Facts that concern me:
- they are on Twitter
- they use a combined username (gross)
- they list vacations as number one
All i had to do was just buy 4 houses? Damn. I’m rich!
I remember looking up just the air b&b’s in the Portland metro and there were over 4,000……
A large majority of the rest were being rented.
The wealthy are buying it all with no regulation.
There should be one home per family in the suburbs. One vacation place and your house. No one needs 10 properties, get rich another way you greedy terrible fucks.
How is this legal.
How is it legal that people buy property and rent to those who want to rent instead of buy? My question to you is why wouldn’t it be legal?
those who want to rent instead of buy?
Who actually wants to spend 1/3 of their paycheck on something every month and not own it?
It dawned on my that my wife and I pay 30k a year to live in our house. I made 65k last year, the most I’ve ever made and the amount I told myself in Highschool that if I could get a job making that I’d be set. Feels like I’m still bussing tables at fucking Texas Roadhouse.
For context, im in tech and she’s in the arts. Combined we’re at about 110k a year. Wild that that feels like just scraping by.
I don’t understand. What exactly is the complaint here? That they’re over charging or charging at all?
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
And don’t give me this shit about how they’re evil for over charging. The middle class holds all the power all we’re lacking is organization and education.
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing so they can have a basic need to survive. It’s very immoral
If you’re gonna try to defend an immoral act with
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Then Ill assume you’re pro-slavery and move on
Charging for housing isn’t immoral just because it’s a necessity. By that logic, grocery stores are immoral for charging for food, and doctors are immoral for charging for healthcare. Property ownership and rental markets exist because providing and maintaining housing costs money. If your argument is that the system should be reformed, fine, let’s talk solutions. But calling all landlords inherently immoral is just lazy thinking.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive which I believe is the only reason you added it which makes you sound even more stupid.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive
So you know your argument works perfectly for slavery, can see how it applies and are embarrassed enough being called out on it to be offended, but not to rethink yourself? That response is actually why I included it: easy way to tell you’re not to be taken seriously
Oh, please. Get off your intellectual high horse. Your ability to string coherent words together doesn’t mean you actually know anything. All you’ve done is throw out a false equivalency and some hyperbole. I present arguments, and you respond with pseudo-intellectual gibberish. The people who take you seriously are the same ones who fart into wine glasses, idiots. I’m so tired of you hipster fucks on Lemmy. You talk about things you don’t understand and convince yourselves you’re enlightened. You’re just short-sighted trash wrapped in $100 words and YouTube rhetoric.
I had to rant in a couple of comments because I drives me crazy when people defend leeching.
On a more constructive note: Housing cooperatives. I think they should be more widespread. Some people come together to build a house and then live in it for the cost it takes to actually support it. No crazy big apartments with a reasonable amount of people (roughly one bedroom per person), shared luxury such as gardens, in house shops, hell even a pool if you want. There is no leeching, just collective ownership.
What if some people do not fit into some pre-made construction of how some dictator imagines a “nice living situation”? Every person is an individual with individual needs. Presuming, that a single bedroom is big or small enough for every single person is absolutely undermining the fact of how diverse people actually are, as are their visions of their own lives.
Cooperatives are democratic, the members vote on what it means to have a nice living situation.
If there are ten people with ten different expectations, they would all vote for something, in summary/conclusion, “in the middle”, which would make nobody happy. The best would be, if everyone could choose for themselves and that is the case right now, except many people perhaps cannot afford, what they’d wish for. Still, better than having a “democracy”, where nobody is truly happy.
The case right now is, if you can’t afford what you want, you can’t choose it. They don’t get to choose for themselves, the market chooses for them!
If I have to choose between market decision making and democratic decision making, I’ll choose democracy. At the very least, a democratic process leaves no one homeless.
If nobody is allowed to own more than one property, should everyone be forced buy? Where would renters get apartments from?
Yeah some people desire to be exploited! Send those kids back into the mines! /S
Can you give me a serious answer without the /s
If I inherit my grandmas apartment, can I put it up for rent since it’s a small apartment in a college town and there will be takers.
Or should I sell it so I don’t become a “landlord”, which is bad?
Should all students just buy an apartment for the 4-5 years they spend in the city or will the city be the landlord for them somehow collectively? Or is it less bad if the college is the landlord by offering student housing?
Yes landlords shouldn’t exist. Colleges shouldn’t exist either talk about a cash scam and purely for profit leaches, don’t get me started on student athletes only a real scumbag would take a billion dollar industry and not pay the “workers”.
Not American.
Our colleges and universities are free. There is no student athlete industry over here.
So if your taxes pay for education shouldn’t they pay for basic housing? One of these is required for life, isn’t this taught in university?
You didn’t answer my question:
If I inherit an apartment, am I allowed to rent it or should I sell it to not become a landlord?
What part of landlords should not exist did you not understand?
The appropriate criticism here is about corrupt markets resulting from restricted/scarce housing supply. Fair markets that encourage abundant housing supply, are ones that would lead to “perfect competition” and fair ROI on capital. The oligarchist/capital supremacy model of US/west corrupts markets against abundance, because extortionist profits fund politicians to protect extortionist profits.
UBI, not democracy, is the important freedom that can address structural corruption, but still the option to rent still needs to pay for the capital/expense investment in allowing you to rent.
corrupt markets resulting from restricted/scarce housing supply
Housing has a hard limit as there is only so much ground available in desirable locations. Building houses also needs resources and labor and takes a while.
We can go pretty high, but 3-5 stories has easier construction, and doesn’t need expensive elevator system. 4th and 5th floor without an elevator advantages young people, but reduced rent still can be profitable vs stopping at 3 stories.
If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
What? Your comment doesn’t make sense. If everyone did any profession solely we would destroy the economy. If everyone became doctors, there would be no engineers or pilots. We would still be doomed. A diversity of vocations are necessary regardless of which vocation.
*Edit. I was thinking maybe you mean investments. But the same holds true there. AND because of hedgefunds and private equity it’s becoming more and more of all the money funneling into a handful of companies. All the economists are sounding alarm bells on this. But considering the direction our leaders are taking us, I think this is all part of the plan.
Landlording is not a profession.
Handyman is a profession. Real estate management is a profession. Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
The economy can tolerate a finite number of leaches before dying. We currently have too many. The ideal number is zero.
Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
This actually applies to most all investments.
Getting a paycheck automatically means that someone has more money before a product, or service is delivered. So I’m gonna stretch this a little… If we like jobs that pay money then we gotta live with rich assholes. But if we want no rich assholes and truly everyone’s time is worth exactly the same amount, then we need something other than capitalism. We need socialism. But how do we prevent kings or rich politicians in either scenario? Tax them in capitalism for one. In socialism we just downright make that illegal.
Instead of a rich asshole, you can have worker owned cooperatives and such.
everyone’s time is worth exactly the same amount
That’s just objectively not the case. Some people are able to provide more essential or better quality services and labor than others. There are also more and less enjoyable activities.
Everyone’s time can be worth the same amount for the same activity at the same quality level.
how do we prevent kings or rich politicians in either scenario? Tax them in capitalism for one. In socialism we just downright make that illegal.
You will always have people in more powerful positions and some will take advantage of it. What you can do is rotate people with term limits and such. However that can also have downsides in effectiveness and efficiency.
You can also impose limits on how much stuff a person can own. There are ways to circumvent this with non profit NGOs and such.
Socialist economies also need taxes to pay for infrastructure and the operations of the state.
This is basically where not even I believe in myself.
Cooperatives… A few billion of us get together to build a rocket…never gonna happen. A few of us build a power plant…yeah right! Never gonna happen.
What about life? My life, how much is my life worth? Is it worth more than yours or less? Divided into life/second, if I’m worth the same as you are, then I should get paid the same as you no matter what I do… I could be a painter or a seamstress or a cook or a bricklayer. I should be worth the same. Even a bum who wants nothing to do with anyone should be worth the same as the most smartest person to ever live. Its a life. You don’t get to be worth more by being smarter or making more stuff.
I would definitely not want to live in a society where my kids will be homeless even though I am the hardest working worker. If my kids are lazy I still want to ensure they live better than I did. So although I don’t like this consumerism centric capitalistic society, that socialistic society sucks.
I much rather be in a society where you can own things and give them to your kids, and have those things hold some value. I don’t want the government limiting what I can and cannot do. To some extent I think this sort of capitalism is possible, but the billionaires have got to go puff. I would love living a grand life with a big house in a sunny part of California. That’s impossible now no matter what I say or do. Meanwhile some billionaire could just buy California if he wanted to. That sort of money accumulation I’m totally against.
ALL forms of making money from having money need to be abolished completely.
If you’re not creating/selling a product or providing a service, you’re not EARNING money. Furthermore, rich people getting richer through passive income is the #1 thing diminishing the returns from actually worthwhile endeavors.
I somewhat agree with you. And I 150% agree that “rent seeking behavior” doesn’t add to society.
But what if you want to sell a product you designed but can’t afford to create it or to setup a factory for it, so you want funding, so you try to get investments, maybe by selling equity in your company. Is that not valuable to society? The people that take the risk that your product may not sell?
How did anyone do anything before currency was invented?
Your comment implies that what you describe is a requirement for a functioning society
It isn’t.
Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.
There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.
Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.
Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.
All so that none of their tenants can afford any of those four things without constantly struggling!
