1026
Get rid of landlords...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
1026 points (81.4% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9620 readers
758 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
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.
Building maintenance can absolutely be a job, which is wholey separate from being a landlord.
I think in this sense it is a little like arguing with petty bourgeois folks who defend capitalism by insisting that they do in fact work. Yeah, you do, but you don't have to be an owner extracting profit from other people to do that.
My dad did build the house, maintence it and now he collects rent, how is that seperate from being a landlord?
So he was a builder, then he maintained the building. Both of those involve labour and doing things.
Now, if as a landlord he only collects rent and does nothing else, then that's why it's not a job, it's an investment. Same as if you own shares in a company.
If he still maintains the building, then that's still labour, but the work is the maintenance, not the landlording.
So, not defending the land lord here, but, what if his dad built and maintained the buildings for years, but now he's like 65 and doesn't really want/or is able to do the work himself so he pays someone else, he is now a piece of shit land lord? I mean, he probably in that scenario doesn't have a retirement, so the return on his investment (profit after costs) is his retirement. He could sell them, and make a profit, but the next landlord would just up rents so he isn't eating those costs.
If he jacks up rents to retire fat and happy after his maintenance costs then he's kinda a dick but if costs stay the same it shouldn't matter who does what work.
I guess I say all this because I am a landlord of a small complex. I bust ass and do all tge work myself keeping rent lower than anyone else I'm town. We rent to seniors that live on fixed incomes and these people have been our tenants so long they are family. They came to my wedding, they came to our baby shower. I will not price them out of a place to live. But the truth is, I am getting tired. I already work two other jobs and this place needed a lot of work when we bought it so he have remodeled most of them. But I am about done. We have had offers to buy in recent years. A few of them would have made 2 million in profit, but half our tenants would be homeless.
Some of our tenants are widowed elderly women that can't afford or maintain a whole household on their own. They are legitimately there for the maintenance, not just the place to live.
I have sympathy for your position, it sounds like you're trying to do the best you can for vulnerable people in a capitalist system.
Under this system the only way you can retire is to have an income unrelated to work. Because we can't remove ourselves from that system, one day you'll have a choice to make. It may be worth exploring novel options like transferring ownership to the tenants, having rent increase limits written in to the contract for sale, etc, but the practicality of these are likely very limited.
This is why capitalism is so pervasive, because the best financial decision you can make is the one which furthers exploitation.
There isn't really a good option tbh.
There is no landlording without maintenance, you could outsource it but it's still a part of it. There's also a bunch more a landlord has to do, it's not a full time job but still. You really shouldn't lump in the average "why build a single family home if i can build a home for two families?" Guy, with those big companies who don't give a fuck about their tenants.
Why build enough for myself and my family and be content, when I can extort another family for survival to help me cut costs and provide me a passive income for the rest of time?
Real fucking altruistic.. 🙄
Extort lol. Some people want to stay at the same place forever those buy, some want to be flexible and rent. Money is used as an exchange for provided work.
I dislike capitalism and greed aswell but you are something else my dude.
But yeah keep dragging allies in the mud my father is basicly a oil company
Yeah, that's bullshit. It's a MUCH better deal to buy than to rent and everyone knows it. Most of us just don't have enough money at once or a high enough income to be granted the requisite loans.
In the two decades plus change since I moved from home, I've paid as much in rent as someone richer would have paid to own a house several times the size of my apartment in the same neighborhood. I've paid as much but I don't get to own what I paid for and even generate passive wealth that I could pass down to later generations if I had kids.
TL;DR: if you're renting, you're getting a bad deal and so is your kids and their kids and their kids and..
It's still a better deal to rent on shorter timescales.
I'd have to run the math again but because of things like realtor/legal fees (speaking of leeches, realtors are the absolute worst) last I checked it was in the 2-3 years range where renting made more sense than buying. That depends on the market too of course. Any significant repair costs or depreciation in that time makes the break-even point a bit longer, shorter if the value goes up enough.
Yeah, the whole moving every 3 years or less? That's ALSO something that most people can't afford.
You're sounding like you're very much arguing from a place of privilege that you aren't conscious of. And no, realtors aren't the worst leeches, that's still landlords.
I knew a guy that said he would never buy a house and preferred renting because he didn't want to mow and other maintenance.
People who think they are allies but are actually part of the problem are worse than those who do not pretend. Those who pretend will expect their carve out to be protected.
Why does this feel you're purity testing people on Lemmy? Lol
There is no gray line. People who exploit others via landlording only vary in how much property they own.
There is no nuance. One either does or does not lord over land. Every landlord justifies their participation in their own way.
No one is born a landlord. It's a choice.
No one is born a landlord sympathizer. It's a choice.
Being an ally requires one avoid specific choices. At any time one can sell their property and become an ally.
Those claiming their situation is an exception are the ones arguing for purity.
I bet you have money in your wallet. A true communist would already live without it! See you in the line at the wall i guess May the ones who shoots have good aim
I see. You're confused. We're talking about landlords not communism.
Somehow this confusion is my fault. That's precious.
Proper** landlording is not passive income. It took work, time, and investment into building the structure. Then you have to maintain and repair it. The majority of landlords view it as a get rich quick situation and join the ridiculous market, but if they charge reasonable prices, the mortgage, interest, repair, and maintenance of a home does cost money. And then your own time if you do the repairs yourself or pay someone, the overhead of taxes, insurance, paperwork. Those things cost money. Some of it is paid by paying the mortgage down and creating equity, but some of it has to be built into the rent.
However, some, if not most landlords don't look at the investment into the equity, they look at the money in their pocket after their mortgage payment, maintenance, and costs every month. They want (sometimes need) their profit now, not in 20 years when they sell it and make millions. That's why landlording should be viewed as an investment, not a job. It as a side gig works, then in 20 years you cash out.
These giant corporations that have made a ridiculous industry of buying all the homes and property in small towns and charging exorbant prices should be hanged.
Landlord and building manager are two different things. A single person can do both, but they are wholly different aspects. He did work as a manager, but not as a landlord.
If you own a company, that's not a job. If you are also the CEO and bring in half of the work/sales personally, that's obviously a job. The same person could be both, we all wear many hats, but even if you choose to call yourself the owner over CEO the CEO part is the job, the owner title is not a job
Collecting rent isn't a job. Maintenance is a job, and building is certainly a job.
If your dad is still doing maintenance, that's work. If not, I'd say he's retired, and renting out homes isn't the problem here
In this context, landlord means someone whose "career" is just owning a bunch of property. Unless your dad is a developer and "built" a bunch of homes by hiring a bunch of people and taking the profits, he doesn't deserve to be called a landlord, even if the term has been watered down
He rents out a room/house, after literally building it... That doesn't define him in the same way, he's not the problem and he shouldn't be painted with the same brush