• eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I’m pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn’t want to be responsible for that.

    More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you’re mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it’s actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It’s just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.

    So while I see your argument that landlords don’t “deserve” the money they make, practically they’re an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.

      • eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        What do you mean no choice? There’s always a choice.

        Realistically many people don’t have a choice to buy, because they don’t have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don’t see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?

        • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Because plenty of folks would have a solid down payment, or better credit score, if rent wasn’t so damn high. Likewise affordable rent would make it easier for folks to move to places where they could get the type of stable job necessary for a mortgage, etc. It’s not the only reason folks don’t have the economic resources at hand, but it’s usually the biggest expense in ones budget, no?

          Greedy landlords are the problem, imho, and unfortunately every landlord except exactly one I’ve rented from (out of about ten in total) have been greedy assholes.

          As for a fix: housing is a right, imho. I’m not an economist so anything I offer will be full of holes, but some way of securing that people have stable, safe, comfortable housing is essential. Making sure people can’t exploit the need for shelter is a big component of whatever fix we need.

          • eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think a big component of the problem is location. I may have a different perspective living in a low cost of living city. Just a few years ago I lived in a two bedroom apartment that was $650/mo. It was old and not very nice, but totally functional and reasonably safe. It was a bigger complex so the landlord was a management company. They weren’t amazing or anything, but they held up their end of the lease. I understand the situation somewhere like NYC or California is going to be radically different.

            I think that’s where a really interesting question comes in though, do people have a right to housing? Or a right to housing in the place they’re currently living? It’s a big difference. Forcibly relocating people is… Problematic at best. But there are places like LA where it’s almost physically (geologically) impossible to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live there.

            If you haven’t already I’d recommend listening to the podcast mini series “according to need” by 99 percent invisible. I really appreciated the perspective it offers into some of the practical challenges of trying to get homeless people housed.

            Ultimately I don’t know that I’d call housing a “right”, purely for semantic reasons, but I do think the very existence of homelessness and housing insecurity is a devastating critique of our social and economic systems. I didn’t think we’ll ever have a system that completely eliminates renting/short term housing, but we do clearly need to change a lot of things about how housing works now.

            • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              I had an enormous reply essentially “yes-and’ing” your reply (I agree with it, but wanted to add a “but” in a few places), but…into the ether it went. I’ll listen to that podcast mini series.

              One thing I wanted to add is that I grew up in Atlanta, so I agree that plenty of folks should leave NYC and LA. However, there’s plenty of folks there necessary for the city to function, and I think that legislation is probably the only viable way that things will change for them, since lower-income folks are just being squeezed from all directions, given how much of a commodity real estate has gotten since the last big housing bubble burst.

              Again though, I’m not an economist, so my ideas are certainly not immediately viable, and I agree there’s little chance of “solving” most of this under the best of circumstances. I just think there’s too much greed, especially related to housing, that can be improved. We’re a rich enough nation that we can do better. Also I just wanted to be sure to give your nice comment a thoughtful reply, because the internet is too toxic in general, and we need to try to make it otherwise. Have a nice end of the year

    • Gabu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      Risk my ass, they take in profit off of doing nothing.

      As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out.

      Guess what? In the mean time, you’ve paid for these repairs with your rent, plus the repairs of any other property the landlord has.

      If you move every 3 years

      If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle.

      practically they’re an important part of the housing market

      Non sequitur, none of your arguments support this conclusion.

      If you want the current rent model so much, do you know who could do the exact same job much cheaper? The State itself.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I live comfortably in a 2 story, 3 bedroom that I own and I’m able to put enough into savings each month that I’m easily able to afford any emergencies that come up.

      Looking at local prices, I would not be able to rent of a much smaller unit where I live.

      The actual ‘need’ for rent could be easily covered by people renting out their basement suite or having a boarder. There’s no benefit to society for allowing people to purchase properties they don’t live on just to profit off someone else’s rent.

      • eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’d be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn’t afford the house you’re in now if you had to buy it today. I’m in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “landlords” though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.

        Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren’t landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let’s a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.

    • bdazman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Risk doesn’ t create value, what the heck are you talking about? I’ll spin a revolver with a single round in it and fire, what fictional wizard signs my check?

      Renters are the real ones at risk, being forced by an entire class of sociopaths acting in solidarity to parisitize their wealth. In a disagreement, landlords can commit asymmetric harm with impunity because legal defenses require capital, which the renting class lacks by definition.

      Your “good” landlord only appears to be so because of the ubiquity of normal landlords. The handyman needed to help you that day cost pennies compared to what rent seekers steal, thats why they call it “passive income.” In this case, you are describing work performed by a property manager, not a landlord, that created value to you. The landlord performed that managerial labor, and still pocketed disproportionally more value than he provided, because his earnings come from ownership, not from labor.

      If its cheaper to rent than buy, why do landlords do it? Out of the goodness of their shiny little hearts? Thank you my lord for saving me from myself.

      Landlords do not create housing. They destroy housing by turning what would have been a sold unit of housing into a rented unit of housing. They are directly incentivised to keep housing scarce.