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
51827 readers
792 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
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.
What about landlords that do repairs themselves though? Is that not by definition labor or am I missing something here?
The tenants can do upkeep themselves, or pay people to do that. Rent-seeking can still exist even if the rent-seekers promise to do maintenance (which in reality they don't have much interest in doing, especially if it doesn't add value to the property). Tenants often have to live for months with broken ACs, appliances, because their landlords have no desire to upkeep temporary items. The yearly lease is signed, and they're getting their money.
My first landlord sucked, my second landlord was ok, but I suspect most wouldn't be. They repaired everything in a timely fashion, and waived my rent for three months when I got laid off to let me get back on my feet. Still only made sense because I was in college and wasn't sticking around that area long enough to justify buying then selling a property, but for the context acceptable landlords can exist.
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."
But what if they can afford it, but just don't like seeing reasonable housing go to waste? Not enough to try to exactly right-size their housing and move everything they own, but enough to offer it up for rent.
It's certainly a niche that isn't the typical story, but renting out portions of your house is a scenario that could make sense.
What the hell kinda house has a bathroom per bedroom??? That's insane.
My in-laws have a house with one of the bedrooms with it's own bath and it's own external entrance, you have to walk outside to get to that bedroom.
Downsize when you don’t need the space anymore? Would be my guess.
First, that doesn't solve the problem because then somebody else has two units in one building.
Second, downsize... from a four bed to a three bed? Not sure what sense that makes. Our needs won't have changed dramatically.
Another piece that I didn't mention is that I'm in the military, in a place with 3-year tours (so fairly temporary), and the young single people who arrive usually don't wany anything too permanent, and are not in a position to buy. But I do know what their allowance for housing it, so I would be able to charge less than their allowance for housing, meaning they would get money out of the deal (and stuff is expensive here, so I'm not sure how they live anyway), and I get a respectful, reliable tenant (and we could offer home-cooked meals to whoever stays).
I know it's a unique circumstance, and an exception hardly disproves the rule, but I don't think "there's no such thing as a good landlord" is a true blanket statement.
A lot of kids move back after college. I definitely wouldn't downsize until my family was secure and for sure no longer needed the space.
Now the question is it better to allow that space sit vacant or rent out the space.
I think there is a defensible position for renting out a temporarily unused space in your primary home versus buying vacant properties solely to rent.
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.
bullshit. me pointing out that renting is acceptable in certain situations and price gouging renters are not the same. they're related, but are different debates.
there is nothing wrong with this either. my point was i have zero reason to ever own an auger. i'd rent it, use it, then return. i don't want to store that shit or maintain it. i live in a condo with limited storage space for that, not to mention i'd probably use it once a decade.
wut?
Rent seekers are parasites and the world would be better off without them.
They are unproductive exploiters and can and should be completely replaced.
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