• @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    36
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    We’d have a lot of empty houses and maybe cheaper houses.

    Look. Personally, I love renting. Its fleksible.i can move whenever i want to and not think about selling. Also i can live in places where houses are practically unsellable and not worry that I can’t sell once I want to live somewhere else

    Also, I don’t have to worry about repairing and maintaining the house. If I window breaks, I call the landlord. If a pipe breaks a leak, I call the landlord. For me, renting is great!

    • @null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2515 days ago

      I’d be happy to rent if the value of houses didn’t double every decade.

      Here in Australia you really just work so you can pay your mortgage. The wealth you accrue through your life is mostly the value of your house rather than the money you save.

      • @meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        314 days ago

        you really just work so you can pay your mortgage.

        Of course. Why would we work so hard to keep jobs that most of us hate if we didn’t have mortgages and rent to pay? This is how the machine keeps itself turning. If only there was a motor that wasn’t so exploitative in nature…

    • @agent_nycto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2415 days ago

      My brother in Christ you’re the one paying for those repairs and more yourself, it’s not like the landlord does it personally. Some might to save a buck, but you’re still paying the bill.

      Oh and all those repairs are tax deductible so they will pay less than you will on taxes usually.

      Oh and if they would have to pay taxes, you’re paying the taxes for them.

      • @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        15
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        This is how everything you buy works. When you buy bread from the store you’re paying more than it costs to make.

        My point is, that I am willing to pay the landlord, to handle these responsibilities and risks

        Edit: and inconvenience

        • Jack
          link
          fedilink
          -815 days ago

          Exactly, but the difference is that you don’t buy anything from your landlord

          • @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1515 days ago

            These are basic principles dude. Just like you dont buy anything off a guy who mows your lawn or a taxi driver.

            You buy a service. It doesn’t mean that it is not worth the money

            • @Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              15 days ago

              You’re paying them for having had at the right time the capital to get hold of a limited resource that’s required by people to live, which they now block you from getting or using unless you pay them.

              You’re paying a ransom, not buying a service.

              If there were lots of houses available to buy at prices which were affordable to all and some people were landlords letting those who chose not to buy (for example because they were only somewhere temporarily) then, yeah, landlords would be providing an actual service, but that’s not at all the system we have and plenty of people who want to buy in practice cannot, so have no other option in order to have a place to live than to pay the ransom to those who do have the capital to buy (or did, back when it was cheaper) and used it to capture that resource that’s required by others.

            • @grrgyle@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              314 days ago

              You want a superintendent, not a landlord. The house is owned in common, you live in it, and you pay someone to manage the property.

            • @ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              -115 days ago

              Literally renting a home is not a service. Service creates something of a value, and adds it to the world. What is the property rent’s “service”? Did they replace furniture with gold in the recent years? Or given the rent hikes, did the gave you a blowjob or smthing, as a part of the “service”?

              • @Takumidesh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                115 days ago

                Look, I get the sentiment.

                But conceptually, landlords do present a service.

                There is time value in being able to call a singular person and say ‘my stove is broken’ and not have to do anything else.

                Yes you can do it yourself if you have the time and skill, it is a hassle finding the right stove, at the right price, getting it delivered or picking it up, finding, hiring, and going under contract with individual people to do installation, managing warranties, etc.

                A lot of people don’t want to do that, a lot of people are also comfortable paying a premium to have someone do stuff that they don’t want to do.

                There is value in being a broker, and that is a landlords primary job, the maintenance and responsibilities are abstracted away to the renter.

                • @agent_nycto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  615 days ago

                  I really hate to burst your bubble, but I am technically a landlord. I own a duplex, I rent out the other half to my brother and fiance, and we’re all paying the same amount into the mortgage, but for all legal purposes I’m their landlord.

                  In my experience as a renter and a landlord, if we’re talking about the convenience factor, it’s still easier to be a landlord.

                  That “one phone call to fix a thing”, assuming they bother to actually fix it, is one phone call for a landlord to just get some guy to do it. So that’s the same amount of effort.

                  Landlords usually have to put in even less effort, because there’s entire companies who’s job it is to be property management, so most don’t have to even make one phone call to fix anything.

                  As someone who owns a home now, it’s less of a pain than renting. I have been putting work into the house to change it because I can and don’t need permission from a landlord to do so. If something is broken I can have someone fix it without having to go through a landlord to decide whether or not to call someone.

                  So yeah, if there wasn’t a homelessness problem and everyone had a house, and some people didn’t want to bother with it, maybe I could see in that world a landlord existing like a hotel service or property manager for individuals, but when people are dying in the streets because some greedy corporations and selfish assholes keep all the housing and extort everyone who wants shelter, that’s fucked up.

                  People’s problem with landlords isn’t about personal convenience, and you should maybe look beyond yourself. It doesn’t matter if you find it more personally convenient, it’s part of a problem that’s killing people, and if you’re still cool with that because you think it’s slightly easier for you personally, you’re a selfish, horrible person.

    • @SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1214 days ago

      Buying and selling houses is a nightmare to make you feel like rentals are necessary.

      When my parents wanted to move as young adults it was easy for them to sell their property and use that money to buy a new one in the place they were moving to. That’s now way more difficult just for the benefit of landlords.

      • @Lyrl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        214 days ago

        When I was four (in 1986), my parents moved for my Dad’s job (he was transferred), and ended up accepting the company offer to buy their house at not a great price because they couldn’t find a market buyer. At least from my experience, buying and selling forty years ago was just as fraught as now.

        Do you have examples of specific practices that have become common and make house sales more difficult?

        • @meowMix2525@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          Housing should not be a speculative asset in the first place. Houses are for living in- and before you tell me about how they are a valuable store of wealth, you shouldn’t need to do that either to get by. Your net worth and therefore your class standing should not be a factor in whether you can have access to the basics of life. That’s why it’s called capital-ism, because everything revolves around capital. It’s designed to self-perpetuate by exploiting the inequalities it produces. There are other ways of life, and they aren’t as pie-in-the-sky as they would seem. You just have to get out of the capitalist frame of mind to understand how they work and what exactly is holding us back from achieving them.

          • @Lyrl@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            214 days ago

            I agree with everything you wrote up to the point of claiming all the US housing problems are inherent to capitalism. Japan is a capitalist country, but Japanese houses are for living in, and Japanese houses depreciate like cars - which is way more sustainable than the US train wreck. There are other ways of housing even without leaving capitalism.

            • @vga@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              Japanese houses depreciate like cars - which is way more sustainable than the US train wreck

              This is almost entirely not due to policies but almost entirely to Japanese economy being stagnant for the last 20 years whereas the US economy has grown almost every year for the last 20 years.

              I also live in a stagnant country, and it’s not great that you have to sell the house you bought 10 years ago with the same price or cheaper to get it off your hands. And also it’s not great that the general wealth in the society is not growing.

              When people from where I live visit USA, even when they go to not so rich states, they notice that everything and everyone is more wealthy. It’s an incredible thing and apparently something you can only understand if you experience the alternative.

        • @SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          114 days ago

          I think the biggest issue is that the price of homes proportional to income isn’t what it used to be. And that causes things to keep getting worse.

          Homes cost more and people have less money so less homes are sold. This allows institutional investors to buy up larger portions of the available housing, and they prefer to rent those out.

          So that along with other factors makes home prices keep going up causing less people to be able to buy. People being forced to pay a larger portion of their income to housing causes the spiral to get worse and creeps into other industries that people won’t patronize if they need to save money.

          Landlordss being allowed free reign historically does this to countries. It happend in England and China and probably a lot more countries i am ignorant about.

          • @Lyrl@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            114 days ago

            Neighborhoods fighting densification tooth and nail make housing scarce, and people who want housing having to outbid each other for (proportional to population) fewer and fewer houses makes them unreasonably, unsustainably expensive. Which attracts investors and adds icing to the problem, but at root it’s the homeowners who got theirs and then pulled up the ladder after driving the scarcity of housing in the locations where people want to live.

            If people demanded governments really invest in densification and new houses where the jobs are - including sharply limiting the ability of noisy impacted neighbors to drag the process out - the availability of houses would force prices down, which would cause the predatory investors to lose interest and add icing in the other direction, to affordability.

    • Jack
      link
      fedilink
      515 days ago

      Saying that you add nuance with that comment, is like saying anti-vaxers add nuance with their views.

      It is proven time and time again that when something is done against landlords the normal people benefit. See Vienna for example, or the early ccp or the whole movement of and views of Henry George.

      You can also see full video about the topic in Britain here

      • @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        115 days ago

        Sure. But no matter how many videos I watch or how many articles I read about how terrible landlords can be, it won’t change the fact that I dont want to own a property and also that there are people who are unable to buy. There are also people who are not in that stage of life where they want to have ties to a house.

        Its not black or white.

        Hence nuanced

        I might be in the wrong place, discussing and interesting topic though.

        • Jack
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          You are having a false dichotomy here, it is not either no landlords or no rental properties.

          That is the whole point, you can have all the benefits and more without landlords.

          • @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -515 days ago

            You might be right. I can’t see it though, besides public housing, which imo isn’t a long term viable solution. At least not to me.

            The thus is, that I live in a country where landlords have been strictly regulated and there are rules to how much rent they can take, how much they can raise it and over what period of time.

            • Jack
              link
              fedilink
              715 days ago

              public housing, which imo isn’t a long term viable solution.

              Why not? And also where is the line between heavily regulated private sector and a public one?

              • @letsgo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                014 days ago

                Lack of choice for one. In public housing you get allocated a space according to some bureaucrat’s tired Friday afternoon can’t be arsed perception of your most basic needs, not what you want.

                It’s just you? You get a “studio”, i.e. kitchenette, table and bed all in one room, separate bog and shower in a tiny cupboard if you’re lucky. Want a separate kitchen? No. Second bedroom for friends? No. Garage for the car you don’t want nicked? No. Extra room for your instruments? No. And it’s in a shitty area too, here’s your free stab vest. You’ll also want to buy some nasal protection too because you’re on the 27th floor and the piss-filled lift hasn’t been cleaned in 15 years.

                Oh there are four of you? Parents share a double (no it’s not big enough for a king-size bed), kids share a room. One two-bed flat coming right up, complete with all the same refusals and one vest. There is one concession though, we don’t put families more than 10 floors up.

                Buying or renting gives you the choice to live in whatever you want, wherever you want, providing you can afford it. Of course if you can’t afford it then you have to rely on handouts and you just have to be happy with what you’re given.

                • Jack
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  Buying or renting gives you the choice to live in whatever you want, wherever you want, providing you can afford it.

                  That sounds wonderful in theory but in reality we get skid row there is no need to evern argue, this is the system we live today and daily people die from exposure and are forced to live in tents around the world.

                  This is INHUMANE system and we can see it every day.

                  If “the choice” is out of reach for many people is there even a choice?

        • @Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          214 days ago

          Landlords drive up the price of housing by forcing regular home buyers to compete with investors. That’s why most people can’t afford to own a home.

    • Lemminary
      link
      fedilink
      314 days ago

      If I window breaks, I call the landlord. If a pipe breaks a leak, I call the landlord. For me, renting is great!

      Here I’m responsible for all that. Renting is not so great… lol

    • @vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      We would also get lots of empty houses by killing 20% of the poorest people. What’s the point of arguments like this?

  • @skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    814 days ago

    There’s a lot of smug “well actually” commenters in this thread, who have completely missed that the meme is making a rhetorical point about the nature of rent-seeking rather than sincerely advocating for the sudden disappearance of all landlords.

  • Lemminary
    link
    fedilink
    714 days ago

    I could go on vacation twice a year if I didn’t pay rent.

        • @orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          414 days ago

          Does your TV, which you own but neither use nor possess, make life bad for others who actually use it and watch it?

      • @vga@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        -6
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        That’s not quite true. They add the initial and after-market capital to build and support the houses. They also carry some of the capital risk.

        • @10001110101@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          614 days ago

          Developers build houses and neighborhoods all the time without landlords paying them to do so. I’m actually not sure if landlords paying for building is common at all. Though, developers do all kinds of shady and harmful shit too.

          • @lightsblinken@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            114 days ago

            you think the developers will continue building if nobody gives them money at the end of the build? either through pre- (“give us money and we’ll build you a thing”) or post- (“come give us money for this thing we built”)

            why do bakers even charge for the bread they made?!! its just sitting on the shelf doing nothing?!

            • @10001110101@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              214 days ago

              I think it’s mostly regular homebuyers that give them the money (well, the bank, through mortgages).

    • @Sarmyth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      114 days ago

      Those things will be inherited and there will instantly be new landlords. Unless we want the state seizing and redistributing assets on death… which i don’t.

      • @meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        Where is your horse in the race? Is it really “yours” if all you do is collect a premium for having a piece of paper that says so while someone else does all the care, training, and maintenance for it? What a raw deal for that person…

        • @finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -114 days ago

          My horse in this race: Posts like this push a specific political ideology using emotion as fuel. I have the hindsight and the foresight to know what pushing violent and uneducated policies gives us.

          As for your hypothetical landlord who does zero maintenance, they’re financiers who hold all the liability so tenants don’t have to. Corporate Landlords shouldn’t exist in my opinion but single property landlords are cool in my book.

          • @orcrist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            414 days ago

            No, landlords do not hold all the liability. The real risk is on the renters. Every day I go to work, but if I lose my job and can’t pay rent, I could be homeless in a few months. That’s real liability.

            If some rich fuck might lose a hundred grand, hey that would suck, but they’ll be fine. Their life will go on just like it always did.

            • @finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              -1
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              If a property rental gets wrecked and the insurance, which the landlord pays, doesn’t cover it then who owes the bank the remainder of a loan equivalent to 5x the renters annual income?

              A) The Tenant

              B) The Landlord

              • @kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                114 days ago

                If the insurance doesn’t cover it, the landlord fucked up. Should have gotten better insurance. Homeowner’s insurance is very cheap.

                Even if the insurance does cover it, the tenant loses all their belongings and their housing.

  • @rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -414 days ago

    If you want the state to redistribute their property, or some other organization, making it kinda common and free, - you’ll have a mobster alternative of feudal lords instead of landlords.

    Like it happened with USSR.

    • @Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      2215 days ago

      From Wikipedia

      A landlord is the owner of property such as a house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate that is rented or leased to an individual or business, known as a tenant.

      So, I’d say you’re technically wrong :D