current system they pay rent to pay off the mortgage/debt of their landlord and after the renter has paid off their landlord's mortgage, they'll still be poor and without any equity themselves.
It's a very antisocial system. And with landlords building up more and more equity on the backs of people who are unable to build up equity themselves, there's a good reason why landlords are often said to be parasitic.
You assume that everybody wants to own and that just isn't the case.
I assume that everyone who wants to own a home wants to own a home and many of those aren't able to. That's the current reality.
Edit: I reread what I said and I distinctly said that it should be "a right". Having a right to do something is not the same as having an obligation to do something. Imo home ownership should be a right for everyone, but that doesn't make it an obligation.
I'm 40 and have friends my age who rent because they don't want to own even though they can afford to. I'm not sure what percentage of renters are like them.
We can worry about that when there's a lack of places to rent and homelessness is down.
Making money on the back of someone else with little to no work of yours is parasitic. Having enough money at one point in life to become a parasite doesn't change anything.
Have you considered, on the other side of that coin, if you don't have that money to be a parasite for doing little to no work at some point in your life, you're a parasite because you have nothing to contribute that anybody wants?
Nobody needs to go without a place to live or be hungry and we can ALL fight to make sure that's the case, but don't be an entitled fucker in the crab bucket because you kinda suck at decision making.
EVERYONE deserves a place to live, something to eat, medical care, clothes to wear, etc etc, but let's not be delusional: some people are taking shit they in no way shape or form contributed to receiving. So maybe don't be we don't toss around words like "parasite" when you need a handout, yeah?
Public service can handle large scale renting situations, ensure that the lodgings are kept up to standard, and limit the ever increasing price of rent by not being profit-driven. Individual landlords that are out there making a profit on something that only gain value and usually requires minimal upkeep (that some don't even do) are parasites, plain and simple.
But the concept of public services acting for the well being of others is not well understood in some countries, I guess.
Rental property owners do not "make money off the backs" of anyone. It's about trading money for a service.
Why don't you ask them?
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.
Ideologies tend to sort people into a limited number of overly simplistic categories. This makes theorising easier but applying it to reality much harder.
Very few people could live in a capitalist system and remain pure. e.g. My pension fund is invested in the stock market so I very partially own thousands of companies. I've also purchased a small amount of shares in selected companies, a situation I had more agency in creating. Sometimes I subcontract work to other contractors who function as my temporary employees. And so on.
Is there an ethical way to try and ensure that I will have food, shelter and medical care as I age? In the US we can’t depend on the government safety net. Everyone isn’t as able in their 60’s and 70’s as they were in their 30’s and 40’s, so assuming that I’ll be able to work and make a reasonable income the rest of my life is wildly optimistic. Anyone working at a job for 30+ years shouldn’t be stressed about survival but that’s not reality. Putting money in a savings account at a credit union is good but I don’t think that will move the needle. Any decent pension or retirement plan is gonna put money in the stock market. Even with passive investing in index funds, you’re on of the stock holders that fucks like that UHC CEO was trying to appease. Given the state of the economy in the US today, buying and renting a duplex, triplex or small apartment building might be less evil than owning random stocks.
No.
I of course can't speak for anyone except myself, but for me, what your aunt is doing is what essentially capitalism is all about.
Its when those landlords get replaced by venture capital corporations and reits that it becomes a problem.
In your aunts case, the rent money stays local, contributes back to the local economy, etc...
In the case of venture capital and corporate ownership, the only goal is to increase a stock price for a corporation. None of that money gets returned to the local economy except for possibly hiring a local property management firm to handle things on the ground for them.
When capitalism remains about people, all of good. When corporations take the reins of ownership so their profit becomes the sole motive is when things go bad.
what your aunt is doing is what essentially capitalism is all about.
Both things can be true. Capitalism is inherently parasitic.
Capitalism is inherently parasitic
I fundamentally disagree with that.
Venture Capitalism is parasitic. But Capitalism itself is not at all. At it's heart, if we continue with the landlord analogy, let's say that you are renting a house from the OP's Aunt. She's paying the building insurance. She's paying the maintenance, (or in some good old fashioned cases doing it themselves). She's dealing with the paperwork involved in owning a home. Hell, in some cases you don't even have to mow your own lawn. So of course she's charging you rent. It's not a charity.
But if she's a private owner, than your rent stays with her. She uses what she needs to maintain the building and...yes...makes a profit that then gets spent in the local economy.
The only time there's an issue is when your rent is being sent to a corporation that may not even be in the same country as you, and that money leaves your local economy for good.
To use an anecdotal example, I've worked in my time for two different furniture stores in my town. One was a chain, and one was/is a family run operation from the beginning. And yes...that family is wildly successful; I'm not guessing millionaires, but close to it. And I don't begrudge them at all for that. Because it's family owned, they aren't forced to only care about a stock price or about profit. My boss would randomly come up to me, sometimes multiple times a year, clap me on the back and say "You're doing a good job, I'm going to add a buck an hour to your wage."
Because they can. Because for all intents and purposes, you've got a better chance to be treated like a human being when a corporation isn't in the way.
The chain furniture store would only give out raises when forced to by government mandated cost of living increases, because anything more would cause the stock price to go down.
The heart of capitalism is my first example. The reality of capitalism is my second unfortunately. But that's not the fault of capitalism itself, it's the lack of government oversight protecting us from predatory corporations.
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.
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.
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.
Found the landlord.
Yes, it is landlords' fault for zoning laws. Yes landlords are to blame (not solely) for the great recession. Yes, landlords are responsible for the demand for housing outstripping supply.
Landlords are parasites, not middlemen. 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 to corrupt the legal and political systems of the world.
Dont forget how the secondary real estate market drove prices up and as been doing so since the 70s
Landlords being parasites isn't even a leftist sentiment, it's common sense. Here's Adam Smith:
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
They are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind"
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.
I'd say the only ethical way to be a residential landlord is if you are renting out the only house you own because you aren't in a position to use it as a house - say you've brought a house, but had to move somewhere for a few years for work and intend to move back at some point.
The moment you own 2 houses, you are profiting from a system that only works because of inelastic demand - you could have put your money into the stock market and made it do something productive, but instead you are collecting rent, making it harder for others to meet their own basic needs, and profiting from a speculative bubble
What about families that need a place but don't want to buy? Like if I'm getting a job in a new area and needed to move but know I'll be leaving in 1-5 years. I wouldn't want to deal with the paperwork. I wouldn't be mad to rent a house.
Ideally houses that aren't used by anyone would be cared for collectively, and would be free for anyone to use for as much time as they need it.
That assumes that housing is a human right, and that adequate housing exists with a small surplus in most societies (and considering there are more empty homes than there are homeless in the US right now, that would be a feasible thing to achieve were capitalism not creating intense conflicts of interests).
What's the difference between profiting from stocks or profiting from rent? Either way, I'm increasing my spending power
Your stocks do not deprive anyone else of an essential human need, while owning and renting out a house you do not personally use artificially deprives another of buying that house, which further raises housing prices, making an essential human need, an investment vehicle.
Using a different analogy, if you lived in an area with scarce water resources, but happened to purchase land with a particularly abundant spring, you could then profit handsomely by selling that water to the thirsty at an extremely high rate, exploiting the human need for water, and depriving those who cannot afford it in exchange for your own enrichment.
Putting money in the stock market isn’t making it do something productive. It’s not like your average person is able to participate in IPOs and fund some new venture. If I buy shares of company, the company already got the money years ago; I’m just speculating that someone else will want to buy my shares for more in the future. And then if I buy stock in Shell Oil or United Healthcare, that’s pretty evil. But I also don’t have the time and skills to actively manage a portfolio to meet some bare minimum ethical standards.
I'm just speculating that someone else will want to buy
No, not entirely. Lots of companies pay dividends. Buy stock in those, and you're speculating that they'll continue to be profitable enough to pay dividends.
don't have the time and skills
I'm not sure I can agree on this point, either. The time, maybe. The skill? If you're skilled enough to use Lemmy, you're skilled enough to set up a brokerage account and click "buy" on whichever companies meet your criteria. It's not actually any more complicated than online banking IMO.
Treating a basic human need as an investment is, and has always been, abhorrent. It has royally fucked over economics as a whole by making people's retirement funds dependent on housing costs going up infinitely.
On the other hand, rented homes has lots of demand, and that is only possible if someone else owns it.
Landslords provides a service that people need. Although not all landlords does it well.
The problem in Ireland is when big American moguls go and buy up properties in Dublin to rent out en masse, effectively just sucking money out of the country. We always need people to lend out property on rent free cheaper than a mortgage. Landlords are vital for those who cannot afford a mortgage. But these landlords are the smaller ones - like your aunt.
Ideally as well economically, the tenants should be people who are starting off or not intending to live permanently - like holidaymakers or students
both are parasites.
if you have one for any longer than a year or two after moving from your rental property to your current home, yeah that's parasitic. if you don't need it sell it and give someone a chance to buy instead of rent.
Renting allows those without the needed capital to access a resource.
Backing out from that, one should question why shelter is a resource that someone cannot access on a minimum wage salary.
So, fundamentally, landlording isn't inherently evil, but it's presentation in the system is inherently corrupting. As in, at any moment that someone retains an excess of shelter they do not need, and instead rent it out, they are constraining the market for their own gain, at the detriment of others who in need shelter.
Next consider degrees of influence: large corporations buy up tons of units and exert inordinate power on the system. They systemically unbalance the purchasing ability of normal folk, due to process or sheer wealth. Fine, that's the high water of corruption. From there it's only shades of difference down to the mom and pop landlord. It's up to you to decide where they land on the scale.
Depends on the person. There are people that mean every landlord. Their reasoning isn't as bad as you might think either. The main issues are that they still exert control over property, a form of private governance; they're denying the same financial stability through housing equity to another family; and they can artificially raise the price of housing.
That happens at every level of being a landlord. Of course the systemic problems only get worse as the number of owned or managed units goes up.
Most people are thinking about the giant corporations holding thousands of units.
I can see the evil in what these large corporations are doing but I have rented in the past when I was neither prepared for the burden of home ownership nor planning to stay in that location for a long time. If I couldn't have rented what would I have done? I would have been essentially FORCED into owning a home or what, living in the streets? And what if you wish to move but no one wants to buy your house? More you are forced to stay out turn evil by buying two houses.
It's ok to love your aunt. She didn't make the rules she's just living by them. If there's a problem with the system, start at the top.
Exactly, buying and selling homes is a lot more time-consuming than ending and starting a lease. Also as an owner you have responsibility to declare/disclose any major problems to the buyer. If you're just moving out of a rental you may never even meet the next tenant. Rentals are always going to be a necessity, and people like your aunt are often the nicest people to rent from.
I also know at least one person who prefers to rent an apartment because he doesn't want to mow the lawn or fix a faucet. He just called the superintendent.
A couple of a house as an investment is already a lot, and way more than the average person can afford. If you go from a leftist perspective, the fact that they make money without workings sucks. These people who own a couple of house for investment are also the one complaining about "public retirement system is too expensive, so we should cut-down retirement benefit for everyone"
More seriously, I understand that you want to play by the rule in today's capitalist world. The problem is that in many places the rule are skewed. In some countries income from rent are less taxed than income from work, and the power-balance between tenant and landlord is favouring the landlord (and people see implementing stuff like rent-control and shorter notice for tenant as leftists policies). While it's fun to say eat the rich including the landlord, you need to build a reasonable political program if you want to stand a chance.
Another big issue, is the lack of affordable rental properties managed by the government/municipality. It's basically massively promoting either homelessness or bad housing
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.
I would say your aunt sounds like she found a way to try and make a living. You can certainly take issue with the system but she didn't make it. She sounds decent and not unlike my parents who bought some apartments in the early 2000s. What apparently people somehow don't realize, is that when you're not a corporation or running rental property like a huge dickhead, it's actually a lot of work to either pay others to do or to do yourself. The situation my parents were in was the bluest of collar jobs.
My mom cleaning toilets and filthy refrigerators, my dad dropping everything or getting out of bed to go fix someone's heat. This image that apparently 80% of commenters here have that they're just laying back collecting easy money couldn't have been further from the truth. They were working their ass off to make any money because they couldn't afford to hire most tasks.
They rented to people for under the market rate, they let old people stay over a year without paying. They drove significant drives to pick up rent checks from weirdos who couldn't handle mailing payments for some reason. The horror stories of how people abused their kindness and trashed their apartments are endless. SO many difficult tenants, and hundreds of thousands of back breaking hours later, they sold the apartments and made a little money. I will easily retire with more money than they made by writing software from the comfort of my home. Next to my parents' struggle with this, my life is incredibly easy.
But somehow, to a lot of lemmings, my work is honest and my parents are exploitative leeches who are morally bankrupt for their choice to take all that shit on (btw we have said nothing about the risk of enormous unexpected expenses or things like being sued by a tenant faking an injury and arguing in court it was your fault).
Is your aunt a parasite? sounds like she absolutely isn't. I'd say anyone willing to read what you wrote here and say she is, is probably an out of touch asshole whose opinion shouldn't be valued. But that may just be because I have the 20 years of watching my parents struggle to do that job and it wasn't easy for them except those few elusive weeks a year that somehow no apartments had anything break and no one moved. That entire 20 years they were afraid to even go on vacation because someone might have a water heater stop working or something.
Of course many would say "why wouldn't they just hire those maintenance items taken care of?!" I mean yeah of course, and I wasn't privy to their financial details all those years but it always sounded like they were only able to make money because they did most everything themselves. My parents were the ones exploited. By tenants being shitty and taking advantage sometimes, by the sellers, but most of all, by capitalism. They had to trade their lives for money, and nothing about it was easy. Anyone looking at the situation and unable to see that it was hard just honestly has no empathy at all.
This thread was a disappointing read. I have seen the spectrum, and corporate fuckhead landlords are complete scum. Honest, hardworking people who treat their tenants well are NOT, and anyone who tries to erase that nuance just wants to feel superior and probably should seek therapy (even more so than your average person -- we all need it).
If they are not charging rent for a year because they are letting an old widow live there, thrn thry are running a charity, they are not acting as a land lord.
It sounds like your parents were less of landlords and more of providing. A normal landlord is absolutely charging enough to cover calling someone out and evicting people who cannot or will not pay.
This sort of landlord apologia isn't necessary and is actually harmful to the reputation of landlords like your parents, the OP's aunt, and their beneficiaries. You even managed to sneak some resentment towards tenants in there. Maybe after expenses the rental income was disappointing to them sometimes, but at the end of the day your parents owned other people's homes. Just be conscious of your station and have some quiet dignity about it.
I'd say even your aunt is included in that. Don't worry though, my mom is on the same list. They're extracting wealth from someone else's labor.
My grandfather was a landlord back in the 80s-90s. He owned several small homes and duplexes in a big city, and he did all the maintenance and upkeep on them himself. I saw him work his ass off, how would his tenants paying him rent not be compensating him for his labor?
I dunno about pricing back then but the issue is the amount of wealth that can be generated from a situation like that.
Like, hypothetically, let's split your grandfather into two people. A landlord, and a maintenance guy hired to maintain those properties, getting paid a fair wage.
Would the landlord make money, after paying a mortgage and his maintenance man?
If the answer is no, then becoming a landlord isn't financially beneficial, and your grandfather could've just been a handyman, and made a steadier income, his money not directly dependent on whether or not someone paid rent.
If the answer is yes, then your grandfather made more money than his labor was worth. While he earned money doing labor, the real issue is the money he earned by doing nothing. It's likely your grandfather made quite a bit more money than his labor was worth, given the fact that property management companies live entirely off of the price difference from labor put into housing and the price they can charge.
Landlords are middlemen. They're used car salesman for houses. Are there landlords that aren't shitty? Yeah. My last landlord was awesome, he actually sold me the house I was renting, when I told him I was gonna buy a house and start my family. He was nice, reasonable, all those things. The total rent at the time (pre-covid, so a lot better than now, and split among 6 people) was 2250$, and my mortgage worked out to be 900$.
Did your grandfather put effort in? Yes. Did he make money doing nothing? Also yes, the difference between what his labor was worth and what he got paid.
That margin didn't come from his labor or his smart investments, it came from other people trying to live, and potentially created hardships. If his tenants could've paid for the actual cost of housing instead of whatever your grandfather charged, that might mean another kid got to go to college, a father getting to retire earlier, a family that could've worked 1 job instead of 2.
Your grandfather is probably fine, he likely understood hardships and acted like a human being, but he still belonged to a class of people that are better off if they find ways to minimize the amount of money other people have. Some people judge others for taking what they don't need.
It's not a coherent argument, people just don't like paying rent so they lash out in frustration. If you can't own you have to rent, if you have to rent you have to rent from someone. It's just a fact of life. Just like food is also a requirement to live and you need to pay someone for that too if you're not self sufficient. There's good people selling food and bad people selling food. It would be dumb to consider all food merchants evil in principle just as it's dumb to consider all landlords evil in principle.
I honestly feel like when this issue comes up, everyone saying stuff like this is an alien. Do you seriously not know how much work maintaining property is? You say it's exploiting someone else's labor as though the several times a year every household needs work is, what, either worthless, unmentionable, or something people are owed by divine right? My parents owned some apartments and sound similar to OPs aunt. If anything, they were exploited by the people they bought them from (that aspect is a long story).
They charged people under market rate, went out of their way all the time to be kind to people by doing things like driving half an hour to personally come pick up rent payments, letting people stay for a year without paying rent since they felt bad for them, went out to fix maintenance issues in the middle of the night, and the list goes on and on. They treated people better than any other landlord and worked their absolute asses off to make a profit (some years they took losses). It was only after a 20 year struggle, full of manual labor and dealing with difficult tenants, that they were able to sell the apartments and be free from the stress and be free of all of that manual labor. They basically cleaned toilets and replaced filthy carpet for people who would spit in their face for evicting them after a year of non payment.
According to you and this thread, the people doing the spitting weren't morally bad or the lazy ones. Nope, it was my parents.
The only landlords I see that add any positive value to the world are those who run and maintain apartment complexes. If you own multiple single family homes to rent them out or hoard parcels of land just to try and sell for a higher price: you're a parasite.
Alternatively, those apartment complexes could be cooperatively owned, cutting out the landlord without any loss.
big facts, also if you live in a densely populated area there may be one of these cooperative communities near you! you could in fact be the change you want to see in the world 💃
What about condos? Is there something that prevents converting all apartment buildings and having owner-occupants instead of tenants?
Let’s say the city proposes a bill to build public housing apartments next to your aunt’s houses. This will guarantee reducing the rent and potential tenants your aunt collects. Now, because your aunt took so much loan from the bank and can’t pay it back, they will have to foreclose on the houses. Do they vote against the bill? You bet your ass they will.
Those buying up properties which prevent people from getting on the property ladder, not owning a couple. I'm left-wing; I bought land, built a small house (small as in the size of a one-bed apartment), current rent it out which pays for my rent in another place. The landlords I've had over the past few years have been great, they are also living in the same place they rent out, those people are good.
I have several friends who could not possibly afford to own a home without renting out a room. I was in that situation myself for many years, having barely scraped together enough to buy the property for my farm. I mean without renting out a room I wouldn't have been able to eat, much less pay the mortgage.
But nope, apparently this makes us parasites judging from all the comments here, like this one:
"If you make a profit for allowing another person shelter (particularly if you don’t need that space for yourself and/or your own family), then you are a parasite."
Obviously there is some ambiguity around the word "profit" in this context. Owning land or a house is almost always "profit" but that "profit" isn't usually realizable except over very long time scales.
But hey, nuance I guess.
I actually have a related question that I'm curious to hear takes on. I'm a leftist, and I own a 1-bed apartment where two good friends of mine rent the apartment right next door. Their landlord is planning to sell next year, and they don't have the ability to buy it. So depending on who does buy the place, my friends could be out of a home. My sister and I could combine finances to buy their unit (with a mortgage), and ensure that my friends could stay where they are. This would be a bit of a financial burden but doable, and we would need to charge rent to pay back the mortgage.
Would this be a net good or a net evil? I feel very conflicted about potentially being a landlord (especially for friends) but also don't want them to need to move.
If you take out a loan to purchase the apartment, then have your friends pay just enough rent to pay off the loan without attempting to profit yourself (perhaps a small amount extra to cover any recorded time spent in administration responsibilities, for a reasonable hourly rate). After the nortgage is paid off, you could then give them the deed. That would not be immoral at all, and would, IMHO, be a net good, as you'd be rejecting the profit incentive and giving your friends a very rare opportunity.
Only do this if you have the means to pay that mortgage yourself, imo.
You and your sister are taking all of the risk here. Your friends could lose their job or simply just move after a short time and then you are on the hook to find more tenets. I suppose you could just sell it if they move but you may lose money.
You would be a great friend to do that for them so that you could essentially lock them into a fixed rent for many years, but understand that it is not without risk.
Wouldn't you be benefiting from your friends? It's ok for a little bit, but if they live there permanently then they will pay off your mortgage and have nothing to show for it themselves. That sort of thing might build resentment long term. Though in the short term you both benefit.
But as I'm sure you're aware, any money issues may sour the relationship. Even just having a formal contract with exchange of money could change the dynamic drastically.
The ethical option would be to give the deed to the friends after the mortgage is paid off.
We mean all of them. Being a landlord is racketeering other people's hard earned money for the human right of being housed, they're all parasites that grabbed the housing market to a point nobody else can buy anything to actually live in.
An aside, but the "parasite" thing is not really a leftist talking point. We stole it from Adam fucking Smith, and his point about it is that extracting value from something on the basis of just, like, owning something that exists with or without you is inherently shitty personally, and economically.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce" - Adam Smith
Just look it up. He crashes out on rentiers all the time.
Also, corporate land lords are a much smaller part of the problem than most people suggest. Like, yes corporate land lords suck, but most land lords are not corporate landlords. It's more complex than that. Source. So, Yes. Small "Mom and Pop" landlords are bad, and there is a moral dimension to even the people you personally know who own more than one home, and there will continue to be as long as there are others who do not have a house.
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.
There are lots of kinds of “leftisms” with lots of different attitudes toward landlords—but to take Georgism as a concrete example that exclusively focuses on land ownership:
Georgists would say that the portion of the rent equal to the market rent of the unimproved lot—including the value generated by the presence of the surrounding community and infrastructure—should go back to the community rather than the landlord, but the portion of the rent contributed solely by the presence of buildings and other improvements should go to the owner of the improvements.
Imo, what your aunt is doing is okay as long as she doesnt start hoarding more and more houses and acts fairly. There is some value in not having to deal with problems that come with owning apartment but uncertainty of the world burns that value away easily. As landlord you have a duty to take care of your tenants and if you cant do that then you shouldnt be allowed to own property like that.
Sorry, parasite.
Only way i think it’s acceptable is one house per person, or renting out property you live at.
If your aunts partner has a place, unused, then sure rent it.
If your aunts property has another home on it then sure rent it.
They mean anyone with more stuff than they have.
Lol
There is no exception to stealing housing from other people.
If you rent to house mates, is that stealing? Do you need to have joint ownership with everyone?
I don't think rentals should exist. You could literally put a house anywhere a couple hundred years ago, and all you needed to do was build it. Now we have artificially stunted the supply of housing to make good little worker bees our of everyone. The threat of homelessness and starvation is a fantastic motivator to not rock the boat in society.
It would vary depending on who's saying it.
Lots of perfectly nice, pleasant, and moral people do jobs that make the world a worst place because of the circumstances they find themselves in. I would separate out how you treat and judge people, from the problematic systems that they might operate in.
But unless your aunt is only charging them what it costs her to operate the buildings + a reasonable hourly wage for the actual time she spends on the house every year, then yeah it's immoral.
If she puts in 10 hours a month and charges rent that is equal to her costs (not the property / mortgage costs, but just the ongoing operating and maintenance costs) + 120hrs of her time per year x ~$25/hr (or whatever wage is livable in your area) then it's fair, but realistically, assuming $6000 of property taxes, that would mean she would be charging ~$800 / month for that town home, and I'm guessing she's charging a lot more. In effect, that means that she is making renters pay for her mortgages while she's not working, and at the end of the day she will end up a multimillionaire off of her tenants' hard work.
On top of the fact that there are undoubtedly renters who would want to buy those townhomes but can't afford to only because landlords have bought up a limited supply and driven up prices.
By your logic, what happens when the roof needs to be replaced and it costs $15,000 to do that? The rent goes up by $15,000 that year? That's ridiculous.
This is why rent is higher than a particular year's costs -- it includes capital costs over a period of time. $15,000 over 15 years is $1,000/year or about $84/mo. Add that to the cost of landscaping, utilities, turnover costs, plus a wage for the owner. Why is the wage $25/hour? Why not $100/hour? It's a skilled job.
By your logic, what happens when the roof needs to be replaced and it costs $15,000 to do that? The rent goes up by $15,000 that year? That's ridiculous.
This is why rent is higher than a particular year's costs -- it includes capital costs over a period of time. $15,000 over 15 years is $1,000/year or about $84/mo.
I was including predictable ongoing building maintenance costs spread over time as part of operating costs.
Add that to the cost of landscaping, utilities, turnover costs, plus a wage for the owner. Why is the wage $25/hour? Why not $100/hour? It's a skilled job.
Lmao, no it's not. It does not require a degree or any kind of specialized training. And tell me what landlord actually spend 10 hours per month working on an individual property, every month. If you want to nitpick the example we should lower that to probably 1.
If you do it for side money, you're only accomplishing that by fucking someone else over. Otherwise you wouldn't make money.
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.
if the rents > mortgage, or youre doing some mostly non-existant rent to own plan, then parasite. Fundamentally speaking, its pretty fucked up that fundamental basic needs are treated as investments. At least with food, theres virtually always alternatives to get something cheaper, but that doesnt exist with some of the other forms of basic needs, and shelter is arguably the most important one of them.
The stock market was meant to be the location where people put money into investment. it's just housing got lucrative that parasites decided to pool their money into that instead of business. A consumer has the power to refuse to fund a specific business, they have very little control over keeping a roof over their heads, which is a huge problem.
You can be less of a leech against people by of course, like you mention, charging less, but using property as an investment is part of the reason why the system is fucked to begin with.
For example, even if you're charging less for rent vs other players, landlords are still likely voting against the public favor in terms of local measures in order to get places cheaper, in order to protect their "investment". It's a system designed to keep some people in while keeping others out.
Based on the amount of vitriol I've personally received on this site for renting one property while I am temporarily relocated to attend school, the answer is yes.
For some reason everyone views being a landlord as easy money. But in reality returns on investment are worse than the stock market for being the landlord of a single family home.
Edit: Isn't it funny how the critics below didn't even ask questions about a specific situation where it does make sense to rent out an owned home? Instead of trying to understand why someone might make the choice they make, they sling insults and make wide sweeping assumptions to reinforce their skewed world view. Honestly it's this shit that's why Trump won. Leftists can't see the forest for the trees and are willing to engage in ever escalating purity tests that only alienate other sympathetic voters to leftist causes.
I worked hard to be able to own my own house. Saved money and took out a loan. I never received a penny from my parents or some inheritance from a family member that died. A greater return on investment can absolutely be made by investing in the SP500, returns on investment for single family homes will be worse. The SP500 can be expected to rise an average of 10% per year. A single family home on the other hand will increase by 4.3% per year. With interest rates being higher than that level appreciation, there is effectively no profit from the leverage that can be typically seen by borrowing money. Renting is typically 37% cheaper than buying on a month-to-month basis. Owners don't expect to Break-even on a home until after 5-10 years of ownership (depending on the city). Over 2/3 the cost of a mortgage go towards loan interest and taxes. Now what does a house get you then if there are all these downsides? Freedom. Freedom to decorate how you choose. To remodel, to build a deck, install Ethernet throughout the house, add an extension. But most of all, it gives long-term stability. After that 5 year period where a homeowner is taking a loss because of buying, they are finally ahead financially of a renter. This is why it doesn't make sense to sell a home due to short-term circumstances, because owning a home is inherently a long-term benefit. Especially when one loses 10% of the the value of a home selling it when it would take 3 years for the home to even grow to the point where that cost is covered by increases in home value, which is not even remotely guaranteed, as evidenced by home values only increasing 0.12% after falling by 5% the previous year.
For some reason everyone views being a landlord as easy money. But in reality returns on investment are worse than the stock market for being the landlord of a single family home.
Then sell it, and put your money into the market. Now you're no longer a parasite, and you're making more money. Win/Win.
If that's not a reasonable option, then what are you not counting in the entire return on your investment?
Edit: in response to your lengthy edit, I will note that you have expanded your "return" to include more than just the financial benefits. I will focus on one thing:
Now what does a house get you then if there are all these downsides? Freedom.
Correct. You are gaining freedom, literally at the expense of a tenant. That is exactly what we are talking about when we say that landlording is parasitical. They are buying your "freedom" rather than their own.
In order for there to be any rental property at all, someone has to own it and be the landlord. Unless they think it should be the state. Or unless they think that everyone should always own the property where they live.
I didn't think there is much of a logical argument for having no landlords whatsoever.
Who owns a hotel? Isn't that just another type of landlord?
In order for there to be any rental property at all, someone has to own it and be the landlord.
I mean yes, but all that means is there shouldn't be rental properties
Unless they think it should be the state.
You mean ppl think that housing is a human right that should be provided for and administer by "We the People" for "We the People".
I didn’t think there is much of a logical argument for having no landlords whatsoever.
What other kind of Lords do you think there isn't a logical argument against?
Who owns a hotel? Isn’t that just another type of landlord?
Surely you understand the difference between a hotel and a home. They are prima facie not the same thing. Also, we call the owners of hotels...owners. The same thing we call owners of homes. Landlords are not the same thing.
<edit to fix markup>
Housing being a human right has nothing to do with getting rid of rental properties. If anything, having to buy a house is a lot bigger barrier to housing than rent.
What we need is rent to be affordable, and landlords to do their job, i.e. maintain and fix the apartments. There are many ways to achieve this: government owned housing, legal regulation, tenant unions etc. Everybody buing a house or an apartment is not one of them.
difference between a hotel and a home. They are prima facie not the same thing
Hey, not so fast. It's easy to say that glibly, but the lines get kinda blurry when you consider long-term hotel stays and short-term rentals. What's really the key difference between the apartment and the hotel when you're staying at the former for a week at a time or the latter for a 3-month stint?
I'm not saying the Venn diagram is a circle, mind you, just that there's definitely some overlap.
In an ideal world maybe renting homes would be something that isn't parasitic. But the world isn't ideal, and you end up with housing as investment, which means housing shortages, housing inflation, and housing restrictions.
Yeah, the big landlords are worse, but even the small ones are almost always going to be sucking the blood of their tenants beside because it's a losing proposition from the get-go. Think about it for a second. If your relatives bought those houses as an investment, no matter how nice they are about it, no matter how "fair" their rents, they're part of a bad and broken system, they're profiting off of other people's need for a basic, fundamental thing that can't be escaped.
It isn't like someone that has a big house and rents out a room, which is still kinda parasitic on the far left scale of things because it means they don't need that house in the first place, but let's be fucking real and admit that nobody should be forced to move just because their kids left for college or whatever, and now there's a spare room. The further left you go, the crazier that kind of asinine thing gets, but extremes are gonna extreme, ya dig?
But once you're consolidating property for the sole purpose of charging other people to live there? Yeah, landlords, no matter how nice they may be, are fucking over everyone.
It's like ACAB. Yeah, we all know that some individual police officers are probably not actively fucking people over and such, but they're part of the system, and if they aren't actively working against that system, they're part of the problem too.
Your relatives probably are decent folks that are just trying to get ahead in a capitalist world where that kind of investment is stable and effective. And I can't hate, nor abide hate towards, people that are really just doing the best they can. But they're still parasitic. A medical leech is no less a parasite because it happens to pull a clot out. A mosquito is no less a parasite because it's just trying to make babies. The comparison isn't exactly 1:1 there, but you get me, right?
I don't waste my hate on people like your relatives, I save it for predatory companies until and unless the small fry are assholes alongside being parasites.
But you can't genuinely believe in the more common "left"ideologies without recognizing the flaws of capitalism. When you look at those flaws, you begin to realize that it really doesn't matter what scale things start at, it always gets worse.
Along those lines, let's say your relatives are fucking saints. They do everything right by their tenants, only making enough profit to ensure their older days are safe.
Then they die, as we all will.
Someone inherits those houses. Again, even if they're saints, they didn't do a damn thing to build those homes, they took no risks, did none of the work. So, even if they sell them and abandon being a landlord, they're profiting off of all those years of rent payed in. And if they don't? Do they just run those few places as a landlord? Just continuing to profit off of others, they aren't worse than what came before, but they aren't better
But, at some point, you've got these homes owned by some great-great-great-whatever, and why? At what point is that not parasitic, even when everyone along the line does nothing other than be landlords? And what happens when you run into someone inheriting that isn't a saint. They either expand the empire, or go slum lord, or start abrogating their responsibilities. And you end up with the same kind of situation as the worst landlords.
I'm not saying there aren't benefits to renting as a renter, there are. But when the housing is an investment, rinse benefits start disappearing fast because that's how it works. At some point, to realize that investment, either rent goes up, or the place gets sold at a profit, which sends rent up. Housing as investment is inherently parasitic, no matter how good the parasites are to their host
I hope these comments make it clear to you that there's never any off ramp for the "eat the rich" ideology. Once they've eaten the very rich, they go after the next cohort, and the next. It's about pulling everyone down to the lowest level. We have repeatedly demonstrated this many times in many countries over the last century. It always ends in many deaths and fascism. The solution to that is free association, free commerce, and democracy. Individual liberty has plenty of drawbacks, but it's far better than all of the alternatives we have tried.
oh I'm next. My family owns stores and apartments in three cities.
I'm next. I'm next. I'm next. I'm next.
You sound delicious
The off-ramp for "eat The Rich" is normal police and judiciary justice. People are only going to be desperate for so long. Eventually it won't make sense to be a vigilante in this situation.
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.
You asking wether people making blanket statements have any nuance in their views?
In the most cases I'd say no.
This also goes for owning a home bigger than you need. A single person in a three bedroom house just because they have the money deprives families from getting housing at affordable prices. Lifestyle inflation consumes valid and useful housing that could be used for the un~housed.
Any property left vacant can be claimed by squatters rights and in some places that can start as soon as 28 days. It's going to be state by state but if there is an extra home you see vacant you can just start living in it and once you hit a certain duration of stay it could be yours.
Well done OP
Ownership itself is not the issue per se but how landlords behave as a class of people is the issue.
They are able to obtain preferential treatment from the state, the front run everything, when market collapses they will walk away.
The property will essentially get gutted over time and turned into a slam unless it is elite.
That's why they are called parasites. They got a lot of class solidarity but say something about a renters coop and see how they react lol
Leftists don't say that, advocates for the Chinese Dictatorship say that.
I'm in a ton of leftist circles and I can confirm we absolutely say that
According to the lefties, everything should be communal property, and you should be happy for a chunk of bread and two eggs a day.
Why bother what those clowns have to say.
Edit: Thanks for this post by the way, already extended my blocklist by 10+ users.
They mean everyone. It's inconceivable that anyone would keep any wealth for themselves or their children. To .ml leftists your aunt is the same as T swift and there is no tasteful away to ever possibly have a better situation than they have.
But.
Fuckem :)
Bring me your downvotes.
Nobody needs to be a billionaire, but that's a tax and government problem. Nobody needs to starve, see above. ALSO, stupid people and smart people exist, and sometimes it's YOUR FAULT for being on the dumb end of the stick.
I think a lot of far leftists are relatively poor and would change their tune as soon as they earned a lot of money. When you experience success it becomes a lot harder to excuse or sympathize with the people asking for handouts. Success is difficult. Yes, a lot of luck is involved and successful people do tend to give themselves too much credit, but it still doesn’t happen without a lot of effort from one ambitious individual. When you know you’ve built an empire, it’s a tall order being asked to give it up.
Maybe.
My dad always told me when I was younger that when I grew up and had more money I'd be republican. Something along the lines of that saying that says young people who aren't lefties have no hearts and older people who aren't righties have no brains.
I wouldn't say I have a LOT of money, but I'm a single digit percenter in my state. I'm happy to give and I often do. And I'm involved in the community and local politics to hopefully leave things better than I found them. I think you are right that many people might become unprincipled and change their tunes, but I also think there are many people in my shoes who want to help who get rage spit on by people who aren't as fortunate. It is super dissonant to me.
Sure, don't be a leech and profit off of the suffering of others. ALSO don't be an ungrateful dickbag when I'm willing to offer you something I have, you need, and there's no reason outside basic human decency I should give it to you.
All landlords are parasites? Fuck off, I'm gonna put my money where it is most likely to hang out until my kids need it or the country explodes. Then I'll be happy to share around the remainder.
I think it depends. If your mortgage payment is $1000 and you're renting the space for $500 then you and your tenant are both sharing the financial burden, and I don't really see it as parasitism like lots of other people.
If you're renting for $1,200 then yeah everyone is going to hate you, no matter how few tenants you have. Even more so if that's your only source of income. Why should someone else be living your paycheck to your paycheck?
"Leftists"
Hmmm....
Every person who gets money without working for it is a parasite.
There are good parasites, like kids, students or people that cannot work for medical reasons.
The rest are various levels of bad parasites, some worse than others, but all bad.
What about the stock market? Are people with 401ks parasites?
Are they working and producing goods and services for other people for that value?
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.
So you pay late and complain that the landlord insists on his part of the contract? That's delusional.
I would agree if I was delinquent and didn't notify them. I have been very verbose and upfront with my situation which is required in the contract. I thought I had good report with them and this is the first month i have been late. They have decided to serve a legal notice for a first time offense past the period stated in the contract which I think is overkill but that just might be a delusional opinion.
The only exceptions I can think of are people renting out the other side of their two family house, people living outside their country for a few years, or farmers renting out houses that were already in their property.
None of these started as investments, but rather unique circumstances. I have some queer friends who are moving out of the country for a few years because of Trump, but don't want to commit to immigration quite yet.
Encourage your friends to commit to leaving if they have the means to do so. Within your friends' lifetimes, the USA will never get better than it is right now (and overall it's unprecedentedly bad right now).
To OP's question: I don't really consider their aunt's ownership of a few houses to be a practical problem, and she is generally not who I am referring to when I say that landlords are terrible parasites, unless she overcharges (and no, I don't mean above market rate) or treat the tenants with disrespect. She was told her whole life that investing in real estate is a smart thing to do and provides financial security.
The problem is with lack of regulations, such as how many buildings someone is allowed to own, corporate ownership, rent prices...things like that.
My friends don't need encouragement and are grown adults. I don't tell other people how to live.
Even if they don't end up coming back, having a bit of passive income from renting out their house will help the with the move.
Edit: when I said they don't need encouragement, I meant that they're already fully committed to leaving. Not that I'm disagreeing with their actions.
Radical leftists don't understand that we all benefit from labor, capital, and profit and that they are all morally good.
Go invest in nice cars, miniatures, god damn funko pops or stamps.
Not in roofs that belong over peoples heads. People need them, you don’t. It’s that fucking simple.
They got no cap rate... How are they supposed to rent seek.
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.
It's literally propaganda straight out of the Chinese Communist Party's playbook, and useful idiots repeat it for them.
Be careful of joining in on overly-broad generalizations.
Perhaps, but doesn't the US history of hobos, homeless, company towns, and housing crisis mean...regardless of how you feel about the various flavors of socialism/communism, that the criticism is correct even if you don't like the solution?
you are aware that the KMT who opposed the CCPs land grab also chose an anti-profit driven land distrubition model through the Equalization of Land Rights as well right. As mentioned before, KMT were Georgism focused, and all profit should go back to the community, and any profit the owner gets is meant to go back to the building or land for improvements, none for profit. There is an effective 100% tax on any profit of land trade.