Mao was right about many things. But he was most right about Landlords.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
10 points (81.2% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9747 readers
253 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What do families do, that only want or need to live in a place or area for like a year or so? Buy a house, pay thousands in closing costs and inspections, lose several thousand to realtors, and then have to go through the trouble of trying to sell the place a year later?
We very much need landlords. What's screwing everything up is corpos doing it as a business or individuals with like 20 homes instead of one or two. Renting a house is a viable need for some people and it would actually suck if it was an option that didn't exist at all.
There's no reason that local governments can't do this job, there's no need for middle men leaching money.
But you could replace just about any product with that statement.
Now, you’re getting it…
I love the theory of a really effective government that can produce things that are consistently better than private corporations. But that's just never been my experience. In fact, it feels like the bigger a government gets the worst it operates. So how would you imagine a government that produces all the products and services for a society better than a free market?
Just look at most developed countries in Europe and you will find government operated services that are much better than what the free market came up with the in the US. Namely health services and transportation for instance. Postal services as well.
I just did a week long trip in the USA and all the National Parks were a joy to visit. I actually thought about and commented that it would be a totally different experience, read worse, if those things were privatized.
Honestly the whole argument that private entities are run better is bullshit. There’s nothing stopping any government from hiring the same managers and you just eliminated a certain % that would be the middle men. And now the main objective isn’t profit at all costs, so it will very easily be a better service for us, the consumers.
The only reason costs of houses are so high in the first place is because they are lucrative investment objects, along with the fact that the most important part of city (and rural) planning, building homes, is largely left to private companies. You are assuming houses would be just as inaffordable without landlords, which is a problem of the current paradigm and not the one proposed.
A couple of years ago, my boss' father (who founded the company and still worked there on and off) and I had a chat over lunch. I'm not sure how the topic of house prices came up, but he mentioned that when he and his wife bought their house, a car cost more than a house, so you knew that someone was really well off if they had two cars in the driveway.
I think that's the first time I've actually gotten my mind blown. The idea that a car could cost more than a house just didn't compute, and it still doesn't quite sit with me.
Of course, the general standard of houses decline the further back in time you go, but houses were a lot cheaper back in the days. Below is a figure of housing prices in Norway relative to wages at the time (mirroring the situation almost everywhere in the west):
Factoring in the increased production capabilities over the same period of time, the construction cost of houses are not that much higher. If we designed our communities better and had a better system for utilizing the increased labour power, we could have much more affordable housing and more beautiful and well functioning societies.
Do not let it sit right with you. This future was stolen from you.
Some of the biggest law breakers and abusive landlords are independent landlords. They're also the ones who don't seem to realize that being a landlord is a full time job where you are the handy man, maintenance, property manager, etc. It's not just collecting a cheque every month, you actually have to earn it.
Not really. I don't have to fix things on a monthly basis at my own house. When my parents rented the landlord would have to do something maybe twice a year.
But OP just said it's not a job in the meme. Which is it?
I'm not op, and the thing is that 99% of independent landlords don't do shit. I was a model tenant at my last place and I'm a handy man by trade so I would actually do every minor repair in my apartment, I would keep that place tip top and never bothered the landlord. He still thought I was a shit tenant and kicked me out as soon as he could because he wanted to charge more for the place.
No, there are plenty of landlord's that are scumbags. It's emphatically not just corporations.
There are countless solutions to your problem, they just don't exist because we have landlord's.
This is a reminder that society as we know it is a mishmash at best, it's not the evolution of humanities best ideas and practices.
We started out with a small house. But when my family grew, we decided to move to a bigger house and rent out our small home to generate some income. Our goal is to eventually move back into the small home when we no longer need the space of our big home.
Our tenants so far have been people from out of town that needed a place temporarily before they commit to buying a home. We are on our 4th set of family/tenants now. Every family have successfully moved out and purchased a home after renting from us, usually 1 or 2 years. Its a stepping stone for people. Without landlords and places to rent, as you said, it would be prohibitively expensive for people to be mobile and to improve their lives (I mean, that's the main reason people move around: new opportunities.) The anti-landlord crowd doesn't understand this, and those type of posts are ridiculous.
When someone live in a home, there are wear and tear on the home. When we first moved out, we spent a good chunk of money to renovate our old home to make it nice, presentable, and livable. A place that is desirable to live in. Then we continuously maintain the landscape, and fix anything that broke. Because one day we are planning to move back in, so we going to keep it in as best shape as possible. So charging a high enough rent to cover the costs and a bit more to make the time worthwhile is totally reasonable.
I was a renter once. It is the same situation for myself when I moved to this city. New job, new opportunity. I rented an apartment, saved up money, and then made a purchase a few years later. Among my friends, there's always a discussion of rent vs. buy. Some of my friends believed that they could save and invest and earn more money by never owning a home. I think if you do it right, it will work out either way. I am on the buy camp and it worked out. He was in the rent camp, and it also worked out for him. He is single and doesn't need a lot of space. And he is extremely mobile, and is able to move to another city for a grad degree and a new job in a very short notice. Without a place to rent, it makes it very difficult for people to do that.
I would argue that a live-in landlord that does maintenance work or acts as a building super is in fact doing a job.
Otherwise, agreed.
I am a landlord and also have a full time job. I also spend my time fixing my units.
With the maintenance cost and taxes, I'm actually losing money or breaking even depending on the year.
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn't be able to afford on their own in today's market. Being able to live near their work.
So why am I the bad guy?
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn't be able to afford on their own in today's market.
Yes, but: why is the market in the state it's in? It couldn't be because a large supply of housing is locked up by landlords, thereby artificially curtailing supply and driving up prices...
I don't know which particular Market you're in, but in the majority of cases, especially around me, if a bank would just fucking approve me for a loan I would pay notably less per month then I pay a landlord for rent.
And it's not like I even have a bad credit I'm in the 740s but since the fake imaginary value of properties is skyrocketed to the point that even a piece of shit falling apart house is almost a million dollars I can't get the kind of down payment they want. So despite the fact that the mortgage would literally be cheaper per month I can't get one.
And that situation exists thanks to people snapping up properties especially large companies and turning them into investment rental properties
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market.
zero self-awareness fuckin lol
Yes, let's pretend that housing prices haven't gone up (lumber shortage, pandemic, what are those things?!)
And let's live in a world where interest rates haven't changed in the same time period (2.75% APR should be about the same as a 7% APR mortgage!).
Lastly, let's ignore closing costs and the huge hunk of money realtors, banks, title companies, surveyors, and so on make every time a home is sold.
The main issue folks have with those generic "fuck all landlords!" posts is that while yes, corporate landlords that monopolize housing and keep raising rents in lockstep and invent fees suck ass, there's also folks who found it easier to rent right away vs keeping an empty house on the market. Those landlords are paying a 10 year old mortgage with 10 year old lower interest rates, but 2024 property taxes and home insurance.
10 year old mortgage for a home at 2014 prices + current property taxes and insurance + 10% profit margin (the horror) << Brand new mortgage on the same home at 2024 prices and 2024 APR + insurance and property taxes.
Oh and I forgot about mortgage insurance. The person renting their home likely has gotten their mortgage below the cutoff for requiring mortgage insurance.
There are many situations where both the person renting their home and the renter come out way ahead.
The only ones who win by forcing everyone to sell their homes and no longer rent are the banks (more closing costs, prey on folks who aren't ready to buy a home with high APRs and mortgage insurance, get to close out low APR loans for new higher APR loans), real estate agents and everyone that gets a cut Everytime a home is bought and sold.
That said there is something that can be done for the big investment groups that are buying up homes to jack up prices and corner local rental markets.
If we remove landlords from the picture, we get a bunch of housing on the market.
I own my own home now, but I've rented in the past. Eliminating rentals is an awful idea.
I moved a lot when I was younger: for education, jobs, etc. Buying a house every time I moved (knowing I was likely in an area temporarily) would have been a fucking nightmare -- rentals fill a legitimate need.
Sure: fix the problems of price gouging and profiteering. Put strong limits on the number of single family homes one can rent, and outright stop corporations from buying single family homes. Increase protections for tenents and drive slumlords and absentee landlords out of business. But the idea of "just buy a house, lol" is absurd.
Nobody is saying "just buy a house," because everybody is complaining about how the lack of housing is a major part of the issue. Apart from what you said on imposing limits and increasing protections for renters, the other main issue is to diverge equity from housing. Having the main way to accrue wealth be tied to the basic necessity of having a roof over your head puts a major incentive on people and corporations to buy up property. Housing becomes an investment at that point, not a service. There are people and companies sitting on empty houses because driving up the market by removing inventory is a more profitable investment than actually renting them out.
And if there were more options besides single family housing, people wouldn't be forced to buy a house every time they moved as well. The US especially is really bad at this. We have high density apartments and condos, and single family homes, but a major lack of medium density housing. If we had more multi-family homes, duplexes, town houses, and smaller scale apartment and condo buildings, this would be a lot less of an issue. With more variety in housing types, the demand for single family homes would be a lot less and would help to reduce housing prices and make things more affordable for those who do want to buy a house.
If you're losing money with your properties, why not just sell them to your tenants for an affordable price?
load more comments
(24 replies)
How has no comment in this thread yet mentioned Georgism or Land Value Tax? That is the solution to Landlordism
A land value tax is a good tool to help ease the transition away from landlords, but it alone is not enough.
Regardless, we definitely should be primarily relying on LVT for government income.
view more: next ›