As Churchill put it…
Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done.
cikano@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m surprised so many people are running defence for landlords in the comments
hobovision@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Look I’ll be honest, as a renter, I’ve not heard a realistic alternative that I like better. Do I think landlords should be better regulated? For sure. Do I think housing should be a right, and free, high quality housing should be available everywhere to anyone who wants it? Yes, please!
I like the option to rent a place that’s even better than what the baseline option would be. I like that I can move around as I need to. I like that I can get a bigger, better, or just different, place when I have the funds. I like that I never have to deal with broken appliances or roof repairs and get to pick the type of place I want to live in.
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Easy - do it 1970s style. You own a home but pay less than half of what you do now. The extra savings go toward home maintenance and lifestyle improvement.
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Why would you prefer a landlord to just you save that money yourself? Like at best its probably a third of your income if youre working class? At worst its probably 60% or more. If you’re on any kind of social assistance rent is probably almost all of your income. Hurray! No food for you mister, the poor landlord needs that pittance you receive.
You would have effectively 133%-180% of the income you do now. For me that’s an increase of over a thousand dollars a month. I could afford all the appliances and roof repairs in the world with that kind of money. I would still walk away with so much extra money its a joke. You have been entirely misled about how much rent takes out of your income. They will steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from you over your life time, maybe even more depending on what you pay.
Renting exists because renters cannot advocate for themselves. It exists because people who become land owners escape the renting class and pretty much immediately turn their backs on it. No longer their problem. Because propaganda has taught them to not have solidarity with their fellow workers. Homelessness is an entirely preventable issue and is inseparable from the problem of landlords.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
You are describing either a “land contract” or a “condominium”. With either, you gain equity in the property.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Paying half if not more of your monthly salary for a shitty place to live is horse shit
return2ozma@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Vienna social housing model is what we need. Nearly 60% lives in public housing there.
youtu.be/MxuACFQBwxs
Taldan@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The renter system is fine in my opinion
It’s the result of the power imbalance that creates the problems. Specifically that property owners hold all the power and have structured society in such a way that housing is artificially scarce and more difficult to build than it should be, which has led to inflated prices
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
that’s what everyone wants.
that’s also why housing is so expensive. people are willing to pay a lot of money to live in high quality housing.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
I’m not lol. .world is basically Reddit 2.0, warts and capitalists included 😆
BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You Tankies live outside of reality.
lobut@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
A lot of these people are likely tech folks. A lot of tech folks get high paying jobs. They used that pay to buy property.
A lot of these guys are landlords and are trying to convince people that the rent they charge is fair, market rate, and a favour because they’re taking on “risk” while you pay for their mortgage.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
a lot of tech folks don’t have great high paying jobs. only a small subset of them do, most of whom, were already rich before they got those jobs because they came from wealthy families.
titanicx@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Hey I’m not really worried, my landlord is actually really cool. The place I live in is actually better than the place he lives in. My rent is well well below market rate for what I should be paying. I lived in the same place for the past 11 years and he’s only raised my rent twice for less than $200 total. Not all landlords are bad, not all of them are in it just to get rich. And not all of us would be able to buy a house regardless of paying rent or not. And I’d much rather pay rent to somebody for a nice place to live then be living in a tent by the river.
Donkter@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Damn, you’re right. It’s like how I’m not worried about wealth inequality because I lucked out and have a steady 60k a year job with a nice employer. Not all employers are bad.
Or how I don’t give a shit about abortion because I made the stone-cold choice to not be a woman.
When things aren’t affecting me they don’t matter so why are people making a big deal about it?
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Nope, gotta kill your landlord and then get in a shootout with the cops when they come to
hisyour house, you heard the tankies. Time to die for their values soldier!GreenShimada@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
People aren’t defending landlords per se. People are defending the opportunities afforded by having extra space and letting someone else pay what it costs to live there.
Renting as a concept goes back to antiquity, and this is an absolutist stupid take that makes it sound like OP doesn’t understand how real life works.
Not everywhere is a large city. Not all renters live in the same place for 20 years. Not all landlords are evil shitbags or faceless corporations. Sure, plenty are. Some are just families that are lucky to not have to sell their house if they move for work that lasts only a couple years.
I end up moving every couple of years, and so I’ve had to sublet the last part of a lease I’ve had, and gladly rented places from friends, random people on Craigslist, whatever, for weeks or months at a time. So I’m a thief because I sublet an apartment for 3 months? So dumb.
Long-term renting is really more the issue as landlords do just sit and leech and renters get nothing to show for it. But the fact remains that renting a room or an apartment is something that has since literally ancient times made more sense than huge amounts of unused housing you aren’t allowed to use. So this is actually a nuanced argument against a particular class of people and corporations. Meaning that the premise is flawed enough for most people to roll their eyes and ignore it.
The whole “rent is theft!” trope doesn’t even make sense from a political messaging viewpoint. What’s your suggested alternative? That’s not apparent at all. So this ends up sounding like saying “I want hot spaghetti for dinner!” and just expecting it to happen.
Also, a rather large number of people have rented something out, rented a room out, etc. thanks to AirBnB that this messaging makes enemies out of a whole lot of normal people by using absolute terms. People like me ask “Did my friends that helped me out steal from me? Of course not.”
If you think that anyone who thinks a reasonable exchange of a service for an agreed up on fee are committing theft, then you’ve alienated 98% of people with the premise alone by calling them criminals.
Riverside@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Six paragraphs of you not understanding the issue: the problem is not the concept of renting a living space for a given time, the problem is private rent, i.e. rent for the landowner’s profit.
Every single problem with current rent could be solved by socializing housing and making it available to rent at production+maintenance prices, and people could still move freely without being tied to a house in particular, without the risk of being evicted, would be able to paint the walls and have pets…
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
thanks for the detailed and explanatory response. love to see more of this commentary on lemmy rather than the ‘rent is evil’ crap that goes on around here.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
My initial reaction was the same, to call OP a baby, etc. The problem isn’t rent. It’s landlord leeches.
I have an apartment in one country but moved to a different country, where I’m renting myself. I had two choices - either rent my first apartment to someone, or sell it. If I sold it, it would go not to a family in need, but to a BnB company or an “investor” (that’s the reality in my home country).
Instead I’m renting it to a family of Ukrainian refugees. They basically pay off my mortgage so that I’m not actively losing money on the whole thing.
They also pay rent to the housing association. This money goes to things like trash removal, hot/cold water, taking care of the green areas in the neighbourhood, cleaning the staircases, etc., etc.
Is this so bad and horrible?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Yes.
You are actively exploiting refugees.
You are no different than the BnB or the investors. You are on the supply side of the problem. Rent is, indeed, the problem.
You could offer to sell your property to those tenants. You could act as a private lender, allowing them to pay you instead of a commercial bank. You could offer them a “land contract”, which is a rent-to-own arrangement. If they choose to leave your property in the next three years, it was no different than a rental. If they choose to stay beyond three years, it automatically converts to a private mortgage, and they begin earning equity.
Leaving it vacant and just paying the mortgage yourself, you are gaining equity in exchange for your money. You are not losing anything. Renting, you are gaining that equity without paying for it.
The only way renting isn’t a problem is if the rent is far less than a mortgage payment on the same property.
Riverside@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Holy fuck, my sides. How can you be this BLIND to reality?
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
“But if I wasn’t a parasite someone else would be so that makes me good”
How generous of you!
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
You know you can choose who to sell it to, you can reject offers from investors. The family in need may not get you the highest price but reducing the price makes housing more affordable, at the expense of your bottom line though.
Sure the family could’ve tricked you and sold it right back to an investor but with closing costs, fees etc. it would make it hard to make a profit by doing that.
jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
The economists’ answer is that renting exists for the people in this situation. You may be moving to another country for a year or two. Are you going to buy a new house every time you move? Renting gives flexibility in that regard.
Likewise for refugees, putting them up in a rental is a more efficient solution than building new housing for each family.
That said, the model provides an inherently exploitative market and needs some kind of overlay to function efficiently, which in most US cities it doesn’t at all.
87Six@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
While you are undoubtedly better than what I’m about to say… I still wouldn’t say you’re a good guy in this instance.
But, the real massive issue I see here is that big companies and rich douchebags use owning land and housing solely for profit. THAT should be illegal.
Renting out property between individuals should pe perfectly legal though, as long as some now-inexistent laws are followed, like not being able to hoard housing for rent money.
Renting solely for profit should be illegal.
Renting just to be able to keep a property that you may need in the future should be legal.
jimmy90@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
we don’t have this fundamentalist religious idea that rent is usury
more conformation of the religious nature of the commies
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
The parasite
The