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
51788 readers
1366 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
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?
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.
Yeah I mean, I could understand it being actually just three bathrooms, two for the main three bedrooms and one for the seperate unit. It's not a self-contained unit without it. But if there are four toilets in that house that is massively overkill.
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.
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?
I will admit that's a good point, although hopefully there would be laws preventing an eviction without notice, but you're right it would be a bad situation, it would definitely be disruptive.
However, there are people who prefer to rent because they prefer the freedom from place to place, I think that's worth acknowledging too.
Although I think you're right.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
wrong, run down apartments occasionally are cheaper than bulk climate controlled storage units while being completely usable for that purpose
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.
Except tools aren't a basic human need. Not having a hammer will not decrease my quality of life as much as not having a house
That's not a reason for anyone to make money from rents.
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)
Everyone needs a shelter to live in, but that doesn't mean everyone can afford buying one outright. What about the people who can't afford to buy one outright?
If someone can't afford to buy a house or a condo, does that mean they shouldn't get to live in one?
What about people who want the freedom to move from place to place without being tied down, too bad, they have to own a place?
Generally that's what mortgages are for. Considering rent needs to cover the cost of [ mortgage + expenses + the landlord's profit ] anyone that can afford rent can afford the mortgage.
That's not to mention the reason housing prices are so absurd is because landlords are buying up all the available supply in order to profit it off of it existing. Without landlords housing becomes much more affordable.
We are having a housing crisis right now. So how about we worry about the large group of people who want to own shelter and can't, and then we can worry about the much smaller group of people who have the means to move constantly but find hiring a realtor just too much effort.
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.