No, it’s just having basic empathy for other humans.
If you argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also own investment properties?
Submitted 4 days ago by artifactsofchina@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
devfuuu@lemmy.world [bot] 4 days ago
Cataphract@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
Only two avenues I could see nothing being hypocritical, signing it over/forming a co-op or doing rent-to-own with rent control and everything being transferable to “next of kin” upon some kind of accidental death.
lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I would make the argument that it could actually be a means to align with affordable housing (although that would likely be very difficult in this current housing market). Managing a property is a service, you have to manage vacancies, repairs, rent collection, etc.
If you don’t offload this to a management company and do it all yourself it is technically feasible to make a profit from the labor of managing the property even when charging below market rate for the property (difficult to do right now, but after owning the property for a period of time definitely possible).
If you were to do this you would be directly combatting the affordable housing problem by introducing competition at a lower price (it would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be fighting for affordable housing).
masterspace@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
I think it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation.
Did you buy a single family home / house that you’re living in, and renting out part of to help pay your mortgage? Then it depends on the rent you charge.
If you charge market rates and you can afford to charge less than market rates, or if you hire contractors and maintenance people for the unit that are cheaper / worse than the ones you use for your own unit, then yes, you are being exploitative and hypocritical.
If, however, you treat the unit like your own and charge below market rates then no, you’re not.
If you build an addition on your house, or build a laneway house or something, then it’s more reasonable to charge market rates for rent because you’ve actually added new housing to the area, an act that in itself should help to slightly drop rents. Same thing if you buy vacant property and build rental units on it. However, if you continue charging the most you possibly can long after you’ve made your money back then you’re back into the territory of being an exploitative hypocrite.
And if you’re just in a hot market and buying up houses / condos, and renting them back to people as is, or just doing the cheapest and shittiest job you can turning them into apartments, then yes you are being a hypocrite. At that point you’re just using your capital to buy up a limited quantity item and sell it back to people at exploitative rates. It would be like being stranded in the desert and buying up the remaining water and then selling it back to people for a profit. You’re providing no value to society, just using past success to force people into a corner where they have to pay you for a necessity that’s in limited supply.
sopularity_fax@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
Only if you’re advising on how to close all the bullshit loopholes you’ve exploited preventing them from being used further.
nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
Don’t hate the player, hate the game
Dasus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Can you morally take part in capitalism?
No.
Can you morally take part in (moral) market economies? Sure.
So then it’s just about where to draw the line.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You can not blame people for using a system that is legal. Just because you believe something is immoral doesn’t make it wrong.
sopularity_fax@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
I dont think this set or facts has ever aligned in the history of…forever
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 days 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 days 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 days 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 2 days 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.