All so that none of their tenants can afford any of those four things without constantly struggling!
Fucking leeches
Submitted 1 month ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/3ec36227-4372-4d2d-8466-73091720d54a.webp
Comments
Pronell@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Serinus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
To be fair, they’re exaggerating in order to scam people. Not that many people paying actual double mortgage, especially if you count any kind of upkeep.
arandomthought@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Step one: Have a shitton of money to buy property to rent out.
Oh, you don’t have enough money? Hhm, have you tried not being poor?melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
it’s about suggesting that the social order that propped you up and elevated you basically arbitrarily based on birth is a reason you’re cool, and not just some shit that happened. none of this is about actually helping anyone. if they actually believed this shit from the bottom of their hearts, breathing a word of it would be fucking stupid.
arandomthought@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
That’s the question. Are they dumb and mean it or are they just assholes? I also tend to think it’s the second.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The meme specifies Mortgage which means they also don’t have any money. They obtained a loan that they will be paying back for 15 to 30 years, at which point the property will deteriorate to a much lower value if any at all.
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
They act like everyone could do this.
If everyone did this, the system would fail, because the profit here is scooped off the top with no actual production or service.
Cort@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It would also require everyone to own 4+ houses which isn’t exactly feasible
Lyrl@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It would require a lot of housing density for everyone to own four dwellings, but I wouldn’t call it infeasible. For everyone to have a quarter acre lawn and a 2,000 square foot house that shares no walls with neighbors? With those additional requirements having everyone own four is infeasible, sure, but a belief that’s the only dwelling worth owning is how we have throttled our housing supply in the first place.
phindex@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The product/service is the use of the property for the specified time.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
And if everyone did this when they were able to, rents across the board would be dirt cheap.
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
Well, one has to do with recreation, and the other has to do with basic necessities of humans.
DrFistington@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I used to have my own place before my wife and I got married, and she had her own house too. When I moved in with her I decided to rent out my place to a friend, otherwise I’d have to still pay like $650 a month for my mortgage. I set my friends rent at $900 a month for him and a friend, with cats. I paid my mortgage and had some extra to save up in case a repair was needed. Average rent for an apartment (not a house) was 1200-1500 in the same area. My renters ended up taking better care of the house than I ever did. It was beautiful when they lived there. I ended up making about 5k to 10k extra bucks over the course of a few years and my mortgage was paid for me. Eventually they had to move out due to some issues between the two at which point I sold the house and made over six figures, off a house that cost less than $80,000 when I bought it.
See what I did there? I charged a reasonable rent and still made a totally stupid amount of money off of just one property. I wasn’t a goddamn parasite who tried to bleed my tenants for everything they were worth.
People like these total shitbags. They’re the reason why America’s youth have no future
underisk@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Using my “friends” to, pay off a personal debt while making $250/mo in profit off the,. See, it’s possible to be a good landlord, everyone!
Did you share any of what you made from the sale with your “friends” who helped you pay for it and kept it in good condition for you?
blandfordforever@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It seems like it was a situation where everyone felt like they got a good deal and nobody felt taken advantage of.
Stop trying to make it sound like he was exploiting his friends. There are costs and liabilities to owning a house. It’s not just free once you’ve paid it off.
Nastybutler@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Did those friends run the risk of having to pay for a new roof or anything else that can go wrong with a house? Tell me you’ve never owned a house without telling me you’ve never owned a house
thisfro@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
You still take someone elses money, just less of it.
singletona@lemmy.world 1 month ago
See, when the Landlord charges reasonable rates, and actually provides services in exchange for that rent (helping update appliances to newer, having paperwork on hand for any code/inspections needed for property changes (that the landlord would ultimately benefit from,) and in general treating it as a matter of ‘I have obligations’ instead of ‘I will do nothing but I will absolutely blame the tennants for the inevetable crumbling of the property.’
I dislike the concept at base level, but that is a someone who is trying to not be a scumbag.
Devanismyname@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Can we not shit all over normal people for doing normal stuff? This dude doesn’t run Blackrock, he had a single rental property.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Not everyone is in a situation where they can or even want to own a house. Renting is much safer in terms of sudden emergencies. Water heater blows out in a house? Fuck you, 3k to replace at least. In an apartment? That’s a landlord problem.
SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
There’s a line to draw between exploiting tenants, and compensation for providing dwelling.
You might even argue the OP creates this ambiguity based on interpretation of the wording, or poor communication.
For a productive conversation, let’s be crystal clear where that line is drawn.
greenashura@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Someone who needs a place to live in and doesn’t have the money to buy their own place. IMO, it is a fair trade as long as the landlord isn’t a cunt. The reasons to why they don’t have enough to buy their own place have nothing to do with a single landlord, some people don’t want to take roots in a single place. If you wanna go to war with someone, go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people.
the_q@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Your “friend” still paid a substantial portion of your mortgage and gained nothing from it beyond being out of the rain. You used him and paint it as mutually beneficial.
tankfox@midwest.social 1 month ago
How is a stable comfortable place to live ‘nothing’? If being out of the rain was all it took we’d all live in tents and this conversation would not occur. Owning a house and keeping it repaired/functional is hard and expensive. You don’t do your side favors by acting like our boy kept his friend in a locked closet when we all know that isn’t true.
TiggerYumYum@lemm.ee 1 month ago
[deleted]jaschen@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Are hotels parasites too? When you lease a car, are the dealers parasites? How about short term rentals for traveling nurses. Are those parasites too?
If I own a house and have roommates, am I a parasite too?
Grow up man. Renting a home has advantages that people like me pay for.
The place I’m renting is in an amazing area that I would never be able to afford. My son goes to school in a nicer, safer area.
I can move out whenever I want to without worrying about selling my place.
When something breaks, 1 phone call and my issue is fixed.
I pay less than a mortgage and the money I save, I guess to diversity my retirement/investment. Instead of dumping my entire asset in a home.
objject_not_found@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I live in the UK and many neighbours of mine are “professional landlords” and it is so annoying seeing them so relaxed and doing nothing while I am stressed and anxious at my job.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
TBH I think you’re even overstating how lucrative it is for the average person. Most houses don’t double in value, most areas don’t rent for $1500 USD, most tenants don’t maintain properties well.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
You made a profit from people who thought they were your friends. Classy.
DrFistington@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes, it’s called mutually beneficial. They saved hundreds of dollars every month since I was charging them way under market for rent. They were actually able to save up a substantial amount. I mean they were planning on having to pay at least 1200 a month for a shitty place, instead they got an actual fucking house for 900.
When his mom was dying of cancer, he had room for her to stay with them after chemo sessions. Since the house was in a great location near the hospital
commander@lemmings.world 1 month ago
That’s nice, but you shouldn’t have an extra property to rent out to others when there’s not enough to go around.
Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Landlords don’t contribute to society
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 month ago
Quite the opposite in fact.
Chivera@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah they contribute a lot of pain and suffering
phindex@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Of course they do. Imagine that all of the landlords decide to start removing rental properties from the market if their tenants move out. What do you think that does to housing availability over the next 10 years?
piyuv@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Once the homeless population exceed police force, who’ll protect the landlords? Read some history before thinking about hyperboles.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Buy a home, don’t contribute to landlord’s profits.
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah, and buy it all cash so you don’t contribute to the banks profits. About as feasible for most, honestly.
NewDark@lemmings.world 1 month ago
cybervseas@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Groceries and vacations aren’t even liabilities. Fella doesn’t understand accounting well enough to fake use it properly.
DistressedDad@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I know people like this. They truly believe like they are doing society a favor by buying up houses and renting them out. The disconnect from reality is wild.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It’s a little better than corporate real estate vultures though. If you think about it, these small landlords and renters are more alike than the people at Blackrock buying up all this shit.
spoopy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nah, corporate landlords at least tend to have minimum standards and contractors on call.
These type of small time landlords are the ones that tell you that a working refrigerator is a luxury, and water damage due to a cracked pipe in the wall is the tenant’s responsibility.
voldage@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Just because they aren’t faceless doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad. In case of corporations, at the very least, anyone up to CEO could claim they were doing what their boss/investors told them/expected them to do, they have the mirage of fabricated innocence. The guilt is also spread more thinly, with many, often low paid employees contributing a small portion towards the greater legal crime.
Small landlords have none of those delusions available, though from my personal, anecdotal experience, higher management in large corporations also often personally own real estate and rent it. I’m working in IT, but I have no reason to think it would be in any different elsewhere. I was led to understand it was “normal” and “smart”. So I’d say it’s the same kind of people that make decisions on top of the real estate corporations, and the petite landlords. And yeah, I’m excluding from that, obviously, renting a flat you’ve gotten as inheritance from your grandma or something, though I have more fundamental issues with the inheritance thing itself.
JesterAUDHD@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I remember looking up just the air b&b’s in the Portland metro and there were over 4,000……
A large majority of the rest were being rented.
The wealthy are buying it all with no regulation.
There should be one home per family in the suburbs. One vacation place and your house. No one needs 10 properties, get rich another way you greedy terrible fucks.
stopdropandprole@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Rich people outbid regular folks for real resources, taking away any chance at intergenerational wealth building. thep only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Gary Stevenson has some worthwhile insights on what we can do and how to convince working class people that the rich must be stopped or else your kids and grandkids will all be homeless renters.
Dasus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
In the case of the screenshot, absolutely.
I have a question though, and I am curious about the perception here so please be honest as to what you think about my situation.
In my case, I own a condo. I worked my ass off and my parents were fortunate enough in their lives to give me a gift of $20,000 dollars in my local currency to try to buy a home. I am floored. I never thought I would afford the opportunity to potentially own a home of any kind.
I loose my job because the business I worked for fucked up and lost some clients. Because of the lack of cash flow, I and many others are laid off.
I hold on for as long as I can but eventually the cost of mortgage, insurance, groceries add up. I go on unemployment insurance. The economy is fucked because of covid, no one hires me for a year and 6 months.
My unemployment insurance runs out after having submitted 4 resumes daily this entire time, maintaining a log of them for the government EI program.
When I only have a couple thousand dollars left in my bank account, if I want to keep the ownership of my home, I have to move in with my parents again and rent my condo out to keep it at all. My dream of being able to just exist in a home I own is at stake.
For rent I charge the exact amount that I have to charge to cover mortgage and insurance, legally required, to maintain my the ownership of my home and nothing more, no profits. I have lived under abusive land lords before and the way they operate disgusts me. I will never be that, I would die before I let myself become that.
A Ukrainian family, Husband and Wife with their 3 year old Daughter were the first to apply. I discuss the property and their lives with them and they are some of the strongest, most responsible, wonderful people I have met in my life who came to my country to escape their the situation in theirs. I accept them as my tenants immediately because I recognize how absurdly lucky I am to have these people living in my home, given how smart, how responsible, how kind they are. I promise to myself that at the first opportunity, I will show them the same kindness.
I finally find a job, even though it doesn’t pay much, and begin reducing the cost of their rent because I can finally afford it. I begin paying rent to my parents because they are owed that. My bank account begins saving about $100 a month in case I have an emergency I need to cover.
The interest rates lower and condos begin to become cheaper. I intend to lower the cost of the rent based on this when my tenants renew the lease.
This is the last 5 years of my life.
Am I a leech?
Krzd@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Am I a leech?
Technically, I guess so, you’re profiting just by owning the property. And having tenants exactly balancing out the costs of owning property.
Morally? Fuck no. What you’re doing you are doing to survive, not to live excessively.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I think a lot of people here have it too black/white.
Earning money by owning property doesn’t automatically make someone a leech. Sometimes, people want the option to live somewhere without needing to take on the responsibility/risk of tying down assets in a house. Often, it’s because you’re new in town and haven’t decided where to settle, or because you’re in a situation where you’re moving a lot, and don’t want to have to deal with buying/selling something worth a lot of money every time you move.
In these kinds of situations, you can see renting as a situation where you’re paying someone for taking on the risk, responsibility, and maintenance costs of owning the infrastructure. At a proper price, this can be an absolutely fair deal, that doesn’t involve anyone being exploited.
Note that I’m not defending the scalping assholes that exploit people who can’t afford to get into the housing market here. I’m simply pointing out that, even for someone who can afford to buy, there are legitimate reasons to rent, and renting out property at a fair price can absolutely be a decent practice that leaves everyone happy.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
This is tough, because even though you are charging your tenants the exact amount of your minimum mortgage payment, you are still earning equity in an appreciating asset-- eventually you will be able to turn their rent payments into profits. Now, in my opinion, your level of exploitation is very low, and barely worth considering at all.
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
I would like to move back into my home when it is affordable, but these people are so wonderful that at whatever juncture I owned the property outright and was not paying mortgage, I would lower the cost of their rent to just the insurance cost if that happened, and allow them as much time as they required to find something that works for them before doing so. I know they would understand. I have been up-front about my situation with them from the very beginning because I am not a liar. I am incredibly fortunate to be afforded the potential ability to do such a thing, because my parents are not too concerned with the living situation. It would also bring me immense joy to only charge them $700 or $800 as rent if the mortgage were paid off, just to cover the insurance costs.
Like I said, I never want to exploit anyone. I just want to try to survive like anyone else, to keep what I have. If there are opportunities along the way to help other people, I would much rather that, and if is costs me an absolute zero, or occasionally a little into the negative at this point, that is fine by me. I would love to have these people live in my condo forever for the actual lowest possible cost, or to have their own fully owned home, but if I go bankrupt, the fucking bank or insurer will just take the condo away from both of us.
Thank you for your opinion.
Echofox@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I don’t believe binary logic is very useful. So I’m not going to answer “am I a leech” because I don’t think it has a yes or no answer.
You have an asset that you can’t afford, and to afford it you rent it out. That is absolutely valid in a capitalist society, and many people do it. This allows you to hold the asset instead of selling it. That means there’s one fewer property on the market, which means and if somebody wants that home they have to rent it from you, where your equity increases and they get a place to live. Again, in a capitalist society this is absolutely valid. And it’s not like you aren’t taking risk, you could get a bad tenant and they could damage the unit, in turn decreasing your equity. One common “protest” I’ve seen among renters is to poor grease down the sink, damaging the plumbing over the long time, creating a huge long term cost for the owner. Or flushing cat litter down the toilet, causing a blockage, and similar results. You are accepting risk, and capitalist society says if you accept risk you deserve reward. But from a human-focused perspective you get a very different conclusion.
An issue many people have with this is that the renter is gaining no equity and you are while you aren’t contributing production to society. In the world we live this is valid. Another example of this would be dividend stocks, if you hold KO (Coke) you get quarterly dividends, and really you’re not actually contributing anything. These are capital gains.
My biggest issue with capital gains is that they’re usually taxed lower than labor gains. I think that should be reversed. If capital gains were heavily taxed and that tax was used to better the community then I think it would have more justification. But I digress,
If you sold that property it would probably just go to an investor, but in a world where people couldn’t own investment properties it would go to a person or family who would live it in, allowing them to build equity themselves. The number of properties being held and rented out has an impact on the homes available to people buying, or rather being forced to rent.
But ultimately I believe that renting and charging rent is bad for society as a whole. But I also don’t think you selling your property would have any meaningful impact. I think it needs to be a systematic change to be meaningful.
So I’d say you do you, but you are taking advantage of the system and renters. But that’s the reality of the world we live in. Doesn’t mean it’s OK, but does mean you can do it. Also means I won’t have sympathy for you if somebody damages your property. But maybe that’s because I’m a bad person, I don’t know.
I firmly believe homes are for living in, not generating income - even if that income is only to maintain your ownership on your asset. But if you follow that perspective your life will be a bit worse.
Like I said, I don’t take the binary perspective.
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
An issue many people have with this is that the renter is gaining no equity and you are while you aren’t contributing production to society.
This is true and I understand.
There is however a government program in my country where people newly immigrated to the country who are renting can rapidly increase credit based on input from their landlord.
While my tenant cannot gain equity as a result of this situation, I notified them of this program and they signed up, allowing me to increase their credit in this way.
I am fully aware this is not a great trade-off regardless, but I wanted to do what I can because I recognize that any rental deal sucks. When I rented from a shit landlord, every day of my life felt like hell because my money went into a black hole from which there was little benefit.
I agree with you as well that selling to an investment firm/for-profit landlord would be worse, and that there has to be some systematic change. A world where one cannot profit from property is one I would want to live in, because if were the case, I wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.
jecxjo@midwest.social 1 month ago
My biggest issue with capital gains is that they’re usually taxed lower than labour gains. I think that should be reversed. If capital gains were heavily taxed and that tax was used to better the community then I think it would have more justification.
This is exactly the issue. It is what divides the upper from the lower classes. When you are the asset any issues in your life are compounded and there is no liquidation option like you have when its all assets. The safety nets are so drastically different between with what level of “becoming whole again” that its ridiculous we have gotten this far with capital gains not being seen as a real privilege. But that is why we are seeing a major generational gap between the realization of how bad things have gotten.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This is what people mean when they say there is no ethical consumption in capitalism. Yes, you are a leech, but only because the system has forced you into it. In a different system, neither you nor the Ukrainian family would have housing insecurity.
I don’t say this to judge you, btw, I think we should applaud every landlord who keeps rent low. Just pointing out that it’s impossible to both “keep your hands clean” and “get ahead” in capitalism.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t agree. It’s not always optimal to own the place you live. There have been periods in my life where I was happy to pay a fair price to live in an apartment without having responsibility for repairing stuff or upgrading the kitchen. But most importantly, I didn’t want to be tied down, and having a place I could leave, no strings attached, on three months notice, was perfect.
No matter how you twist it, the capital investment needed to build/buy a home will be orders of magnitude larger than what is needed for monthly maintenance. Also, the fact that a lot of value is tied to the building is not something everyone wants.
Of course, there are landlords who are essentially scalpers. But saying that any landlord is per definition a “leech” is just going way too far.
OP here was able to provide a home for someone on short notice, and with zero investment costs on their part. For someone who doesn’t know how long they will be living in the area, and with an uncertain immediate future, having the option of “zero investment cost + zero responsibility” can be valuable. As such, OP is providing a valuable service.
deathbird@mander.xyz 1 month ago
On the one hand you’re getting someone else to make full payments on your mortgage. On the other hand, it’s your sole property and the only way you could maintain ownership of it. You weren’t profiting over cost, or collecting money from the renters that would go to maintenance (the only actual service/labor that landlords perform). Your choices were practical, not profitable. At least less profitable than you might think. Profitable to the minimum that the system required for you to keep your one home. Short of a revolution where all mortgages are zeroed out, it sounds like you did the best you could.
AJ1@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
my parents were fortunate enough in their lives to give me a gift of $20,000 dollars
just FYI, when you use a dollar sign you don’t also have to type out the word “dollars”
hierophant_nihilant@reddthat.com 1 month ago
Absolutely not. Do what you got to do to move back to your condo.
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You are a person in a bad position, nothing more nothing less. If you are providing a competitive rate for rent you are benefiting these people, especially since you were up front with them. Your plans were not to be a landlord but this is where you have been forced. Hopefully you are able to return to your home soon
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s simple to be successful:
-
have rich parents that can give you money
-
have easy access to loan programs because you’re white and have rich parents
-
AntelopeRoom@lemm.ee 1 month ago
In reality, you would have needed to own these rental properties for decades to have enough cash flow in them to make you enough to live on AND pay for their mortgages, maintenance, insurance, taxes, and property management. This is likely
taanegl@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Because the only way to escape an exploitative system is to become an exploiter…
thisfro@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I had to rant in a couple of comments because I drives me crazy when people defend leeching.
On a more constructive note: Housing cooperatives. I think they should be more widespread. Some people come together to build a house and then live in it for the cost it takes to actually support it. No crazy big apartments with a reasonable amount of people (roughly one bedroom per person), shared luxury such as gardens, in house shops, hell even a pool if you want. There is no leeching, just collective ownership.
Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
“Let’s lynch Mel and Dave” will be a song title for my next music project. I think my favorite one so far is “The president must die” from my upcoming LP.
ShitposterSupreme@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well this is gross. Its extremely had to buy ONE property, to exist in, if you dont have Bank of Mom and Dad to rely on.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How is this legal.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Born on third base. Thinks they hit a triple.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How does the second tenant pay their mortgage? One apartment’s rent should not be enough to cover the mortgage of four (or five - including the one they live in). My guess is that they only payed all the mortgages for these four properties and this is about the mortgage of the apartment they live in.
The cheat code to a stress-free life is to own lots of real estate to being with.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Mooching off of others to fund your life style and giving nothing back in return
opens envelope
What’s something considered classy if you’re rich, but trashy if you’re poor?
adarza@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
i’ve literally paid more in rent for my small apartment than the entire (5 unit) building is worth. i crossed that threshold years ago.
lobut@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Any reason why we can’t just change the tax code to make this thing less viable? We disincentive things all the time. Like we can carve out exemptions for situations and things I’m sure but like, this shouldn’t be how to run a society.
Newsteinleo@infosec.pub 1 month ago
I worked in the rental industry for a minuet, and I left because the people in the industry do not think of their renters as people. To property owners, renters are objects that you put in a property to make the property generate money.
Eiri@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
For the SUM of your tenants’ rent to pay for your mortgage and most of the upkeep? Probably fair.
For ONE tenant to cover the whole mortgage? Geez, that’s not nice, to put it softly.
twinnie@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I don’t think just because people are landlords that makes them bastards though. We’re letting a house out and I think we treat our tenants well. We don’t rip them off, we fix stuff when it’s broken, and since we have a fixed rate mortgage our costs haven’t gone up in several years and so neither has the rent.
Dasus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Here’s a tip poor people; just have money!
GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 month ago
ITT: People that have no understanding of nuance, or parasitism versus symbiosis. Some people actually find ownership to be bothersome, some people prefer leasing cars instead of buying, some people have good landlords, some other have shitty landlords. But let the hyperbolic nonsense fly and let’s nuke everyone and everything!
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Where are you Mario?
TheDeadlySquid@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Same people will be looking for a govt bailout when the real estate market collapses.
MithranArkanere@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Image
Joncash2@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
What? Your comment doesn’t make sense. If everyone did any profession solely we would destroy the economy. If everyone became doctors, there would be no engineers or pilots. We would still be doomed. A diversity of vocations are necessary regardless of which vocation.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Landlording is not a profession.
Handyman is a profession. Real estate management is a profession. Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
The economy can tolerate a finite number of leaches before dying. We currently have too many. The ideal number is zero.
srasmus@midwest.social 1 month ago
It has little to do with the “profession” and more to do with the distribution of goods. If everyone owned rental properties, nobody would live in these rental properties, meaning for lords to exist there must be serfs.
Gladaed@feddit.org 1 month ago
That’s true for teachers, too.
If it is a lifestyle that would destroy the economy if everyone had it, then that’s another story.
crowleysnow@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If everyone went to work every day for 8+ hours for the direct benefit of the members of their community, the economy and the community would both be incredibly healthy.
If everyone purchased the tools that other people need to live and work and decided to rent those out instead of doing their own labor, the economy and community would fail.
This should be incredibly obvious.
phindex@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This is like saying that if everyone had a small business it would destroy the economy. If you think a rental damages the economy, you have no idea what the economy is, or how it works.
flyingSock@feddit.org 1 month ago
Businesses buy and sell off each other and also create value. But sticking with the “if everyone did this” every one would run a one person business. Not efficient but would work. On the other hand if everyone is renting out houses, they can at most be renting out one (ignoring foe now second houses/holiday apts). Then everyone would be housed and paying each other in a circle. So, no, everyone doing what the post suggests can not work. All but the first house would be empty.
Akito@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Then it should be illegal to have no children, because if everyone had no children, we would literally go extinct.
iheartneopets@lemm.ee 1 month ago
That’s just the first thing that came to mind, huh? Tell me you wasnt to control women’s bodies without telling me.