deleted by creator
Those Khrushchevka etc. apartments weren’t exactly villas, but I agree it’s far better than being homeless or pay most of your income for a somewhat liveable apartment. With the technologies nowadays it could probably be made much better and less depressing.
deleted by creator
through their workplace union
Does this mean they’d lose their homes if they stopped working at the workplace an no longer belonged to that union? Similarly to how Americans lose their health insurance when they leave their employer?
Exactly, i have no problem with homebuilders, we need new homes being built. The problem is using money you inherited from your ancestors to price people out of homes they need to start their own families and then renting them out for a profit.
And city governments help them to raise prices and maintain their cartel
deleted by creator
GDP is such bs.
Our city council, and many city councils, work with big landlord corporations to maintain a certain amount of empty houses. A big component of this is YIMBYs in our city who would push their own children in front of a moving bus if it meant a big developer doesn’t pay taxes to build “luxury” apartments in gentrified neighborhoods. Said apartments are required to offer a certain number of “affordable” units son the poors can have a taste of the good life, only $2500 per month for a family of 3 making up to 26k per year, on a single bare unit in a mid sized Midwest city, but don’t try to use the front door or the gym.
You get what I’m saying? The affordable housing rules are what keeps these units empty, floating the value of the other units. When distributed city wide, it’s a scheme to keep rents high, while the companies building the new buildings don’t pay taxes for 25 years.
All the while, touting affordable options to families in need. A couple years ago our city received $14M from the state to provide affordable housing, and gave $11M of it back a year later. And all the while, the only housing people can afford, gets worse and worse.
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing that the problem is local government and not capitalism. I am saying they work together in very specific ways.
Capitalism is not a ghost or the devil. It is a particular set of social relations. Defining it abstractly like the big bad in season 1 of some superhero movie is not practical. In order to learn to defeat capitalism we have to fight the forms it takes in order to expose how it has corrupted government, democracy, human rights; but also to show that capitalism will never stop taking different forms and the bourgeois will never stop trying to swindling their way into more and more power, until the profit motive has been totally negated on every level.
Payment for rent should increase your ownership in that which is rented.
That’s called a mortgage…
Right, rent is theft from the poorer person to the wealthier person because it can never improve their situation compared to a mortgage. It’s a system which only serves to redistribute wealth faster and faster as the system slowly accelerates that imbalance.
Renting should be reserved for a niche scenario of temporary housing while a person moves somewhere or temporarily visits and the entire housing system should be reworked so ownership of the place you live is simple and standard. Landlords should be an extremely rare service in a well-functioning, humanist society.
This is not Landlords, it’s big companies who buy up housing.
deleted by creator
Yes landlords are often big companies
Can y’all see some nuance here? The problem isn’t the landlords. It’s the system.
I believe housing is a human right. Housing shouldn’t be a for-profit business. But for better or worse, it’s one of the best investments possible. And the system makes it incredibly difficult to buy a home in certain circumstances, especially on short notice.
My parents helped me buy my first home because I have shit credit. I’m single, I don’t need a ton of space, but there aren’t many small houses with decent yards (I have dogs) on the market.
We decided to go with a duplex so I could have another source of income to pay for twice the house I need. And yeah, I charge my tenant well over half the mortgage.
I also do yardwork, snow removal, maintenance, and I pay out of my ass when anything breaks because I have an obligation to provide for my tenant and I take that seriously.
So do you think I’m a piece of shit for being a landlord?
Edit: apparently none of you know how a mortgage works. When you start paying it off, it’s nearly all interest. If I sell in five years, I will have paid about $80k in interest for maybe $30k in equity. Factor in the $70k+ I’ve already spent on renovations and maintenance, that’s over $120k that I have to try to recoup just to break even. And the way the market looks, I’ll be lucky to get $50k over the purchase price.
In the end, I’m basically leasing from the bank. They’re making all the profit, I’m just trying to offset my living costs. Yes, that means my tenant pays and gets no equity. He also takes on no risk or responsibility.
I also do yardwork, snow removal, maintenance, and I pay out of my ass when anything breaks because I have an obligation to provide for my tenant and I take that seriously.
You’re right, it is the system that is the problem. The relationship between you and your tenant is unequal. There is nothing forcing you to do right by your tenant by performing all of that maintenance work because you have not entered into an equal agreement with your tenant. You could stop doing all those things and your tenant would have no recourse because they aren’t paying you to perform any service, they are paying you for the privilege of staying in your property. You may feel that you have an obligation to do those things but you aren’t actually obligated by law, and that’s a problem.
That’s not true at all. Not only is it expressly outlined in our lease agreement, there’s plenty of laws regarding landlord obligations and renters’ rights. If I don’t uphold my end of the lease, my tenant absolutely has legal recourse. He can sue for rent and I could get fined for each day the home doesn’t meet requirements.
I superficially agree with you hut find that inconvenient to practice. I’m a good person. So clearly landlords are good sometimes.
Fuck me. Take me now.
Can’t fault that logic lol
So do you think I’m a piece of shit for being a landlord?
If, after all of those expenses (and sure, I guess you can include your labor. If you do it yourself), you are still turning a profit? Yeah, kind of.
And yeah, I charge my tenant well over half the mortgage.
So do you think I’m a piece of shit for being a landlord?
Yes
So now they own a duplex and rent out half of it. What is the morally responsible move here? Sell it to a property management company so they are no longer an evil landlord? Push the 60 year old tenant out because he just wants to pay rent and likely isn’t interested in buying a stake in half of a house, then find someone who wants to go splitskies on the mortgage and responsibilities?
Not charging over well over the mortgage to ypur tenant (OP’s words).
OP is doing exactly the same thing as property management companies, but since he is a poor landlord, he is somewhat justified in his decisions?
Get the fuck out of here
How about not letting the tenant pay more than well over half of the mortgage?
I would wager that OP kept the biggest apartment between the two as well.
So OP gets to build equity with someone else’s money and keep the appreciating value of the duplex, all that because he did the maintenance of the property, the strict minimum that society requires for a landlord?
Miss me with the fake outrage.
But but but if I don’t exploit others how will I get wealthy and live in luxury while others are driven by the horrors to serve me? Did you even think of that? Did you even think of how I want a nice life without improving the world? God you communists disgust me. I’m gonna go kick my basement kid and shout at them some more because I actually care about society.
What’s the appropriate split? How much do you charge?
Starting by not charging over half the mortgage would already be better.
After that, it would depend on the specific of the apartment itself.
How about not profiting off someone else’s need for shelter?
Or I could make it an Airbnb! Screw my tenant and my neighbors, too!
You are a saint for letting your tenant pay more than half the mortgage for basic maintenance of the property. I was wrong.
So you think I should split the mortgage 50/50 and be responsible for 100% of maintenance?
Home ownership is so, so much more than a mortgage. In the past five years, I’ve replaced a sump pump, a water heater, both furnaces, garage door, chimney flue, garbage disposal, several windows, along with remodeling my tenants entire kitchen while mine looks like ass.
If my tenant’s HVAC breaks, should I replace it, or tell him that’s his responsibility now? Should I tell him he has to mow the lawn and shovel?
My tenant is in his 60s. He wants to live in a nice house with a yard. He doesn’t want to be responsible for upkeep, so he pays me to do it instead.
But I guess I’m no better than a private equity firm that buys entire neighborhoods just to raise rent and increase shareholder value.
If he only paid half, you’d be charging half a mortgage to be a handyman at best. There’s a huge difference because once you’ve paid out less than half the mortgage and he’s paid out more than half, you own a duplex and he owns nothing.
It’s the same assumption all landlords make. The price of sleeping under a roof is equal to the mortgage and the several-hundred-thousand dollar asset at the end is just a little treat for performing the backbreaking labor of having your name on a deed
Do you know what a mortgage is? It’s a 30 year, essentially rent-to-own contract. Neither of us are planning on living here that long. My tenant isn’t planning on living that long. And even if I owned it outright, I’d be paying property tax and insurance.
Sure, I could come out on top financially. I’m definitely not going to turn a profit but it might be cheaper than renting an apartment in the long run. And in the meantime, I take on all the risk and responsibility until I move and sell the house.
Not everything is a capitalist grift. I’m just trying to get by.
Wether you plan to live there or not in 30 years is irrelevant to the situation.
Your tenant pay over half the mortgage. So you get a subsidized housing, keep the appreciated value of the duplex as well and all that for the basic maintenance of the property?
Golly, what a deal.
I think they’re not considering how the portion of rent that only goes toward the mortgage is still profit despite it not being accessible until the home is sold or a loan taken against its equity.
They never do. They want to be cashflow positive every month and still keep the equity.
It’s absolutely relevant if you know how a mortgage works. Payments are ~75% interest in the first decade. I’m not going to have enough equity at that time to make a profit after all the money I put into the house. I’m looking at a $50k loss if the market stays steady. Still cheaper than renting, though.
Yes, my tenant subsidizes my living costs. That’s the point of a duplex. I set the rent at what I thought was fair, given my expected losses and the work I put in.
There’s no shortage of housing here. If my tenant wanted to, he could buy a house right now. He’s waiting until he retires, specifically because he doesn’t want the responsibilities of home ownership while he’s still working.
Clearly you do
deleted by creator
No I don’t think you’re a bad person. I don’t even think what you are doing is bad. I think with regards to the system, you’re right in a sense, but similar to the way that claiming “personal responsibility” can shield the system from responsibility, I think claiming systematic cause when it is actually individual, or even a bit more balanced between the two, can shield the individual from taking responsibility. But I agree that it is largely a systematic issue.
It reminds me of the movie “Sorry to Bother You” (written and directed by revolutionary Marxist Communist, Boots Riley). At the beginning, LaKeith Stanfield’s character is jobless, living in his uncle’s garage. His uncle, not exactly Mr. Moneybags himself, hassles Stanfield for this month’s rent. Stanfield, somewhat sheepishly, but righteously indignant, comes back with like “yeah well you’re oppressing be because you’re a landlord” and his uncle hits back, “if you don’t pay your rent, I lose my house and we are both homeless”. Later in the movie, which explores themes of middle-class opportunism, imperialism, chattel wage slavery, genetic modification and billionaire decadence, that early scene looks more like a case of poor people fighting each other over petty differences driven by systems that benefit billionaires.
But I believe that “middle class” consciousness is some stubborn bullshit that comes on quick. We have to be able to check ourselves, our perceptions and evaluations of others. I think its really important for people to stay in tune with their community, participate in mutual aid or poli organizing if possible to keep challenging our preconceptions.
The thing is, being middle class wears you down. I’ve known lots of small landlords through prior job experience. The most common kind is like you. Works on their own properties, puts their own money up for repairs, hustles. Its much different than how a lot of anarchists and leftists describe landlords as never doing any work. Granted, some of the work they do, like evicting people, is work, its just like evil. But also I’ve seen absolute horrors wrt trashing out an old apartment or rental property. Like, I fully sympathize with someone who had to pay too much to live in some shitty apartment, not even all the way shitty because it belongs to a slumlord, but because the tenants just trash it. Drug addiction, poverty, economic discrimination, all systematic. But that shit wears people down. The landlord basically have “no choice” but to evict, or they lose the whole value of the house. But, you can see how its turning middle class people against their poorer tenants, and vice versa. I’ve had many landlords who I’m sure were alright in some other context, but never befriended one. I’ve known landlords who always “did their best” for tenants, but the best for a tenant is never quite as good as it is for the owner. How can it be? In capitalism, you put people beneath you or you get pushed down, at least, that is the first impulse of the middle class, who enjoys some some human rights as economic freedoms, but constantly feels like its being taken away.
Being a landlord materially sets you against the poor and the left. You come here and everyone says you’re evil, go almost anywhere else and people will tell you you aren’t doing anything wrong. Its self reinforcing. You don’t have to be a bad person to become a bad landlord. The system that legitimizes these contradictory social relations, that compelled you to take one role in the social antagonism while it compels others to assume the other role, will make you a worse person. It will prejudice you and give you good reason to do things you never would have done before, without those pressures.
Frankly, I think owning a single property and renting it is fine as a transitional situation. But transitional to what? You’re not really gonna make a “living” by only owning one property, and its gonna end up being more trouble than its worth unless you use it to expand. The more properties someone takes on, the more likely it is to have to do awful shit like call the sheriff to evict somebody. And at every step it will appear like you’re not doing anything wrong.
Even of being a landlord doesn’t make you a bad person, I believe it will never make someone a good person. If we take seriously the question of “who do I want to become” keep in mind that the unjust system is more than happy to make you or me landlords, because once we are, then innocently defending whatever meager middle class gains we are able to make in our own lives will require making the lives of countless others worse.
Welcome to Lemmy, where nuance goes to fucking roll over and die. I volunteer teaching English as a second language, and encourage the use of AI as a learning tool, while being very clear about its many dangers, but people here love to crucify me for it.
I have rented for years, because I have always hated living far from my job, and I don’t drive. Lots of people here foam at the mouth at me choosing that convenience, and at the fact that I finally got a house, using my life’s savings, and now that I am divorced and no longer need that much room, I’m just renting the upper floor.
Same as you, I either fix everything myself, or if I’m not qualified, hire someone to do it. My tenants love the fairly priced apartment, precisely because the price is fair. Cheap enough that them both can work and study, while still being profitable enough for me to help myself pay for the bills, taxes and mortgage.
A lot of people just swallowed the lie whole, thinking that landlords are the scum of the earth, equating it to shit like what Ticketmaster, LiveNation, Blackstone Inc., BP, UnitedHealthcare or Anthem do.
But most of them are just keyboard warriors who won’t move a finger to help others in need, believing themselves righteous just because they didn’t have the opportunities we had.
deleted by creator
the builders are the ones who provide housing and collectively they make nowhere close to the amount the houses they make sell for
No matter how much builders make, if there is no limitation on the use of housing as speculative investment assets there will never be enough houses because speculative investors don’t buy houses for people to live in, they buy houses to ride the price bubble and sell later for a profit.
Just look at what has been going on in London (UK) for more than a decade - certain buildings made for sale to investors are almost empty of residents even though all the units were bought: the buyers simply don’t live there and don’t even want to rent because they don’t want the hassle of tenants or the loss in value from the apartment actually getting used (this is more so in the Luxury segment were there’s probably more units than people living in London who can and are willing to pay luxury rents)
With speculative investment the Demand side of the housing market is not limited to “how many people need a house”, it’s limited by that PLUS “how much money do speculative investors have to invest in housing”, so that’s basically how much money all high net worth individuals combined are willing to put in it plus how much money can banks lend against real-estate as collateral, and in this new Era of High Inequality the first number is huge and given that banking nowadays operates on Fractional Reserve Banking rules (basically banks can create from thin air up to 97% of their loans) that second number is even more larger.
Investor demand pumped up by cheap finance on the Demand side of housing are driving the real-estate bubble way more than reduced construction is driving it on the Supply side.
Builders are doing pretty good. When you can ignore minimum standards and sell a house for a million that you spent a couple hundred thousand to build, you can rake in the cash.
It depends on where you live. Building in the Netherlands is a compliance hell hole and you end up with a very large portion of the cost being getting permits, doing environmental assessments etc.
In the UK you have to go through a local council that will refuse pretty much everything you want on top of the Netherlands issues.
This is pretty much the reason why builders are focusing on high value and luxury apartments since a bigger project benefits from scale on the permitting side.
And that goes double for the actual carpenters, plumbers, and electricians that do the actual building.
A friend of mine who has some money mentioned maybe getting a rental property at some point. I told him I think that’s immoral and he didn’t understand. He insisted that he would charge below market rate. By his logic, the market rate is like a neutral point for morality and below market rate is morally good. But if you charged above market rate and got a renter…that’s just the market rate now. There’s no way for him to be immoral by his standards.
I told him I thought that a fair rate was the cost of property management. Basically the cost of maintenance and the administration of the property. It’s arguable that the cost of property insurance should be included since a lot of maintenance will be through your insurance. He of course mentioned that wouldn’t even cover his mortgage. I told him I don’t believe people poorer than you should be buying you an asset. Why don’t you get them to contribute to your 401k while your at it.
“more than it’s worth” yeah the solution is pricing necessities for human survival FAIRLY…
deleted by creator
excellent use of the godzilla 2 cover, the game rules too
Well, actually our landlord has built the building and keeps rent tolerable
Your landlord is skilled in architecture, masonry, joinery, electrics, and plumbing?! Impressive!
Or, more likely, do you mean your landlord paid labour to build the building for them? Labour which will gain next to none of the value that their labour has produced.
joinery
Interesting, TIL.
Woah, isn’t that a bit too harsh?
A popular myth about the Chinese revolution is that Mao’s government ordered the execution of landlords. This is entirely incorrect. Mao actually insisted on nonviolence towards the ownership class that complied with the revolution so that systematic and non-violent justice could be done as a show to the world the new government weren’t just violent peasants throwing a fit; but rather prove that peasants, when given power, would act more fairly than those that ruled before.
Despite this push from all official sources to NOT kill landlords, with assurances from Mao’s government that renters would be free to make legal claims on the land they’ve historically rented and their landlords would be legally punished, the people, when given the opportunity, decided to kill their landlords en masse.
Some of these landlords, undoubtedly, were “fair” landlords. Some were undoubtedly “able to keep rent tolerable.”
All of them were leeches on society, and society, when given the freedom to express their true feelings of reality, understand these leeches need to be physically removed from this plane of existence.
People generally do not have it in them to kill others. It’s one of the few things people cannot generally just do. It requires someone to be pushed, punished, tortured, sometimes for years or for someone to pose that same immediate danger.
Landlords will always fall into one of those categories.
No.
Because being a landlord, even one creating affordable housing is probably the most evil thing you can do according to Lemmy.
I always get so frustrated at the lack of nuance. I loved being able to rent a house when I was in college. I had no desire to buy a house and renting was a great option. Also more affordable and better living conditions than on campus. Is it shitty when landlords suck and rent is too high? Yeah, but there are good landlords as well. Private equity and most property management companies are pure shit, though. Slumlords who own entire city blocks and don’t maintain their properties are shit.
Nope fuck you, no renting, not even dorms (renting from the college is still renting), you must drop $150,000 on a townhouse while spending whatever college tuition is right now. What you can’t afford it? Well fuck you for paying into the system perpetuating landlordism rentoid, should have lived in a tent on the street if you don’t want to be judged by some terminally online twits!
You’re just ignoring the nuance.
The nuance here is that you’re charging more than what the shelter costs. You are profiting from it. Literally nobody is making you do that.
So landlords should provide their service for free then? Is that what you do? Where is your apartment complex where you invite people to stay for nothing, and just pay utilities? Can you share your listing with me so I can move into your complex? Living expenses are ridiculous right now, I could use some relief.
No, landlords should not exist in my opinion. Public housing should be available with zero profit incentive.
Where is your apartment complex where you invite people to stay for nothing, and just pay utilities? Can you share your listing with me so I can move into your complex?
Housing co-ops exist, dude. This isn’t some obscure, groundbreaking concept.
Also, housing co-ops aren’t solutions to short-term housing. Renting is a good solution for that. However, since renting is intrinsically morally reprehensible no matter what, what’s the solution to short-term or temporary housing solutions?
I agree with you and I’m aware. So you live in a housing co-op then?
You’re smart, I like you. Can we be friends lol
no, you’re just a land leech and glomming onto the first person who doesn’t see you for what you are
What’s your living situation like? How many people are you providing free shelter for?
You aren’t providing shit.
