You are part of the society. You cannot escape it.
It’s not because you own property (which, if you can, is a wise investment) that you can’t see how messed up the system is at the expense of the working poor.
If you argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also own investment properties?
Submitted 3 weeks ago by artifactsofchina@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
greenskye@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I think it’s one thing to not be willing to go live as a hermit to avoid unethical consumption and another thing to simply… not participate in rent seeking behavior like this.
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I’d say if they are solely an investment, then yes you are part of the problem. Because you expect a return on your investment and so inherently rent has to be increased to generate the necessary profits.
If you’d live in a house that has more room than you need and rent these out that’s fine in my book. But possession solely for profit is one of the main problems of our current economic system.
the_q@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Yes. Housing is a necessity. It’s not a way to gain financial freedom or security. Anyone that participates in the system of commodifying a need in any capacity is a greedy and awful person. You can’t be for affordable housing while also having some poor person paying your mortgage and shrugging that “this is just how it is”.
tyler@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.
the_q@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Your assumption that our government is somehow not for profit is the flaw here. “Someone has to own it” why not a person? Why do people have to pay for shelter?
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
Doublenut@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
What other things would you invest in?
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Nah. It’s bad. Landowners are parasites. Do and contribute nothing. They are incentives to peddle in mosery.
Housing should not be a commodity. It is a human right.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:
- Supply of housing influencing its cost
- Wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
- Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
- Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)
The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.
groet@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
The price to buy housing is influenced by how many people want to buy. People who want to live there are competing with landlords who want to rent out the housing. So it drives up the buying price.
A landlord buying for a higher price will likely try to charge a higher rent as to recoup the investment.
More potential landlords means higher rent prices. Every single landlord is increasing the problem.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.
That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.
nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
This is the same logic that fossil fuel companies do to shift blame from themselves onto consumers.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Nah fuck that.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?
nucleative@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
OP: constructive addition to thread You: nah
anothernobody@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Depends on how greedy you are.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Yes. That is, if you’re actively hurting the availability of affordable housing, that would be hypocrisy. Your economic interests are at odds with your stated ethical stance, which means your ethical stance is unstable.
Owning the property is not the problem: Rent-seeking is. Running it as a managed coöp would be the ethical path forward in that situation.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But if you’re advocating for changing the system there is nothing hypocritical about owning it since your impact is a drop in the bucket. In order to make changes you need power and power comes from wealth.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
I’d say that you’re unlikely extract enough wealth to make a difference in the large scale, but you absolutely have enough power to make an immediate difference for however many people can live in your building.
That’s the problem with consequentialism: A certain evil now for a possible good later. I don’t agree with that.
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
It’s not hypocritical if you are providing affordable housing for someone.
Despite the kneejerk hate towards landlords lately, which is largely justified due to the extreme levels of rent-seeking behavior evident in today’s completely unaffordable rental market, affordable rental housing is actually a legitimate market and there needs to be availability to meet that demand. Renting on its own is not a crime. Some people even prefer it. It can provide significantly more flexibility and less responsibility, stress and hassle, at a lower monthly cost than home ownership IF (and ONLY IF) you have a good landlord, either because they choose to be or because the laws require them to be, which is not so much the case with most of the laws.
So for me those are the dividing lines. If you are not:
- A slumlord providing “affordable” rental housing by leaving your tenants in unsafe, unsanitary, and unmaintained properties.
- Demanding luxury-priced rents for an extremely modest property with no features that can be considered a luxury and no intention of maintaining anything to luxurious standards.
Then maybe it’s not hypocritical. And I don’t mean just taking the highest price you can find on rentfaster and posting your property for that price because “that’s what the market price is” I mean actually thinking about whether that price you’re asking is actually affordable for real human beings living in your area.
Basically, if you treat your tenants like actual human beings with the understanding they may be struggling to get by, trying to raise a family, working as much as they can even when work is not reliable, and dealing with all life throws at them, and you don’t treat these things as immediately evictable offenses like a battleaxe over their head just waiting to drop, then yes, you absolutely can argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone – because you are helping provide it.
If, after contributing to legitimate maintenance expenses and reserves, you are making a tiny profit, barely breaking even or even losing money renting, good. If you are treating it as a cash cow that funds your entire life, fuck you.
joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Maybe it is different elsewhere but according to my calculations, renting property is not very profitable. Investing in stocks is better if you only want to make money and do not care about the apartment otherwise.
You can’t easily get your money out of the property and if loan rates go up, you pay more and the property value goes down.
The real parasite is the bank who takes a cut but has little risk as the money it lends out is created from thin air.
pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
That’s not at all how interest rates work on homes… They’re fixed and yes while fluctuations in interest rates can have an effect on the home value, that won’t change how much your mortgage payments are, and can only effect your property taxes by at most 2% per year
Rent doesn’t have to fluctuate with interest rates at all as it’s up to the home owner
AA5B@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Even if your costs only break even, you’re building equity
Often the difference in profitability is whether you pay for a property manager or do the work yourself
I know a couple people who did it and made money, fwiw. They gave up so they didn’t have to deal with people
xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
You can work within a legal framework while arguing for changing that framework to no longer benefit yourself.
MTK@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes, that is like being a pacifist but investing in weapon manufacturers. It is easy money and it is attractive, but it is wrong and by making money off of it you become part of it.
Justas@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
“If you want peace, prepare for war” is literally a 2500 year-old sentiment. If you were a mugger, whom would you rob, a guy who walks around saying how he has no means to defend himself, or a guy who is armed to the teeth?
MTK@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Okay Smartypants, I’m talking about the USA, not some peaceful country that only defends itself.
Mighty@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Hm I’d say not necessarily. That depends on your situation I guess. The question comes down to “would you give up your property for other people to live in?” If you own 1-2 small properties, that’s not being a greedy landlord. And it would make it possible for you to give people housing they could afford (while still profitable for you, if you needed it to be).
If you charge insane rents, then you’re not only a hypocrite but maybe also schizophrenic. That just sounds like a disconnect.
But it’s very possible to “change the system from within”, even if that’s not my political opinion. If you can buy property, maybe you should. And then rent it to people for an affordable price.
I’m sometimes thinking people should get together and buy mansions to convert into shelters
bluGill@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
For many people owning their own housing is the wrong decision. That means somebody else needs to own their housing and that person may as well be you (depending of course on your situation - it isn't for everyone)
Aeao@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yeah even in a perfect utopia not everyone would own a house. Sometimes you’re only living in a place for a short time
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Personally I’ve grown to despise home ownership and its constant cycle of maintenance. I’d love to let that be someone else’s problem again.
OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network 3 weeks ago
Yeah this is the thing that makes me really disagree with the whole “landlords are necessarily bad” thing. A lot of them are, to be sure, and there is so much wrong with our housing market, but there should still be a place for those who wish to rent to rent. I mean just speaking for myself right now, I would not want to own a home right now, even if it was affordable. I’d like to some day but where I am at life right now I would rather rent.
fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
So why not have it be owned by some kind of non profit organization or handle it like local utilities?
I only mention it because a lot of what I’ve seen on the topic is people saying the point you made and nothing else. It just seems like we’ve (largely) figured out and implemented a way for the system to work in many places, but only for certain basic needs and not others.
bluGill@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
That doesn't change anything useful. There are many not for profit health insurance companies in the us - they are no cheaper and don't have better service than the for profit ones.
Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It depends on how you are looking at it. Since you called it “Investment properties” I have to assume you plan to maximize profits on it so I would have to say yes it is. However if you are renting the property out for market value and only doing a modest increase to cover costs and the mortgage I don’t think it is. Obviously you need to cover expenses for the property or else someone else who won’t do the same is going to obtain it.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Was it hypocritical of RATM to spread anti-establishment messages via a major record label? No, of course not. Systemic change being somehow at odds with doing what you can within the existing system has always been a false dichotomy propagated by those who benefit from division.
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
If you make even a penny of profit, then yes. Housing should never be something someone does to make money. Shelter is a basic human need for survival.
ameancow@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Should buying and selling homes be completely removed as a private institution then? What about land ownership entirely?
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Yes. Anything that gives people monetary incentive over basic needs should be removed. Keep that shit to things that don’t matter.
morphballganon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you don’t make profit then either you’re losing money or straddling the line between profit and losing money, neither of which is sustainable. Then someone else will come in and try.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I believe in a baseline level of food, shelter, healthcare, and education being provided to all regardless of means. Plus things like parks, infrastructure, physical safety and security, etc.
But just because I believe that everyone should have enough to eat doesn’t mean that I don’t believe there is a qualitative difference between that baseline level of sustenance and all sorts of enjoyment I can get from food above that level. A person has a right to food, but that doesn’t change the fact I might be able to farm for profit. Or go up the value/luxury chain and run an ice cream parlor, or produce expensive meals, or buy and sell expensive food ingredients. I want schools to provide universal free lunch but I also know that there will always be a market for other types of food, including by for-profit producers (from farmers/ranchers to grocers to butchers to restaurateurs).
The existence of public parks shouldn’t threaten the existence of profitable private spaces like theme parks, wedding venues, other private spaces.
So where do real estate investors sit in all this? I’m all for developers turning a profit in creating new housing. And don’t mind if profit incentives provide liquidity so that people can freely buy and sell homes based on their own needs.
I don’t personally invest in real estate because I think it’s a bad category of investment, but I don’t think those who do are necessarily ideologically opposed to universal affordable housing. It’s so far removed from the problems in affordable housing that you can’t solve the problems simply by eliminating the profit.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
I have investment properties because of a variety of reasons, I need them for my retirement or I’ll end up a homeless
I don’t think that having a few properties is a problem anyway, I have a problem with the guy owning tens of thousands of properties
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not much of a difference if you’re a landlord. I don’t entirely disagree, but Lemmy hates landlords even if you’re a good one.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I know Lemmy is gonna bring out the pitchforks, but honestly, if we had UBI, socialized universal healthcare, free college, well funded retirement system, childcare, fair wages, then people would never need to do things like leasing out property. Its not your fault, its a systemic issue.
RBWells@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Are you renting them for unaffordable amounts? Maybe. But I think you can both live in the world that exists, and argue for a better one.
And I guess if your investment property is affordable housing then you are also walking the walk, right? So no I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical. Likely so, but not necessarily so.
We’ve rented for much less than it costs to buy a house here, in fact all of the places we rented were like that. Old houses that were paid off, that we did not want to buy, just paid to live in them month to month. Sure we can wish for a better system but sometimes renting is affordable.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Yes, there are plenty of other investment opportunities, the fact that you chose the one that profits off of housing insecurity shows you don’t enough about it to forgo a little bit of extra money.
Like other people have mentioned you would also have to be advocating against your own interest. Yes you can do that but your passion will at least be dulled by your innate desire for profit. You’d have more passion and will for the cause if you didn’t own investment properties, even more if you are renting and are a victim of housing commodification.
Another point is that you’d be adding to the demand of houses and thus raising the price. You could argue it’s a drop in the ocean, but that sort of attitude leads to a million drops in the ocean and rising sea levels. You would also probably be buying it on a mortgage that’s larger then the house was previously on so the floor for rent , the break even point, would be higher.
Eg. If you bought the property for $400,000 on a mortgage for say $2,000 a month from someone who only had a $200,000 mortgage on it for $1,000 a month you’ve now upped the rent floor $1,000.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to do something and at the same time want a world where it’s no longer a thing.
If you argue against capitalism, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also shop for groceries at a store?
If you argue that we should live in a moneyless utopia and yet you charge money for your services, is it hypocritical?
If you argue for climate change action and yet you drive a car, is it hypocritical?
Of course, owning investment properties contributes to the problem and there is no excuse for that, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to see the problem and want to stop it.
meekah@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I feel like you are not considering that your examples are necessary to be able to participate in todays society, unless you want to live in a 100% self sustaining homestead. Owning investment properties is not necessary for that.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
It being unnecessary is what it makes it bad, but it doesn’t make it hypocritical.
It would be hypocritical to own investment properties while telling other people not to.
It wouldn’t be hypocritical to campaign for making it illegal to have them.
In both scenarios your are contributing to the problem, but you aren’t a hypocrite in both.
HubertManne@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
If your profit is modest no. Even less so if you live on the property like renting out a room or having a multiflat or coachhouse.
BigDiction@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Solid prompt question OP. I see 116 votes and 116 comments, that’s a legit conversation stater.
artifactsofchina@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Thanks 😄
I’m stoked by the engagement; I initially found the question following some article posted on bluesky. Replying there resulted in crickets. I thought to ask here on a hunch, and it’s been wonderful to read all the responses.
Back in the day people would claim that what was good about reddit was that it was a community. Well it’s not that anymore.
This is pretty good though!
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 weeks ago
It isn’t hypocritical, but I’d question why I would invest in something that I would want to lose value from a moral standpoint.
angrystego@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I feel like it kind of is. There are surely other investment possibilities. Why choose the one you’re against?
Delphia@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Because (historically speaking) its arguably the safest and highest yield form of investment that the working class can make. That being said obviously theres a tipping point in regards to the amount of income you’re generating at which it becomes predatory.
Funding a nice retirement? Ok. Making it so only one parent has to work? Fine. Jacking up the rent to cover the insurance on the new Lambo? Fuck you.
angrystego@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The line you’re trying to draw is very arbitrary, so it still feels a bit hypocritical.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
You are assuming they were against it at the time they bought it, if they even bought it and not for example inherited it.
zlatiah@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Methinks it is only not hypocritical under a few circumstances:
- I am renting a place myself and simultaneously leasing out my otherwise primary residence
- The property is my primary residence and is not overly big, but I rent out parts of it for roommates/traditional BnBs
- Unique property ownership situations that shouldn’t last longer than 6 months (maybe I’m downsizing, maybe house swapping… Not sure)
Any other condition is in principle hypocritical… Although there is probably still a massive moral difference between someone with a severe disability who owns a few rentals to pay for bills vs a professional investor who systematically prices out locals to improve profit margins
AmidFuror@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
What if you think affordable housing should be government subsidized? Or as is the case in many places, below market priced units that the builder is required to include, with limits on how they are used (income qualifications and owner occupation).
Neither of those requires you not to rent to other people. It would be like saying I'm for mental health services being paid for by the government but running a psychiatric business.
zlatiah@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
On this… I did read a prior research work suggesting that US government should use subsidy/housing vouchers in private markets instead of public housing construction; this way it helps with creating affordable housing while avoiding risks of defunding public housing projects due to political changes. I’m not sure if the findings of that work apply to other countries or if the author was mainly thinking about US
I guess I was thinking more about my personal morals. In terms of actual implementation, I do think you’re correct that the goal of “affordable housing for everyone” can be done even in a completely private housing market, as long as the market is well-managed with abundant supply (so no shortages, no excessive investor bidding, etc)
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you’re arguing for a particular public policy, then generally no. If you’re arguing for social change driven by private behavior, then perhaps.
nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Arguing for social change based on personal behavior is pretty stupid
zxqwas@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you argue that others should not own investment property for whatever reason but you are a valid exception it’s one thing.
If you say that “look at how much money I’m making, tax me harder daddy” it’s another.
bluGill@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
If you say that "look at how much money I'm making, tax me harder daddy" it's another.
That is a bad thing for affordable housing. For affordable housing you need profits from investment property just enough to be worth doing. Any taxes a property owner pays needs to come from the rent they charge so high taxes mean they are charging more rent to cover it. So if taxes are high that means that rents are higher than they could be. You should get rich - to the extent you do - in property ownership by owning a lot of property for a long time, not charging high rents.
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No, not at all.
A parallel analogy I see here all the time: driving cars is bad for the planet. It contributes to climate change. So should you give up your car for the sake of the climate? No - because if you live in an auto-dependent area (which is a lot of affordable areas), then you need a car to effectively live your life. To have a job, go to the grocery store, spend time with friends, etc. The problem is the structures and incentives which don’t appropriately dissuade people from driving and provide alternatives. You as an individual giving up your ability to transport yourself will have an entirely negligible impact on the climate while severely hampering your life. It makes total sense to continue driving a car while advocating for better climate policy.
Similarly, owning a handful of rental properties has no impact on the housing market, but choosing to eschew this potential source of revenue could severely hamper your future finances. If you don’t buy these properties as rentals, odds are, someone else will. Your noble intentions will lead to exactly the same result, except you are worse off. On the other hand, if you do take action and buy these rental properties and rent them out at a fair market rate, you can be a good landlord - someone who is communicative about issues and prompt about fixing things when they break. And you are stopping a corporate buyer from owning the property and being a shitty landlord. While you do this, you can also advocate for better housing policy, which is the lever to pull to actually solve the problem.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
You could make a lot of these same arguments for owning slaves. If you don’t buy them then someone else will, and they may be a worse master then you. Better that you buy them and treat them right, provide them good food and housing, while at the same time advocating for the abolition of slavery.
In both secenarios you may say you want what’s best for them, but that desire is in direct conflict with your desire for profit so either you become a bad investor or a bad slave master / landlord. Why bring yourself into that conflict instead of investing in something without those moral implications?
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I feel like this is a reasonable counterargument. My response is that you can reasonably and ethically seek a profit with real estate investment because pieces of land are not people. And any harm you do to people is going to be extremely distributed across the population. Like, if you went around to everyone in your city and whistled an annoyingly saccharine tune next to them while they walked to work on a Monday morning, maybe the total negative utils would add up to a single human life of slavery - but I still think distributed harm is far more justifiable.
nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
It’s a gradient of more or less unethical things. You could also use the slavery analogy to less and less unethical investments, to reach the conclusion that you shouldn’t invest in anything that you have even the most miniscule ethical issues with.
devfuuu@lemmy.world [bot] 3 weeks ago
No, it’s just having basic empathy for other humans.
SuiXi3D@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
Unless you are by extension making those properties affordable for whomever is leasing or renting, then absolutely it is, yes.
AmidFuror@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
You can make them affordable by screening for high income.
scarabic@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If the property is giving you any kind of return, you’re extracting profit, so the property is less “affordable” than it would be if the resident owned it.
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Most people can’t buy a property, because they don’t have enough money. In order to go around that problem, they either borrow money or rent the property. Either way, some extra money always goes somewhere.
Some of it is justified, because you need to go around the problem not having enough money to buy a house. However, there are many cases where that extra expense is absolute wild and rooted in greed.
Actually, if you happen to own the property, some extra money will go to periodic maintenance and miscellaneous expenses you never even think of if you just rent the place. You just don’t pay for those things every month a little bit at a time. Instead, you pay a large bill once a year or an enormous bill every 10 years.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Not everyone is in a position to be buying a house at any given time, though. Providing housing at a less-than-the-very-top-of-the-market-value is still a necessary service that can benefit both parties.
The issue is the hoarding of that resource in certain areas, and the psuedo/full-on price fixing to max out returns