If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
It’s funny that one probably-landlord downvoted this. You know who you are, scum-sucking leech.
It’s kind of a false dilemma to say everyone should do it or nobody should do it. There are a lot of things that would destroy the economy or even the world if everyone did it. I think there is a healthy amount of small family owned rental properties like the one in the meme.
It’s a simplistic statement, but it’s not meant to be that broad, it’s meant to be taken for this type of practice.
If everyone lived off leeching off someone else or from being middlemen, without producing anything, there would only be money moved with no products, labor, or services.
It’s not meant to be applied to something like “what if everyone’s business was just opening a pub?”. The economy would be destroyed without diversification and many kinds of businesses. But being a landlord isn’t anything like that. Particularly those that won’t freaking repair anything wrong with the house, just take their checks and the tenant is on their own.
Then it should be illegal to have no children, because if everyone had no children, we would literally go extinct.
This is like saying that if everyone had a small business it would destroy the economy. If you think a rental damages the economy, you have no idea what the economy is, or how it works.
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.
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?
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?
That’s where small business grants from the government comes in.
Helping people thrive without being beholden to ruthless opportunists or run the risk of bankrupting private investors is EXACTLY the kind of thing tax dollars should be spent on in stead of the MIC, subsidies for the most profitable corporations in the world, and other such enriching of the already rich.
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!
That’s because they haven’t seen that tweet from a money genius who invented the cheat code on life. You just need more money streams for more money. Who knew? Here I was, just sitting with a gazillian dollars stuffed under my mattress nor knowing what to do with them.
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.
Rich people outbid regular folks for real resources (homes), taking away any chance at intergenerational wealth building. the only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Gary Stevenson has some worthwhile insights on what we can do and how to convince working class people that the rich must be stopped or else your kids and grandkids will all be homeless renters.
inequality is sharply risinh all around the world. and it’s getting worse. this is arguably the most important issue of our time.
the only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
I used to have my own place before my wife and I got married, and she had her own house too. When I moved in with her I decided to rent out my place to a friend, otherwise I’d have to still pay like $650 a month for my mortgage. I set my friends rent at $900 a month for him and a friend, with cats. I paid my mortgage and had some extra to save up in case a repair was needed. Average rent for an apartment (not a house) was 1200-1500 in the same area. My renters ended up taking better care of the house than I ever did. It was beautiful when they lived there. I ended up making about 5k to 10k extra bucks over the course of a few years and my mortgage was paid for me. Eventually they had to move out due to some issues between the two at which point I sold the house and made over six figures(net profit, not gross), off a house that cost less than $80,000 when I bought it.
See what I did there? I charged a reasonable rent and still made a totally stupid amount of money off of just one property. I wasn’t a goddamn parasite who tried to bleed my tenants for everything they were worth.
People like these total shitbags. They’re the reason why America’s youth have no future
Using my “friends” to pay off a personal debt while making $250/mo in profit off them. See, it’s possible to be a good landlord, everyone!
Did you share any of what you made from the sale with your “friends” who helped you pay for it and kept it in good condition for you?
Did those friends run the risk of having to pay for a new roof or anything else that can go wrong with a house? Tell me you’ve never owned a house without telling me you’ve never owned a house
You still take someone elses money, just less of it.
See, when the Landlord charges reasonable rates, and actually provides services in exchange for that rent (helping update appliances to newer, having paperwork on hand for any code/inspections needed for property changes (that the landlord would ultimately benefit from,) and in general treating it as a matter of ‘I have obligations’ instead of ‘I will do nothing but I will absolutely blame the tennants for the inevetable crumbling of the property.’
I dislike the concept at base level, but that is a someone who is trying to not be a scumbag.
Someone who needs a place to live in and doesn’t have the money or doesn’t want to buy their own place. IMO, it is a fair trade as long as the landlord isn’t a cunt. The reasons to why they don’t have enough to buy their own place have nothing to do with a single landlord, some people don’t want to take roots in a single place. If you wanna go to war with someone, go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people.
The incentive structure for landlords creates these conditions, it’s not some individual failing of their moral character. Individual tyrants aren’t better than corporate tyrants.
Same people will be looking for a govt bailout when the real estate market collapses.
Facts that concern me:
- they are on Twitter
- they use a combined username (gross)
- they list vacations as number one
Step one: Have a shitton of money to buy property to rent out.
Oh, you don’t have enough money? Hhm, have you tried not being poor?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.
Housing prices are pretty high in cities. But you can buy your own piece of land in a more rural setting and build a small cottage yourself, maybe a 2 bdrm, 1 bath home. I believe this is possible for less than $100k at the right location. Start with a used cheap RV or mobile home if you have to.
You’re fucking high if you think you can build even a small house for less than 100k
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.
All you’ve done is throw out a false equivalency and some hyperbole
No, I pointed out that your main argument in your original comment was terrible as it was an equally valid defense for slavery, figuring that if you got butthurt at being called out on it that you weren’t worth engaging mentally with, as anyone of any decency would see that and go “oh fuck dude maybe I should rethink at least that part of my stance”, it’s literally what I said in my comment ffs
you respond with pseudo-intellectual gibberish
My point, non-intellectual as it may be (like basically everything I do), wasn’t gibberish to anyone with basic reading comprehension
