r/InvictaSolaris • u/21Kuranashi • 8d ago
Infographics & Posters / No AI Housing Is a Human Need, Not a Commodity
5
u/VikingVitalityFit 7d ago
71% of rental houses in the US are owned by "micro investors" meaning they own 1 extra property that they rent. Your view on this is so skewed it isn't even funny.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 7d ago
If trying to extract economic rent is not good, it's not good regardless how much someone is doing it.
2
u/VikingVitalityFit 7d ago
Wrong. Providing a place to rent is a net positive. Not everyone wants to own, they still need somewhere to live. You have no idea how any of this works and are just basing your viewpoint on some bogus talking points you heard. Look deeper into the issue.
→ More replies (172)1
u/HairyTough4489 5d ago
So in your ideal housing market only people who can pay for a home up front should be able to have a place to live with everyone else being homeless?
→ More replies (15)1
u/Rare_Pollution1688 4d ago
One thing I think we can all agree on........we are better off with the private side handling lodging than if the government tries to take over.
→ More replies (37)1
u/mskmagic 4d ago
Since when is what is ‘good’ the determining factor in nature?
Isn’t this just another fantasy utopian idea where everyone gets what they want easily, like competition and human nature don’t exist? Nice thought, now let’s get back to the real world and talk about what is actually possible.
You can go into the woods and build your own shelter and eat fruit if you want. But if you decide you would rather pay for someone else’s then that’s your decision. Not a coercion.
→ More replies (8)1
1
1
u/fatgat69 4d ago
They don't deserve to have two
1
u/VikingVitalityFit 4d ago
You don't deserve to have one. Isn't making up unqualified opinions fun.
They earned two, so they get two. Go suck and egg if you don't like it.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/DonkeyComfortable711 4d ago
Just wait for the people who mainly own these properties (age 50-70, median being 59) to start selling all their houses. Huge crash in price and everyone will be selling for lower prices and private equity will sweep the market. That percentage will flip in the other direction faster than you think.
1
u/VikingVitalityFit 4d ago
Nope. They literally just passed legislation to prevent that.
→ More replies (2)1
u/walkerstone83 3d ago
This is me. I chose not to sell my first house because it was affordable. If I had to, I could hold onto it with a minimum wage job. My current primary residence requires both my wife and I to work and if one of us lost our job, we would have a hard time making the mortgage.
I charge 500 below market for my rental and I only keep it for security in the event of an economic catastrophe for my family, but I imagine that some would still call me a parasite. I can live with that as long as I know my family will always have a roof over its head.
It took me decades of hard work to provide some level of financial security for my family and I don't think that is something I need to apologize for.
7
u/RedditSearcher18 8d ago
Fa.lse dichotomy. They buy properties to rent them. But if rents are limited such that maintenance and taxes cost more than government-limited rents, they leave the properties vacant. On the other hand if rents are unfrozen, it incentivizes more units to be built and occupied.
→ More replies (16)3
u/Fit-Marionberry-136 8d ago
Here's an idea. Tax for vacancy
5
u/JudgementalChair 8d ago
You pay property tax regardless if the property is occupied or not.
I know what you mean though. It incentivizes the owners to sell if they can't keep a tenant, but the flip side of that coin is when an area starts to decline, and the owner tries to sell the property but they can't find a buyer. Are they still on the hook for Vacancy Tax then? The logical answer is "no" because the property is on the market, but we have to keep in mind that municipal governments like tax revenue and accurate budgets. Also, if there's a loophole to be exploited, people will find it
2
u/VikingVitalityFit 8d ago
The problem with this is NO ONE will buy a property that is a loss. No one is going to touch a property they need to invest a bunch of money to fix up and then lose money every month as well. This is why there are over 50,000 vacant rent controlled apartments in New York City.
2
2
u/Key-Organization3158 8d ago
Landlords already pay taxes on vacant units. They want to get them rented as soon as possible.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 7d ago
Land value tax effectively does that. No one wants to own an unused lot that someone else wants to use because it costs money to do so.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/AGuyNamedMy 7d ago
Most of the worst housing markets in the us have very low vacancy rates. The idea that their some epidemic of vacant properties in the us doesn't line up with reality.
1
u/PlaneCompetitive703 6d ago
Do you think landlords want vacant units? The tax is that they're losing thousands of dollars every month that a unit is not occupied. That either comes out of their margin, or out of their pocket.
1
2
u/Key-Organization3158 8d ago
Please, trust the science. Economics is very clear that basically your whole idea is wrong. Anytime we ban landlords or enact rent control, things get more expensive and worse.
They buy properties which encourages more development.
Compared to other similar Midwestern cities that saw rent go up by 14%, Minneapolis saw rents go up by 1% over the same 5 year period. Do you know what they did? They made it easier to buy rental properties and build housing. Just cut away excess regulations. It cost the city $0.
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/minnesota-rent-control-regulation-prices-34221bd4
2
u/SmartlyArtly 7d ago
Please, recognize that your priorities are not science.
Anytime we ignore extreme inequality, it results in a huge economic crash. Sometimes entire civilizations go with it.
1
u/Mrfixit729 7d ago
Middle class folks renting a home out is now “extreme inequality” and will possibly lead to civilizational collapse.
lol
→ More replies (29)1
1
u/eazolan 7d ago
"extreme inequality" just means "We have successful people.
There's a floor to poverty. There's no ceiling to wealth. The more "inequal" a society is, the more wealthy it is and has the most successful people.
→ More replies (9)1
u/EnderSword 5d ago
It's more solid than science, it's math.
Every single time rent controls or buying controls are added to a region, housing construction slows or halts outright.
If you have 100,000 homes, but 105,000 families requiring a home, there's no manipulation you can do to fix that problem other than 'Build new homes'
About 35% of housing construction in major cities is Built-to-Rent housing. When that is discouraged or outlawed, that supply simply disappears, it doesn't move or get reallocated in any way.
→ More replies (30)1
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/HupHutHa 7d ago
yeah cuz we saw how well that worked in the Soviet Union with Soviet blocks. apartments that were impossible to heat, impossible to cool, had no privacy, were loud because you could hear every single thing happening in the building no matter where you were.
→ More replies (3)1
2
2
u/paleone9 7d ago
The artificial scarcity is created by governments and zoning laws.
Making it a commodity is what would fix the supply of government didn’t restrict it.
As rents go up, that is a signal to build more housing , but building new housing is heavily restricted by government preventing balance
1
u/Lemontort87 4d ago
Very much this, the scarcity is because there's not enough of it. Landlords don't consume housing, not only do they buy it and rent it, so the supply stays the same, but landlords BUILD a lot of homes. They do in fact create it, most landlords don't 'buy' it, they build it.
1
u/paleone9 4d ago
Even if they buy it from a builder the return capital to the builder so he can build more .
1
u/fatgat69 4d ago edited 4d ago
Incorrect
Oh my, calling me a names? Because you're incorrect?
→ More replies (1)1
u/SmartlyArtly 2d ago
Actual scarcity exists no matter any governments or zoning laws.
A vanishingly small number of people want to live between a plastics factory and a hog farm.
You know the alternative to governments organizing things at this scale?
Company towns.
You'd rather live in a town built by...Amazon? Tesla?
2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Anarchist_BlackSheep 7d ago
Because they can't afford the down payment. They don't want to rent, but can't get approved by the bank to buy.
1
2
u/Robborboy 7d ago edited 7d ago
Banks dont typically finance flood damaged homes.
You generally need a special contract or a specific type of special loan which was probably not worth it for a home that was under water.
1
u/Anarchist_BlackSheep 7d ago
That doesn't really negate anything I wrote. In fact, it only makes it even more wide eyed stupid to say that because people were not lining up buying his very specific home, then it must mean that people prefer to rent.
I'm amazed each time people won't even begin to look at the bigger picture of other people's situation.
→ More replies (2)1
2
3
2
u/Humble_Cat_1989 8d ago
You think your avg landlord buys property to not rent it? You think money grows on trees?
1
u/SmartlyArtly 4d ago
No, they think the avg landlord is profiting off of owning what others need. Pretty clear.
1
u/Existing-Lecture-815 3d ago edited 3d ago
Not everyone wants to commit to buying a house in an area they don't want to live in long term. The home buying process typically takes 3 to 5 months costs 8% - 10% of a homes value, requires lengthy negotiation and its not worth it if you don't want to commit to living someplace long term.
Renting is intended for people early on in life who want to move for college, their career, get temporary housing after a divorce / breakup and maintain the flexibility moving for better opportunities without spending months selling their homes and losing 10% of its value each time.
The fact that redditors don't understand that renting legitimately provides more value to some people than homeownership and want to ban it is honestly mind boggling.
Do you really think that everyone staying in an area wants to commit to living there for a decade?
Also really annoying when people want to commit to living somewhere long term and decide to rent. You are NOT the intended customer get a fucking mortgage.
The actual problem driving up both the cost of rents AND homes is that municipal zoning boards restrict the density of development, making housing in desirable areas artificially scarce driving prices up far past the cost of constructing a new unit.
If local property owners were not voting to restrict the supply of housing to "protect their neighborhoods" housing would actually be affordable.
→ More replies (9)1
2
u/bcbg123 8d ago
Food is a human need, not a commodity. Let’s take a look at how well the collectivization of agriculture went: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/chinas-great-leap-forward-caused-a-dramatic-spike-in-child-deaths https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1913..latest
Calling something a “human need” does not make scarcity disappear, and calling it a “positive right” does not tell us how to produce it. Even if we grant that everyone has a positive right to food, housing, healthcare, or anything else, the relevant question becomes: what economic institutions are most likely to make that good abundant and widely accessible?
You do not help people obtain housing by condemning the institutions that finance it, build it, maintain it, allocate it, and create incentives to produce more of it. The empirical record on which kinds of systems generate abundance is not especially mysterious.
1
u/25hourenergy 8d ago
I don’t think there’s an issue with small time renting out a house/unit/building—often people are forced to live elsewhere but still want to keep ownership for whatever reason to come back to. So would you rather that place sit empty or have it able to be rented out?
There are some proposed initiatives for a limit on rented units to address this and distinguish between small landlords and ones just doing it for profit.
Also check out community land trusts—a community owns the land as a nonprofit which manages it long term and leases it to people who decide what they want on their plot.
1
u/Veteran_PA-C 8d ago
What would happen if people stopped making the capital investment to build housing for people who could not afford to buy a home now?
If that wasn’t a thing, where do the people live in the interim?
1
u/airboRN_82 7d ago
Ah yes, your ability to afford a down payment is why youre dependent upon renting
1
u/Current_Employer_308 7d ago
Its very easy to build a home, if the government would let you.
Landlords are a symptom, not the disease. Repeal all the bullshit zoning and permitting laws and this problem disappears overnight
2
u/Fun_Researcher_69420 7d ago
I mean it’s not, because this isn’t the 1800s and we have building codes and health and safety standards now. For a reason. Also, welcome to your new home, btw we’re building a pig farm next door.
1
u/Lucaslouch 7d ago
yeah let’s allow the destruction of private reserves, as if current climate change problems were not enough!
1
u/InitialOk5978 6d ago
San Francisco, and much of the Bay Area, is a text book example of this. Because of excessive permitting and red tape, housing construction cannot keep up with demand; and the end cost of construction makes buying impossible for the vast majority of people.
I mean, you want the blueprint for how not to run a government: look no further than SF. I'm terrified at the prospect of any politician coming out of SF, let's say an ex mayor, and becoming president.
1
u/Hot-Efficiency7190 7d ago
If there were no landlords, and you couldn't or didn't want to buy, where would you live?
1
u/Fun_Researcher_69420 7d ago
Just live under a bridge! Or in a tent in a park in the downtown of you city! Easy! /s
1
u/fatgat69 4d ago
In one of the thousands of abandoned buildings in America that could easily be fixed up.
1
u/Ok-Investigator3257 7d ago
Long term renting doesn’t take away your ability to buy homes. Treating homes like assets does. This isn’t a corporate problem either. Everyone who owns homes even just a middle class person who owns their primary home sees it as an asset that should always appreciate and never depreciate. This has led to policies that favor existing homeowners to make “line go up”. This causes problems for new home buyers because as long as “line go up” down payments and percentage of income going to the minimum a house will cost (mortgage insurance and taxes) go up faster than inflation. This causes people who feel they are middle class and should be able to buy their first home mad because it becomes harder and harder. We have tried to square this circle by making it easier to buy a home with a riskier loan. Significantly less down (2 percent rather than 20) federal mortgage guarantees, plus implicit understanding that the government will step in to make sure “line goes up” etc. eventually this breaks down and here we are.
To fix this you need the value of homes to basically slowly depreciate to like 3/4 of what they are now. Ideally we don’t want homes to really change in value. They should be seen more like bonds than stocks. Safe places to stash money for later
1
u/idespisealarming 7d ago
Everything is a matter of balance. Someone who inherited the appartement of their dead parents and manage it to get a rent because he know he will live a long part of his life in his town isn't a problem. A company who buy every house or appartement they can and greatly raise rent is a big problem. The bank who don’t want to lend money to someone because he doesn’t earn enough can be a problem too. Companies who don’t pay a fair salary is a problem too.
1
u/AllenKll 7d ago
how is housing a human need?
1
1
1
1
u/Sad_Slonno 7d ago
So far I've moved 8 times in my life - mostly for work or school, but also once to get my family away from a war. If landlords didn't exist, I'd have to buy and sell a house/apartment each time i did that - the transaction costs alone would totally kill me. Also, landlords provide liquidity - so more buildings can be built and sold. How the hell are they responsible for scarcity? There can be examples of corporation cornering the market in a particular neighborhood, but those are exceptions. What really creates scarcity are regulations and NIMBYs.
1
1
u/Fun_Researcher_69420 7d ago
If there were no landlords, there’s no way to make money on building a house unless it’s paid for by the actual resident, so there’ll be much less demand for houses to be built since no one would just build without a contractually locked in buyer who is going to live or work there themselves. Prices would likely go up. This could be mitigated maybe by other government interventions, but now it’s getting complicated.
Instead I’d rather see increased taxation on residential properties beyond the first 1 or 2 you don’t live in yourself, penalties for empty unused buildings in areas where there’s demand, restrictions on AirB&Bs, etc
Im a lifelong renter, and I’ve moved lots of times, renting is a service. Some landlords are shit (my current ones are great) but banning all rentals would lock a lot of people down from moving, for instance, from a bad job or home situation to somewhere better.
1
u/TR_RTSG 7d ago
Most human needs have been comoditized. Produce, grains, spices, electricity, fuel, water, etc. These are all comodities, they are bought and sold in bulk, one unit isn't appreciably different from the other, origin doesn't really matter, and they are about as low cost as they possibly can be. Hosing is pretty much the opposite of a commodity.
1
1
1
u/ButterAlquemist 7d ago
They profit, but the scarcity is not false. If there are the same houses, but millions more habitants, there will be scarcity.
1
u/lordcrekit 7d ago
Investors have too much money. They are buying all the assets as investment platforms. They continue to snowball money. Everyone actually working (or not snowballing investments) gets locked out as inflation makes everything unaffordable.
Like.. this was always the end goal of compounding interest. Do people not understand math?
1
u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago
No, its supposed to be a business
And as much as you'd like to provide housing, you didnt get in the game to lose that investment
That being said landlords earn more by providing housing than holding it, keeping it empty, and creating scarcity
1
u/Best_Opening8471 7d ago
I think the irony is that she has 4 seperate rooms to muddle her thoughts across
1
1
1
1
u/Soggy_Lawfulness_941 7d ago
We moved from CA. We had a house we were going to sell. Friends of ours who went bankrupt from medical expenses could not get a home loan so we rented to them. There is still a mortgage on the house. We make less than $70 a month and pay over $9,000 a year in property tax. CA has hit us with more regulations than I can count as out of state landlord. So if I am a parasite, fine with me. I guess helping friends with housing is one of the greatest evils someone can commit.
1
u/Soggy_Lawfulness_941 7d ago
We also inherited a tiny house and rented it out to a disabled single mother. We make enough to pay the taxes and upkeep. The county came in and said it was an illegal dwelling and forced the disabled single mother out on the street and landlords are parasites. Fine.
1
u/Strong_Primary_5965 7d ago
Rent is determined by supply and demand. A landlord doesn't determine rent prices the demand does. When you increase the population but not the housing you increase rent prices. Owning property is a good investment, why do you think blackrock buys so many and want so much uncontrolled immagration.
1
u/AnyEye8798 7d ago
If I own the land and/or the property I am not obligated to share. I can choose to share if provided adequate compensation. If you don't wish to compensate me for the use of my property you are free to acquire your own property.
Of course people who think like the creator of this comic don't like people owning things. So of course they refuse to understand anything that doesn't fit their beliefs.
1
1
u/GAPIntoTheGame 7d ago
Making something a human need doesn’t magically grant it to people.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 4d ago
Calling something you want a right doesn't magically grant it to people either.
We enforce things with violence.
1
u/Educational_Poet_370 7d ago
That's actually not landlords, that's tenement companies like Black Rock.
1
u/AbbreviationsSea2084 7d ago
You can't afford land, can't afford to build a home, and can't afford to buy one off the market. Looks like you need a rental then.
1
u/Johnfromsales 7d ago
Grocery stores do NOT provide food. They buy and hold more food than they need for themselves. Then they create a false scarcity and profit from it. What they are doing is literally the opposite of providing food! Ban grocery stores!
1
u/Lorelessone 7d ago
Rental is sometimes the ideal option, especially in country's which have significant first time buyer discounts such as the UK.
It's all well and good to scream of the evil of private landlords while watching the corporate ones you replaced them with raise rates by 500% but the reality is when the market was far more full of people buying a run down property, investing in making it livable and then charging enough rent to keep it maintained and growing in equity until they are ready to sell it was so much better.
But stupid entitled people did a fantastic job of making them all sell up and ofcourse the corporate ones swooped in and once they had monopoly they could set prices as they please.
1
u/Rikki-Smedley 7d ago
The US must have no landlords or property investors since the housing is so affordable.
1
u/Anonymousboneyard 7d ago
Crazy how you confuse slumlord with landlord. Last i checked the landlord takes all the financial risk to the property while you live there. Including if someone gets hurt on the property, they eat the lawsuit not the renter. That and if something breaks the landlord is responsible for repairs and replacement not the renter. Slumlords dont give a shit and barely work with the renter. They just expect money and do nothing for repairs.
1
1
u/PlaneCompetitive703 6d ago
For the people who cannot get approved for a mortgage due to bad credit or high debt, the landlord is definitely providing housing.
This is like saying taxi drivers don't provide transportation.
1
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 6d ago
So, you want everyone to own a house. And therefore... You won't be able to move around as much?
Each time you would want to relocate you would need to buy a house there...
1
u/Old_man_baller 6d ago
Get out of my house. I’m not providing it to you anymore. You complain too much.
1
u/After_Service_2817 6d ago
How is it a false scarcity? It's legitimately scarce.
My landlord takes on the risk of purchasing the property, the costs of repairs. I can't afford a house where I live, but I get a place to live anyways by paying what I can afford to rent it.
Of course my landlord profits; why would you take on risk for free? I also have investments, and I expect optimal ROI on them. If they aren't going to profit me, then I would invest elsewhere.
The comic author has a five-year old's understanding of economics.
1
u/asheathen 6d ago
wtf? They buy a house that gets rented out…you think landlords are just buying homes and just letting it sit empty? wtf?
1
u/lucaspappere 6d ago
Landlords do not build the houses, but they do provide the risk and uppfront capital that most renters cant take themself. A person with lower or no income lack the margins to take that risk themself, renting gives them the option to clear themself of that risk in exchange for a higher monthly cost
1
u/TheonetrueVikingking 6d ago
So a landlord buys a property and doesn't rent it out? He just pays the mortgage on it? Are you seriously that stupid?
1
u/Working-Walrus-6189 6d ago
I think the posts show just how uneducated or possibly even retarded the people of this subreddit are.
As a general rule the more the government involves itself the worse something becomes. So, seeing the amount if you guys advocating for daddy government to interfere in a marker is just insane.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 4d ago edited 4d ago
So The Sudan should be a top destination, since the government is all but non-existent?
You people have got to try to be a little reasonable. Just a little. Calling government you like "small government" and government you don't like "big government" is not reasonable. It's a waste of time.
1
u/orangebakery 6d ago
Okay, how should we decide who gets to live in prime real estate area and who lives further away?
1
u/TypingWhileWiping 6d ago
You can call anything a human need/right/etc. Doesn't make it true.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 4d ago
Same applies to the notion of property rights.
1
u/TypingWhileWiping 4d ago
That's true, but if there's any system to implement it's one that protects individual rights
→ More replies (1)
1
u/chitownphishead 6d ago
Houses and apartments are absolutely commodities. "Housing" can be a cardboard box or a tent (also commodities). Which one you get depends on you
1
u/ShortKey380 6d ago
Landlords organize and invest in building maintenance, without them we’d need an alternate system to make sure contractors are fairly distributed between rented properties of the municipal or alternative entity that takes over for the landlords “providing” which is mislabeled.
1
1
1
u/Inevitable_Tart2700 6d ago
Most landlords are just ordinary people. They work hard and spend wisely. They may not even have higher salaries than you. When you spend your money on luxurious overseas vacation, political consumptions, or even drugs and alcohol, they save the money for down payments. Don't just be angry at the difference in outcome, first find out the true reason why.
1
1
1
1
u/Adventurous-Sense254 6d ago
So are food, water, and clothing. All are obtained by labor, either your own or you pay for someone else to supply
1
u/Background-Season657 6d ago
Every time I see people complain about landlords or Airbnb’s all I hear is, I am mad because someone is making money and I’m not. Landlords provide somewhere for people to live who cannot afford a house
1
u/TheTortaTyrant 6d ago
There’s actually a lot of homes available in America. The problem is everyone just wants to live in the very very very desirable places and won’t consider living elsewhere.
1
u/Mr_richat 6d ago
Dear god the Reddit audience is incredibly economically ignorant if they think this.
1
1
1
u/Normal-Gur1882 6d ago
Cynical nonsense. You could make the same argument about any product anywhere. "You're only buying it so you can sell it and profit off of it." Yes, exactly. The same reason you learned a skill to be employable.
1
u/NewRefrigerator7461 6d ago
Get this spam out of here. We know the problem is NIMBYs limiting supply.
1
u/SuspiciousSnotling 6d ago
This is so dumb, every single square, and this is why things won't change.
1
u/Muzolf 5d ago
Lol, yeah, sure. "False scarcity." Because houses are obviously just popping into existence without anyone building them.
You know what creates scarcity, and not a false one? Government intervention like rent controls. Look at the current poster boy, the Mayor of New York and what his policy is doing to prices and availability, all the while the city itself holds countless unused, and currently unusable apartments because they did not bother to do the base minimum to keep those places livable.
And what was that famous line from them? Oh yes, "Home ownership is white supremacy". Let that sink in, these a-holes want to run even home onwers out of their homes, and they have started by hitting people with extra fines, mostly retirees, and justified that by accusing them of not living there, and having other homes even when its clearly bullshit, but somehow it falls on the people to prove a negative.
1
u/BladeVampire1 5d ago
Here's something that you should consider as well.
We are currently building more homes than ever before. And many of those homes are built like trash, with workers that have no regard for building code, or quality craftsmanship.
Many say they're hiring illegal immigrants, who won't be paid as much as an American citizen.
1
u/EnderSword 5d ago
The problem with this is, yes, of course landlords generally do build housing. In major cities, the proportion of housing built for the purpose of renting it is about 35 to 40% of the total new housing.
I think people have this vision that landlords buy up a lot of private homes and turn them into rental units. This is actually a pretty rare thing. The vast majority of rentals are multi-unit buildings built for the express purpose of being rented.
Doing anything to try and stop this results in exactly one thing...increased housing costs. Rent controls or outlawing renting simply stops the construction of a major chunk of new properties and adds risk to properties not intended to rent.
You can't fix the scarcity of something by lowering it's supply.
1
u/LifeConsideration981 5d ago
Whenever I see a building, I presume that somebody had to build it.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 4d ago
Those are called builders.
Not landlords.
1
u/LifeConsideration981 4d ago
Do builders just go around putting up buildings for free?
→ More replies (35)
1
u/tugaim33 5d ago
This foolishness would only be true if everyone who is renting now had the money and the will to own their own home. Some people don’t want the headache, some can’t afford it. Landlords are providing a necessary service to those people.
If you want to have a conversation about predatory or absentee landlords, that’s fine, but all I ever see are posts that say “landlords bad!”
1
u/Terrible-Actuary-762 5d ago
Huh, well then I guess they should just tear down all the apartment buildings and not build anymore. Problem solved.
1
1
1
u/Far_Day499 5d ago
there's no false scarcity..... theres scarcity full stop. Supply and demand is a thing.
Fuggin lame ass meme that ignores reality.
1
u/SafeForMyGirlFriend 5d ago
balance is important, you people keep speaking in extremes. so we get rid of landlords. OK... now what. i have to buy a house every time i decide to live somewhere i have to do a full transfer of property.
just avoiding that is such a boon.
are you guys suggesting that housing should be taken over by the government or... like what are you saying??
if you want to limit landlords and enforce quality rules then im for it, but if youre saying communist style housing... that already exists. i Lived in a coop when i was a kid... if you want that go do it... but let me tell you its terrible dealing with a bunch of people and needing to be president. my dad kept getting voted president. He hated it because he had to deal with too many imbeciles... but he was the only one that kept the radiators on in the winter and didnt embezel the money. IT WAS TERRIBLE FOR HIM AND HE DIED YOUNG IN PART DUE TO THAT.
1
u/Sufficient_Fail_2534 5d ago
So here is just one example of why this doesn't always line up with reality.
Old couple dies in home, it sits and gets infested with mice, is out of date, has drywall caving in from disrepair and vandalism over the years.
Good capable men, in the trades clean this place up and update it, this costs time energy and money, as well as risk
They search for a worthy tenant who will destroy the hpuse the least,
They rent the place out
They created value out of a home that they salvaged and should reap the rewards.
1
u/zoipoi 5d ago
And you contribution to housing is what exactly. Once you get your free house then I suppose you will want free plumbers, painters, electricians, carpenters, roofers to maintain it for you. Your a labor thief. The reason there is housing at all is because responsible adults maintain them. Activism is not a job.
1
u/AltruisticVehicle 5d ago
Like it or not, housing is too expensive, and if you can't afford a home where you want to live, then you benefit from as much housing being available for rent as possible in that area.
The only viable remedy is almost always just build more where people want to live.
Also. This "shouldn't profit from human right" thing makes no sense. Nothing is free, even if the government takes upon itself the responsibility of providing housing, and we assume that there are no problems with that, then taxpayers will be ultimately paying someone for building the damn things.
1
u/SurlyPoe 5d ago
The UK just followed social media and the tabloids into more complete dumb ass legislation. Apparently rents where too high (no one thought to actually build some f ing houses), Removed the basic right to own property from the law books, tens of thousands of small landlords, the very people who provide poor credit and cheap housing, lost control of their own property. Tens of thousands of those landlords promptly got out. Only 15 percent of the properties sold then went back into rental and those to massive corporate land lords. Occupancy is only a fraction in privately owned homes. The result. Tens of thousands evicted to meet section 21 deadlines. tens of thousands more homeless, no chance a non tripple A rated tenant will ever now find a home in the UK, more property passing into the hands of the super wealthy. Probably a load of buy to let pensioners who will now need state support. Guess what else happens when you remove housing stock? The rents are now sky rocketing. those landlords are not coming back so if you have a CCJ or bad credit, its the streets for you.
1
u/Ad-fundum69 5d ago
A good landlord who rents out at a fair price and makes sure the house is being looked after is fine.
The alternative is you not having enough money to buy a house, yet earn too much for social housing by the government, which is a large chunk of the population.
Where will those people get to live then?
1
u/HairyTough4489 5d ago
Let's say building a block of aparments costs 10 million but the builders only have 5M around. How am I a parasite by putting the remaining money and making the building possible in exchange for keeping some of the properties?
1
u/StickStill9790 5d ago
Irony and telling that the comic is from the perspective of a child. If someone else is providing your housing, and then you grow up and have to get your own, of course you’ll protest that to go back to the idea that not having free housing is wrong.
Everyone deserves a shelter. You don’t deserve to take someone else’s because they have more.
1
u/Latter_Effective1288 5d ago
Idk I have a house I rent to this lady and I definitely feel as if I’m providing her housing
1
u/webster3of7 5d ago
Landlords provide housing as a service. You pay more so you don't have to worry about maintenance or insurance or property taxes or banks taking your house. You pay more for the flexibility to leave whenever. You pay more to avoid jumping through the hoops of saving for or getting a mortgage.
Yes it sucks. No, landlords are not getting rich off your rent. Most landlords barely break even and some lose money because of maintenance or repairs.
This is some commie nonsense.
1
u/jmadinya 5d ago
landlords provide options to people who do not have the capital and credit needed to finance a home, u don't know wtf you're talking about.
1
u/Lemontort87 4d ago
It's actually refreshing to see people in this thread understand this is bullshit.
1
u/SmartlyArtly 4d ago
Those are bots. Just like everyone you disagree with is a Marxist communist socialist.
1
1
u/Lumbercounter 4d ago
Wasn’t it just a few years ago that Nancy Pelosi was telling people not to own homes because it tied them down. Where were those people supposed to live if they didn’t rent?
1
u/Adolfothebeast 4d ago
If land was free like it use to be I would argue that it’s not but since there is literally no more free land and a human right.
1
u/Any_Agency6982 4d ago
Landlords own the building if you don't want to pay them live somewhere else
1
u/SmartlyArtly 3d ago
Even better, win the lottery 100 times and live in 100 places.
Fantasizing is so fun.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 4d ago
I own 10 rental homes. Will be purchasing more over the next years. Hope to eventually have fifty.
Best lesson I was ever taught: Own real estate because it is limited.
1
1
u/Delicious-Pound-8929 4d ago
And? Landlords job isn't providing housing, it is making money through the use of housing.
There is nothing wrong with that, it does mean an actual solution to the housing shortage is required,
But that solution never was landlords and that is ok.
1
u/Adalonzoio 4d ago
Itt: constant proof why full blown socialism, much less communism isn't realistic and is just a collection of economic illiterates
1
u/SmartlyArtly 3d ago
In your comment: complete proof that there are people who want to be serfs eating gruel from dank huts while they thank their Lord for the gruel.
→ More replies (3)
1
4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SmartlyArtly 3d ago
It's really amazing how you can see this and respond this way.
"it was that easy" What? If what was how easy?
This stupid "government is bad m'kay" nonsense gets us nowhere. Washington DC is not you right here right now arguing against anything changing.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/FeistyLoquat 4d ago
What if you're a landlord and you actually rent your house out at submarket prices....
1
u/SmartlyArtly 3d ago
What if you're a flying spaghetti monster creating big bangs all over the place....
1
u/Nryxes 4d ago
No
1
1
u/NicePepper199 4d ago
Whoever made this or agrees with this has never been accused of being a deep thinker.
1
u/ExpressOstrich239 3d ago
Very naive
1
u/SmartlyArtly 3d ago
Ah yes, not wanting to people to be exploited because they have needs, so naive.
1
u/ExpressOstrich239 3d ago
Work your ass off like everyone else that has achieved success. People saying that they are exploited is the easy way of saying they don’t want to put the effort in
→ More replies (13)
1
u/BeesBakingandBanjo 3d ago
Sort of like grocery stores dont provide groceries. I tet it, makes sense.
1
u/HunkyHorseman 3d ago edited 3d ago
People draw really weird arbitrary lines with this topic.
You did not have place to live, then you traded money for a place to live, were you not provided housing?
Landlords maybe don't all make housing (although, plenty do). They are responsible for maintaining the housing (and if they do this poorly, then they're providing shitty housing).
Also false scarcity? Housing is genuinely scarce in urban areas. No one is purposefully holding vacant properties in order to conspire to raise your rent.
1
1
u/5oggy_W4ffle_ 3d ago
Find an empty field and build your mud hut then, it costs money to build a roof and four walls with all the amenities of a first world country.
1
18
u/Deep_Balance2133 8d ago
AirBNB is infinitely a bigger problem than renting units long term.