1099
Lazy moochers
(lemmy.ml)
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 27 Jul 2025
1099 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
51807 readers
1175 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
How do people still argue that landlords are useful and necessary?
By being landlords or personally knowing landlords.
I swear my uncle is a good landlord. Keeps prices low, I swear he doesn't rip off his renters. He would never do that.
If there were as many good landlords as I have heard this story we wouldn't have any problems Kyle, sit the fuck back down.
Assuming this comment isn't ironic: there is no such thing as a good landlord. Landlords are parasitic middlemen who live by leeching off the value created by workers. They contribute no value whatsoever.
This is admitted even in mainstream economics, its termed rent-seeking.
Okay, I'll bite. I just bought a 4-bed/3-bath (actually 4 bathrooms, but bathroom math made it "3-bath") because we are a family of four in an expensive tourist spot and wanted a guest bedroom for family and visitors. It just so happened one bed and a 3/4 bathroom is in an attached 1-bedroom apartment with its own kitchen and living room.
So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can't sell it separately. So the choice is be a landlord, or don't offer housing (I suppose I could make it an AirBnB and make even more money, but this area is already fucked for housing for that reason).
So if there is no such thing as a good landlord, what would you recommend in a situation like this? Let someone live there for free? Then they'd be costing me money. Don't rent it out? AirBnB?
If you don't need that space, then you might as well sell it and let another family make use of it instead.
Yours is not a unique situation; a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out, and they have a lot of extra rooms and space they no longer need. Its the right decision anyway, as you're now free to be more mobile, and get rid of all the years of accumulated junk.
Sure you can argue they dont need that space, but a lot of kids return after college. If I had kids I'd only downsize once they are well established. It's about ensuring the security of your family and ensuring they have a place to come back to.
Is it better to let that sit space vacant for 4+ years though?
There are two options? Rent it for profit or leave it empty?
Is there a third option? It's an unused room in a house that's being used.
They can rent it out, leave it out, or sell their house and downsize but then what if their oldest is out of work and can't find a new job and has to come home, but now because they downsized there's no room for them. How does that help? It seems like there are only two valid options unless I'm missing something.
In this case I understand not downsizing until your kids are established with a job/place to live.
Depending on equity and their mortgage payment it may not even be possible to downsize without paying more per month. That's the insanity of the current market.
Remember this is an occupied family home with an unoccupied room. Not a whole property.
What would you suggest?
And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn't moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially "downsizing" to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young'uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren't in a position to buy a house and wouldn't want to.
This whole "no good landlords" reeks of the same mentality as "no good lawyers." Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.
Not the same at all, as lawyers do work to get paid.
Landlords rent-seek by charging access to important and scarce property that they themselves don't use. They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn't do for themselves.
What gives you the right to these people's paychecks? If you're not using it, then sell it, and don't rent-seek.
There is nothing defensible about being a landlord. Its not exactly the same as owning slaves or owning capital, but all three are based on absentee ownership and extracting value from working people.
Huh? Do you think it's not labor when they fix broken doors, outlets, change locks, upgrade toilets, fridges, etc.? Some landlords even do it themselves without hiring subcontractors.
So you're saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied? What if their oldest loses their job and can't find a new one, but has to move back, and then can't because they downsized to a smaller house?
I'm not so sure that is a great solution.
What if their oldest loses their job and now for no fault of their own the renter is suddenly forced to find a new place to live to accommodate the landlords son? But they've been spending their money on rent so they don't have enough savings to find a decent place?
If they can't afford it, yes? That's what the rest of us do. We make do with what we have and budget accordingly. If something is too expensive, well tough. The problem is that a lot of people are facing problems like housing, food, and healthcare being too expensive, and all three of those things are required to live. At some point budgeting won't save you.
I have no sympathy for people whose biggest problem is "I can't afford this extra room in the house we own."
What the hell kinda house has a bathroom per bedroom??? That's insane.
Suppose a person owns an apartment building. What’s the process they should follow to behave as a good person should?
This has nothing to do with being a "good" person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
No ones acquires an entire apartment building in the first place with the purpose of living in it. They do it to become rent-seeking parasites.
But to your hypothetical, they could create a co-op as @queermunist@lemmy.ml mentioned.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I'm not saying it's just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I'd realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no "good person" simply owns a residential property that they don't live in.
I know I'm not who you're replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
There are legit reasons to rent and not own everything. Just like tools, might be better to rent a table saw than buy one that now you have to store and maintain.
That's not a reason for anyone to make money from rents.
That's a different discussion. I'm just saying there are reasons to rent rather than own.
That's not a different discussion, though.
If tools were collectively owned, for instance, they could be kept in a community tool locker/garage that the whole community would own and be able to borrow whenever needed. "Rent" would be replaced by a small fee paid into the community to maintain the tools, not some profit seeking parasitism from a renter looking to exploit people's need for tools.
Renting isn't the problem. Renters are.
Ok but this isn't really the same thing. A home isn't a tool you rent just to use when you need it. Everyone needs a shelter to live in.
You give two reasons it's preferable to rent rather than own your home:
That's just ridiculous.
You do realise that you're still paying to maintain it, right? The landlord is just also taking extra. Even if the landlord were charging you only what was strictly necessary for maintenance (which they aren't), they'd still have unnecessary leverage over you just for existing in a space.
Don't try to make excuses for landlords. We all know they're vermin. They're not doing you any favours by forcing you to keep paying high prices to live.
(Edit: formatting)
Well I didn't know you knew the answer to everything. And I'm not defending anyone, I'm presenting a different scenario, one that I have been in.
Sell it to the tenants.
I don't think I could rip off anyone if I decided to rent my place when I move. Hoping to keep it for my kid, but I'd basically charge the bare minimum, would even show the tenant what I pay as the owner so they'd understand. I wouldn't use it as a profit source, but because land is scarce and I just happen to have spent years owning this.
But even then it may not be worth, sell it to a new owner and move on. I'm not greedy by any means, just want to be comfortable.
It would still be someone else paying you to keep your properties value up while receiving nothing of value for their money. You wouldn't be on the same level as an intentionally evil landlord. Just be aware that you would still be siphoning money from a worker into your pocket.
I posted elsewhere in this thread, some people want to rent. There is a market for legit renters without ripping them off. If it costs $2800 for my mortgage/hoa/utilities and I only charge $2800, I don't see an issue. Any issues are coming out of my pocket at that price.
I don't even know if I want to rent to someone, that's a whole other set of headaches. I'd probably offer it to my kid, then move on. It's not an income to me, but property is hard to come by, I would have to think about it. I've already paid into it, banks got their share, I went through a lot of trouble to get it, so it's not like giving away tickets to a concert I couldn't make.
Also I wouldn't be "siphoning" anything, I'm renting what I own, just like toro car rentals. No one is making them do it. But my location is very great, near public transit, near two very recently built town centers, trails, lakes, etc. it's not like they're paying for a tent. Can move here for a year or so and find out it's exactly what they want or what they hate.
I live with my elderly parents, taking care of them until they move into a nursing home or worse (although I'm not sure death is actually worse than a nursing home). In the meantime, I bought myself a small house nearby that I'm renovating and I plan to move there after I close out my parents' house. I'm genuinely terrified of renting it out after having put so much time and effort into it. A lot of people rent in this neighborhood and I've seen firsthand what some tenants do to places.
But if I do rent it out, I'm a shitty scumlord? I'm a better person if I don't rent it?
this is my issue too. clearly the collective "landlord" that people are talking about are people that hoard homes and rent them out as an income. thats a bit much. but someone who just rents a single property, maybe in the city nearby where they used to live before they moved to a quieter area, i don't see as an issue. a condo in a city could be a great place for a person to rent while they decide if that city is for them, or until their career takes them elsewhere. i don't see renting as a problem
the problem in my opinion is these properties being bought up by corporations who follow no real set of laws and gouge renters in shitty apartments, coorborate with other apt buildings and price fix the area. that is a problem to me. renting from an older person or family who very possibly lived in the home you're going to rent, so fucking what. do it or don't, but don't lump them in with corporation owned apt complexes and actual slumlords.
Cool story bro
My parents own multiple rental properties and completely straight face told me it's a charity cause they rent to people who can't afford homes.
Meanwhile I'm engaging with my mutual aid group every week handing out about 400 meals, and survival gear for people who can't afford anything.
Glad their fucking charity has turned enough profit to pay off the rentals, their main home, and their vacation spot though. /s
The people saying that are usually hoping to become landlords themselves.
I just found an article (from 1955) by my grandma where she argued that she prefers renting over building a house because she has more freedom that way. She can move more easily because she doesn't have to find a buyer for her house, she doesn't have to worry about something breaking because that's on the landlord to fix and she doesn't have to go into debt to live somewhere.
As far as I know she never owned a home, always rented. But all her kids bought houses.
Sure, but it sounds like she’s never been evicted for no reason.
And her rent probably didn't take 100 hours of labor a month.
I had a coworker liked that. He enjoyed renting because it meant having fewer responsibilities.
I disagreed, and countered that renting means being more dependent on somebody else. Some landlords are excellent at responding to repair calls, but there are so many more that will leave you hanging for an indetermined amount of time, while leaks continue or appliances break. Personally, I'd rather not have the quality of life in my own home be dependent on someone who doesn't really care about me.
Sadly, I don't have much of a choice. I would prefer being able to pick my own repair people or just fix simple things myself. Alas, like so many others, I work full time but remain stuck in the rent trap. So much for freedom.
One of my coworkers said the same thing. After the third time they were forced to move they caved and bought a condo.
One of my big concerns is that access to psychological benefits of keeping a pet gets to be gatekept by the whims of someone else.
They kinda are necessary, given how they're the byproduct of capitalism's private property model and its commodification.
You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that's overly idealistic given how that'd go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.
In other words, they're necessary not because they're useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.
But but who will extract the remaining surplus value that the employers missed?
People not understanding the actual cost of owning and maintaining a house is my only argument for landlords. Or if you maintain it yourself it's a knowledge and time requirement.
Not saying landlords did a great job maintaining the rentals I've lived in. But there was definitely a point in my life where renting made more sense than owning a house.
We really need more control on rent prices so only high density housing is rentable. Or something, I don't have answers for why my shitty house is worth 70% more than it was 5 years ago.
My housing coop charges 38% market rate rent, maintains the common area, has a property manager, and provides units fridge/stove/furnace/AC, on 46 three bedroom townhouses.
So either landlords are wildly inefficient with their expenses, or they are taking a crazy margin over their operating expenses.