To everyone who hates the concepts of landlords and rent, what counts as being a landlord?
Does having an AirBNB setup make someone deserving of the guillotine or does that only apply to owners of multiple houses? What about apartments?
Please explain your reasoning as well.
If you own housing that you rent out more than you use it yourself, you're a landlord.
If you rent out your house or apartment while you're on vacation, I wouldn't call you a landlord. But if you have a house or apartment that you only ever offer on AirBNB without ever using it yourself, you're a landlord.
Btw, I don't agree that being a landlord makes you deserving of a guillotine, but I do agree that we should limit the ownership of housing to natural persons, with a limit on how much space a person can own.
I appreciate a sane viewpoint.
Buy a second house, fix it up, then sell it OR rent it to help cover the debt and maybe generate enough income to retire early. It's one of not very many ways regular(ish) people can reliably climb the financial ladder or not work until 75.
Nobody needs 40 properties, but I don't see anything wrong with one or two. I'm not a landlord myself, but I've rented and owned and can see the appeal of a second property.
I can say that having only one rental... is not enough. We have started the process to sell our rental as we were only making < $1500/year on it. It just wasn't worth it. But if we had had around 3-ish rentals then maybe it would've been better as they could better support one another. We charged a lot for rent, but, after taxes, insurance, near constant repairs, and now the threat of not being able to secure insurance (due to companies leaving the higher risk area that we were in,) it just isn't worth the hassle for a single home rental unless it is next door to your own house, and you are doing the repairs.
My take is that 1-2 houses still isn't enough. Especially if you're trying to replace active income generation (jobs and such). Nobody needs 40 units (that would be it's own property mgmt. job), but one or two is most certainly not enough. I could probably get by with the income of ~10 if a property mgmt company was supporting me.
The problem isn't that people are trying to make money off of rentals, it's that people are trying to make too much money off rentals by raising monthly rates to rent-trap level, and low-to-non-existent repair-rates.
If you are engaging with housing as an investment vehicle, you are part of the reason why there is a global housing crisis.
Housing is a human right and should be legislated as such.
I own a flat that I rent out to people who make similar amounts of money as I do.
That allows me to take a lower paid job that allows me to do more open source work.
I agree with your second paragraph.
This is lemmy. You are no better than musk or bezos for doing that you filthy capitalist.
You should do you open source work hungry, naked and in the cold while someone is whipping you. Like all the virtuous 14yo tankies that are downvoting you certainly do.
/s in case it's needed
And coal plants provide power and heat to millions of people, that doesn't make it right. The ends do not justify the means.
So you’re not working and collecting money for it so that you have more free time to yourself that you use for your own personal interests.
You then make sure the people you rent to don’t have that free time, and raise the overall property prices by taking an available unit off the market.
Got it.
The reason there’s a global housing crisis is government ultimately controls the throttle on new housing development, and government always allows less than the demand.
Our supply doesn’t match our demand and the problem is getting worse as populations increase.
For example, there are countless places where an apartment building would be more profitable than a new house, but zoning density restrictions force people to either build a house or nothing.
The UK has some of the worst housing issues in Europe, yet the amount of houses (dwellings) per person has slightly increased since 2001
21,210,000÷59,113,0000=0.35 Houses per person in 2001
24,930,000÷67,350,695=0.37 Houses per person in 2021
Yet rents and house prices have absolutely skyrocketed. Supply exceeds demand, it's just greed, long term empty investment properties and government inaction.
Sources https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwelling-stock-estimates-in-england-2022/dwelling-stock-estimates-england-31-march-2022 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/2020#the-uks-population-continues-to-grow-but-at-a-slower-rate-than-previously
I recently did some research on this stuff for a school project and found pretty much the same thing. Also came across Houston as an example of a city where zoning is mixed and the laws are very loose, and it seems to work itself out just fine.
It's not just about new housing though, it's also about fiscal policy which makes housing a more attractive investment vehicle through things like negative gearing and capital gains tax minimization than other things such as the stock market; the result is that prices are artificially inflated and you create a "renter class" who can no longer afford to buy, ever. Right now we're financing Boomers' retirements.
The question is, will the politicians have the political balls to fix it once the boomers have died off, or will they just let the profit roll on down through the generations, ultimately letting birth be the sole determiner of your societal class in life?
If you are owning houses just to use them as AIRBNBs, yes. Profiting off of artificial scarcity and already having money is bad. Being wealthy doesn't mean you deserve to be more wealthy.
Landlords aren't profiting off of scarcity. They're profiting off of having the means to do something that renters won't: Buy a house with a 30yr mortgage, and leverage that money for something useful.
You too can buy a house. But everyone who shits on landlords, always spits out excuses why buying a house isn't "feasible" or would "lock them down too much", etc etc.
If you can buy 30k worth of tractor equipment, you can run it and make the money back you spent on it. That's all landlords are doing - they're buying when you won't (not can't...won't) and then selling it back to you in trade for your "economic freedom" to move every 1-2 years and bitch about it.
Then we have the whole "fuckcars" movement, who wants everyone crammed into a shared-wall sardine can and nobody to own a house of their own ever; for the sake of population density so they can bike everywhere.
I'm lucky enough to have been financially able to buy a home. I had help making the down payment, but we've now got a 30 year mortgage. My monthly payments are less than what I was paying for rent, less than the average rent in the city by almost a third. I got this place with two above-average incomes, and had the good fortune to get it during the COVID housing and interest rate dip, and I still needed extra help.
If someone is stuck with renting, they're likely paying more than they would for a mortgage. They can't save up the money because they're already lagging behind, and the housing market isn't coming down in price, and wages absolutely aren't keeping pace. No one is saying a house would "lock them down," they're pointing out they can never afford it because they can't even come up with the money to show the bank they can save because they're already paying above the potential mortgage payments every month.
But you're saying they won't, not can't, so what should they do to come up with the money? Start selling kidneys? 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and that same link shows 71% have less than $2000 in their savings. So where exactly are people supposed to shit out your hypothetical $30,000?
You can show the bank that you've never missed a rent payment, yet still be unable to get a mortgage whose monthly payments are less than rent because you don't have enough saved for a downpayment. That's a "can't", not a "won't".
Then we have the whole "fuckcars" movement, who wants everyone crammed into a shared-wall sardine can and nobody to own a house of their own ever; for the sake of population density so they can bike everywhere.
Lol what?
I'm pro fuckcars despite the fact that I know they have a place.
It has nothing at all to do with not owning a house or a home. As well, not everyone has to live in the city. But cities should be made with people in mind and the infrastructure should be there for people to get around cities without the need for everyone to own a car.
Besides. Less car-centric design also means less traffic!
Not everyone can buy a house, because of greedy people using housing as a driver of profits. There are a growing mass of people out there that will simply never make enough to own a property where they live. For some people, renting is not a choice - its the only option.
Also: you are completely and utterly missing the entire point of c/fuckcars.
Living in a house share 4 years ago giving my god awful landlord over half my paycheck from full time employment as a cafe manager meant I was unable to save.
Your out of touch
always spits out excuses why buying a house isn’t “feasible” or would “lock them down too much”, etc etc.
Like not being a POS?
What miserable view of the world you have...
A landlord is a landlord, regardless of the particular lease terms. In general, they aren't automatically good or bad. They're just people acting as rationally as anyone else with respect to their material conditions and interests.
If you're asking why they get a bad reputation, I think that's also pretty straight forward:
Personally, I don't think that landlords should be guillotined, but housing policy that's accommodating to them is bad policy. We should be strengthening tenant protections and building new housing to the point that private landlords become practically obsolete.
and there’s just something that isn’t right about owning someone else’s home and probably everyone has some faint sense of that.
That's kind of an interesting point. To homo economicus a house would be no different than a cargo trailer or a storefront, and could be rented just the same. To homo sapiens there might be some ancient territoriality at play, and you see things like the castle doctrine where trespassing is equated to a physical assault.
Do you own a residential home for a purpose other than you or your family living in it? You're a landlord.
AirBnB is horrible for local housing prices, because it removes long-term housing from the supply in exchange for more expensive short-term rentals. Guillotines are too nice for AirBnB owners; They should be thrown feet-first into a wood chipper.
I’ve always appreciated people who rent out rooms or expand their homes to let people rent a private space with airbnb.
I also don’t think VRBO, home away, house trip, and other companies that support this business model get enough visibility in the criticism against the model.
Which was the original stated intent of AirBnB. Going out of town for a day or two? Let someone stay for a day or two while they’re in town. Your place is watched while you’re out of town, it helps pay for your hotel while you’re gone, and everyone is happy.
But in practice, people buy houses for the sole purpose of listing them on AirBnB for 30% of the mortgage payment. They don’t care if it sits vacant for 80% of the month, because the four or five days it’s in use pays for the mortgage.
I don't think the Airbnb we stayed at in Charleston which was just this lovely lady's extra bedroom in her house really affected the local housing market. She doesn't want to rent long term and have to have roommates, she likes having guests and showing them around her city, and we're still friends several years later, so no housing is being lost, and it's actually a good experience. A single bedroom rental isn't a big deal to me.
I'm middling about the other Airbnb we stayed at, it was a sort of apartment, but I don't know who would have wanted to live there full time, the bedroom was only large enough to get a double bed in, let alone a dresser or anything, and we slept terribly, and while the kitchen and living room and bathroom were nice enough, there was no storage and a million stairs. The guy who owns it is a friend who owns the restaurant it's above and said he never has much luck with long term renters wanting it, as it is also noisy because of the location and smells of food all the time. I think a place such as that fares better as an Airbnb too. Short term rentals should not displace housing for sure, but I'm not sure they're all bad.
They're all bad. Full stop. You're rationalizing with "just". That lovely lady would've downsized or eventually would've had a full-time resident (even a friend or family), there is absolutely zero incentive while she's able to take advantage of the situation. Is she a registered business and paying taxes like all the other short term stay? That second guy, come on, you're really not that blind right? No one is willing to PAY what he wants for that rental. He can get that price point he wants with short term rentals.
I hate the housing narrative because everyone plays real fucking coy when it comes to their scenario. Do we have a housing shortage crisis or not? Do we have housing for all immigrants or for refugees across the world? Is rent and housing prices sky rocketing because of demand? Like wtf, any defense is just a pity story "think about the rich people with their easy life, we might be them one day!" Every single fucker in here defending renting just wants an easy scam to get rich and hates to see their future "dream" squashed like that.
It's a really easy definition for me. Do you acquire recurring income from a residential location that you don't personally live at? You get the French haircut.
Owning a home and having roommates that share the mortgage is fine. Putting your guest bedroom on Airbnb is fine. Owning an apartment building and living in one of the units and actually providing labor to contribute to the running of the apartment building (whether through maintenance or office work), perfectly ok.
With that being said, when it comes time for the guillotine, we'll start with the corporate landlords to give the "mom and pop" landlords time to come to their senses.
Edit: explaining my reasoning: Passive income is theft. Owning things is not a job. Humans have a right to live by nature of being alive, profiting off of a human right is evil.
I agree with your points but I'm curious what your solution is to single family homes that are being rented out? The obvious one is everyone who wants to buy a place is able to, but not everyone wants to buy yet (younger people, people who want flexibility, people who know they are moving [only in that city for school], etc). Having some corporation own everything is also obviously the worst option, but that only really leaves the government and the mom and pop operations (that is people who own 1 place and buy another to rent it out). Should all single family homes be run as co-ops? Torn down and rental apartments built instead?
Again, I agree that single entities owning multiple rental places is a bad thing, but there doesn't seem an obvious replacement. So I am genuinely curious as what can be done?
Don't listen to anyone else mentions "guillotines". It didn't even work for the people of Paris, who eventually burned it.
The fundamental problem is, people want to live in certain locations and in modern homes. There's plenty of cheap land in the middle of nowhere but no modern comforts. And modern homes are much harder to build than older ones were. This reduces the supply of new homes and increases the value of existing housing.
One potential solution is taxing rental income and supporting first time homebuyers more. Or maybe increasing regulations and inspections of rental properties. This would remove the worst landlords and lower the cost of buying a house. Literally tax rentals and send the money to first time homebuyers.
Landlord are fine, just like private farming is fine. Food is necessary to live too, but few people are clamoring for "government cheese". The problem is the housing market is full of unregulated rentals where the only qualification to rent something is having the key. Make landlords jump through some hoops and the worst ones will sell to first time homebuyers.
Co-op housing are not all rental apartments. They come as single family dwellings, town houses, apartments, everything in between. It's about how they're used and regulated for the communities and individuals sake instead of an investor. You could find an appropriate housing style for all walks of life within co-ops, even those more private and secluded types.
The type of building is irrelavant to the problem. Anything that works for apartment complexes works just as well for a single family house. It's always the land underneath that's the issue.
And at the ond of the day any solution that include getting rid of landlords comes down to the government seizing "unused" or "inappropriately used" land more aggresively. Something that just doesn't sit right with most people.
but not everyone wants to buy yet (younger people, people who want flexibility, people who know they are moving [only in that city for school], etc).
People don't want to buy a house because it's either unaffordable, unavailable or the process takes too long. If you eliminate those aspects of home ownership, people wouldn't mind and maybe even prefer owning a home for short periods of time.
So curious here:
When I moved to the city I'm in now, I rented an apartment until I could figure out the best neighborhood in which to buy and to find the right house for me.
So it's ok for me to buy a house and live in it, but it's NOT ok to rent the apartment. It should have been provided to me, I guess. Is that right?
Owning a home and having roommates that share the mortgage
does make you a landlord by definition
give the "mom and pop" landlords time to come to their senses.
Ok, I'll kick the roomate out into the cold, I could use the room for a shop/office anyway I was just helping out a friend, but if I have to choose between him being homeless and me being headless, "sorry homie it's an easy choice." He'll understand.
My landlord is actually a community nonprofit group that owns several units in our neighborhood. They do rent for the most part based on income. I forget the exact breakdowns but iirc it's capped on the upper end at an actually reasonable percentage of your income so you're not paying most of your paycheck to rent. Then my wife and I are on the low end because we're on a fixed income. Before we got approved for section 8 we paid their lowest flat rate which is basically just enough to cover property taxes and maintenance which iirc percentage wise was a higher percentage of our income than their normal rate is but it still wasn't crazy for us.
Then they use the excess to do things like update the units to make them more energy efficient, community organizing, etc. They've also bought out a couple of abandoned houses in the area and redeveloped them so people can actually live in them.
I personally don't have a problem with landlords per se. Not everybody wants to own a home and deal with all of the maintenance and things that go along with it. I don't even necessarily have a problem with them getting paid to deal those things. What I personally have a problem with is housing being used as passive incomea free money cheat.
Your last paragraph was pretty much where I was a couple years ago. I don't remember who helped clarify this for me, but housing maintenance is very much a real job and deserves the same respect and compensation as any real job, but it can very easily be disjoint from being a landlord. Making money from owning the housing other people live in is distinct from maintaining that housing, and just because several people do both things doesn't mean that we should treat them as the same job.
Yeah I feel like that puts it into better words than I was able to.
That sounds exactly like a housing co-op, you're usually part landlord in that situation as a member of that community (much like electric co-ops and worker owned business co-ops). They are by far the best type of situation for people who don't want to take on the full responsibility of "owning" the house themselves as it's spread out between all the members and the "agreement" usually is a 100 year contract. If it's through the government strictly with subsidies etc I guess it's more of socialized housing, either way those two don't fit the description of a profit driven landlord that OP was suggesting above.
The only other form of housing that I think is legitimate in our dystopian future is Rent to Own where all rent is collected into an account which will purchase the house at a contracted set price (maybe add negotiations for remodeling etc but with outside mediators so no one is getting bamboozled). If you don't want to help someone get into permanent housing, then don't buy additional properties.
I don't know if it qualifies as a cooperative. I know they're a nonprofit and they've got a board that we can just join for some fairly cheap dues even for our fixed income. My wife was actually on it for a while before our twins were born.
A landlord is anyone that owns a property, and rents it out, whether it's commercial or residential, short-term, long-term, or even leasing land to hunters.
Landlords aren't a problem per se. Think, for instance, of student housing. When I moved to go to school, I needed a place to stay, but I didn't intend to live there for a long period of time. It would have been entirely unreasonable to buy a house or condo in order to go to school. I couldn't stay at home, because my parents lived a long way away from any university. (Dorms are utter hell, as are co-ops. I've only ever had one roommate that wasn't a complete and utter bastard.) You have a number of people who have the expectation in their career that they're going to be moving from city to city frequently, or will need to be working on-site for a period of months; it's not reasonable to expect them to buy either.
Then there are businesses. Most businesses don't want to buy, and can't afford to do so. Commercial real estate is it's own mess.
Taxing landlords won't solve the problem; landlords simply raise rents to achieve the same income. Preventing landlords from incorporating--so that they're personally liable for everything--might help. But it would also limit the ability to build new housing, since corporations have more access to capital than individuals. (Which makes sense; a bank that would loan me $5M to build a small housing complex would be likely to lose $5M.) Limiting ownership--so a person could only own or have an interest in X number of properties--might help, but would be challenging for Management companies are def. part of the problem in many cases, but are also a solution to handing maintenance issues that a single person might not be able to reasonably resolve.
Government ownership of property is nice in theory, but I've seen just how badly gov't mismanaged public housing in Chicago. It was horrific. There's very little way to directly hold a gov't accountable, short of armed revolution.
I don't think that it's the simple problem that classical Marxists insist it is. It's a problem for sure. I just don't think that there's an easy solution that doesn't cause a lot of unintended problems.
Government ownership of property is nice in theory, but I've seen just how badly gov't mismanaged public housing in Chicago. It was horrific. There's very little way to directly hold a gov't accountable, short of armed revolution.
Anything is bad if you do it badly. It's ridiculous to dismiss an entire concept because you can name examples of when it was done wrong.
Bad drivers exist so no more cars. Bad laws exist so no more laws. Bad governments exists, so no more governments. It's an asinine way of arguing.
Unless you can formulate clear arguments as to why government management of rentals cannot work as a concept, you should not dismiss it as a solution.
Unless you can formulate clear arguments as to why government management of rentals cannot work as a concept, you should not dismiss it as a solution.
It's not that it cannot work as a concept, it just has not worked when it's been done so far. Typically the issues come down to funding. Politicians have to be elected, and politicians control funding. In order to get elected, politicians cut taxes--because everyone wants lower taxes, right?--which means that they have to cut funding. Typically the funding cuts are to the most vulnerable populations. So you'd have to create a system where public housing couldn't be systematically de- and underfunded. I don't know that even a constitutional amendment would be sufficient (see also: the entire history of 2A, Ohio trying to block the amendment to their constitution re: reproductive freedoms, etc.)
I'm generally opposed to continuing to repeat the same mistakes and expecting different results. If gov't funded housing has always resulted in shoddy, run-down, and unsafe (both in terms of structural integrity and in terms of crime) housing, then we need to fundamentally rethink how we're going about it to ensure we aren't repeating the same problems, rather than just throwing more money at it.
The real problem with government housing in the US specifically stems from our worship of billionaires, which requires us to demonize the poor. If a rich man is selfmade due to his virtues then poor people must lack virtue. That worldview implies that no amount of help will redeem the poor. Thus safety net programs are half-assed at best, and cut to bare bones or cut entirely at the worst.
The narrative that government-run programs are useless just does not hold up to the evidence. Even the housing program you mentioned is an improvement over nothing. But take a look at some of our programs and imagine the horror of a private alternative: US Postal service (I can send a letter to the smallest town in Alaska with a single stamp), rural electricity, roads (my God could you imagine a private road system), public school. You need to remember that the alternative to any flawed government program is NOTHING.
I would argue it doesn’t include one group your definition includes: hotel owners. Property that’s purpose built for short term lodging often lacks what you’d want for long term residence and provides a valuable service
But yeah I agree with a lot of your points. I do think we have a solution though. The new deal skyrocketed homeownership rates. If instead of taxing landlords we subsidize ownership of personal residential properties and actively remove barriers so that the mass of commercial wealth doesn’t steamroll the residential buyer that has shown positive effects in the past. We can also use it to subsidize building newer more environmentally friendly housing and mid range housing
Hotel owners are absolutely landlords, IMO. Even though hotels may not usually be intended for long-term residence, there are plenty of long-term hotels, and very, very low-rent hotels that end up functioning as residences.
I do think that tax incentives, etc. for owner-occupied homes is probably a good step. I know that there are some pretty good deals for first time buyers, but that doesn't help when the housing supply is so tight. And the supply is tight, in part, because it's more profitable to pave farmland and build McMansions than it is to build high-density housing in the cities that people work in. I'm seeing that in my town and county; my town is poor as shit, and farms have been bought and turned into housing "starting in the low 500s!" for people that want to drive 90 minutes each way into Atlanta. The county I live in is one of the fastest growing, even though there are no jobs here. It's just more sprawl.
Landlords aren't a problem per se.
Ha…what an un-Lemmy thought.
I don't think that they necessarily are. I think that the issues are individuals and corporations owning significant portions of the real estate market, rather than--for instance--small landlords that rent out one or two units in a multi-family building that they also occupy. No one begrudges the maintenance man his wages; he earns them through repairs and upkeep. Similarly, a small landlord should be doing the same thing and providing value to the renters. OTOH, many places (landlords/management companies) are predatory; they allow the buildings to fall into disrepair and take all of the rent as profit.
is its* own mess
Is your Airbnb a spare part of your primary home, or a money making scheme that exploits housing somebody else could live in?
If you are making money on a place where someone lives then it all counts.
Airbnb is worse than traditional landlords because they remove supply for people to live (excluding shared spaces).
What if you also live there?
I struggled with this a lot when I got a roommate last year that’s paying rent.
I’ve come to terms with it recognizing that we are supporting each other. I’m supporting them by providing them a stable and affordable place to live, and they’re supporting me by helping me make ends meet, especially in a time when I’m unemployed. I’m not profiting off of them or taking a living space from another family. I also plan to calculate the portion of equity they contribute to the mortgage and give it to them whenever I wind up selling.
What if you need to move interstate for work for a year. Are you meant to sell your house? And incur all the selling and buying costs? Are you meant to leave it vacant for a year? Or are you meant to let people stay in it for free?
It makes sense to rent it out for the year, and rent yourself in the other state.
You're right; lots of shitty edge cases exist. If you are trading 1 for 1 it's not the core issue.
The long term solution to this is high quality public housing allowing people to move when needed. It's a bit of a pipe dream in our current world, but if we are talking edge cases, I can be idealistic.
Ownership isn't for everyone, that's okay, but profiting from a basic need for another human, shelter, is immortal. We should be a society that provides basic needs to people without allowing others to exploit them for profit.
I am not saying everyone must own, and you can't rent, but it's the profiteering I have a problem with, not the need for someone to live or move.
Be careful with this dangerous logic. You’ll get pitchforked.
Someone who hords houses.
If you have an beach house that you uses every year, and rents it when it's not using or you have one second house that you got from a deceased family member... If you need to work to maintain this second house...
That's fine. It will not cause a inflation on the house market, it's not just an investment.
In my city (not in US), there are a booming market of very small apartments that rich people buy just to protect their money from inflation. As result, higher prices, less units available for the general public, and the new units that are available are terrible.
We really need to make investing in property less lucrative than other means.
I mean we could start taxing capital gains as income, except no we can't because that would never happen.
This is the key problem of the housing market. For generations we've been told the only way to wealth is home ownership - so nobody will ever support more housing because you don't live in a house, or a neighborhood, you live in an investment and you've put all your retirement eggs into this single investment instead of diversifying. So, if new housing pushes value down you don't see "Hey new neighbors" you see "there goes my retirement."
Now, of course, institutional investors are involved and we're just all fucked.
Billionaires have a completely different level of capital as the doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business owners who have $1-5 million in assets. I’m not going to fault somebody for being successful and using their money to buy capital to make more money. Billionaires are the only ones who should be named, shamed, and blamed. It’s an entirely different level of greed and exploitation, because it’s totally needless. It’s like you already won capitalism, but that’s not enough, no, you have to rig it so that nobody else ever wins like you did. Those people are so rich they can employ bot farms to throw fuel on the social media fires that keep us all hating each other instead of them. It’s pretty simple. Don’t trust anybody with a private jet.
Landlords are landlords. Rather than simply guillotine landlords forever, it's better to have publicly owned housing. It's not really a gray area, the system itself is fucked and should be abolished, but exists precisely because publicly owned housing isn't widespread yet.
Doesn't having publicly owned housing make the state a landlord effectively?
It can, but not necessarily. The issue with landlords is rent-seeking, if the state funnels all of the income towards maintenance, building new housing, or even lowering housing prices without taking profit, they have removed all issues with landlords.
As a landlord, their goal is to make profit. As a state, their goal is to provide a service.
AirBnB landlords are even worse than traditional landlords (although there's a lot of crossover between the two) because the overly high rates they charge for short-term leases are increasing the prices of long-term leases as well.
The bottom line. We devised a system (note, it’s not some natural system, people made this) that allows a finite resource to be claimed indefinitely.
A developer comes and builds an apt complex, then collects rent on it FOREVER. The initial value they added to housing flexibility and additional housing expires, but the value they extract does not.
As available land disappears over time (which all finite resources do when being consumed), wealth inevitably coalesces to the owners. It seems fair at first, but it ignores what makes an economy work. It allows people to not work and extract value from others over time. It is not sustainable.
You can own an entire forest just so you can enjoy a stroll by yourself, while an entire group of people are left on the outside owning nothing. If you can’t use your land and block access, you’re hurting society more than helping.
It’s somewhat like an insidious monopoly growing slowly. Rent to own as an option is a much better system.
I didn't think about how much rent-to-own helps this situation. Current rent prices would basically expedite the process and many more would have ownership much sooner. I like this idea.
I absolutely despise airbnb owners, they drive housing and renting houses to the clouds in whichever areas they operate. Extra guillotine for you.
Parasites running unregulated hotels driving the smaller operators to list on airbnb as well.
There's way too much money in the hands of the wealthy. What are they going to do with it all? Invest in the stock market. All the good investments are overvalued. All the bad investments are have been saturated too. What else can they do with all of that money. They gotta put it somewhere.
So they put excess money into real estate. So the price of real estate has been driven up so much that it's over valued like any other avenue of investment.
The stock prices being overvalued isn't good but isn't something that'll affect regular people. But their real estate investments being over valued? Well that real estate isn't an investment to someone that simply needs a place to live.
And that's the problem, the price of housing is priced above what the people what people outside of the investor class can afford. And the investor class wants a return on their investment in the overprices real estate (that they collectively drove the price up on) so charge a lot for rent. Of course maybe if people moved to another area that would put downward pressure on the rent prices. But AirBnB is there so if this happens they can still get income from that when no one can afford the insanely high rent.
So the overarching problem is the wealthy have wayyy too much money and are dumping their excess wealth into real estate and pricing people that just need a place to live out of the market. AirBnB isn't the cause of the problem but it makes the problem worse.
One of many problems caused by the unwillingness to simply tax the wealthy.
The stock market is rigged too -- I've seen multiple instances where hedgies are using algorithms to do their stock trading, only to get something wrong, and we end up... REVERSING THE TRADES FOR THEM!!!
Algo-traders, should be permanently locked into their trades. Make a mistake -- oh...fucking...well.
Quite the opposite, western stock markets are highly regulated. What you saw was probably high frequency traders making a transaction that they were not allowed to make. Depending on markets and contracts they have very tight rules they need to adhere to, things like how many orders they can place in a day or in a second, how many they can cancel etc. If they mess up the transaction could be reversed and they'd regret doing so - mistake or not. Depending on the offence they could face fines or hours/days not allowed to trade (ie shitloads of money). These things DO get enforced.
If they just make a mistake, they have to suck it up, someone doesn't get their bonus that quarter. There is no rollback button.
This doesn't seem like an open question to me.
Worst fucking strawman I've seen.
This is just a question. WTF
Yeah, wrong place to expect a reasoned reply, buddy. Here it's mostly extremists who claim they're the good guys because their extreme is the good extreme.
The answer to this question is hugely region dependent, so you’ll probably get vastly different answers that are all still valid.
Where I’m from, we’re in a housing crisis. There aren’t enough homes for everyone, property prices have ballooned well beyond reasonable year over year, to the point that anyone under 40 will not be able to buy their own home in their lifetime unless they have rich parents or work very very high paying jobs.
In this climate, someone buying a house so they can charge an insanely high rent (because rents and property values are closely linked) is… I’m not sure what the word is, but they’re clearly more driven by personal gain than any sort of common good.
Airbnb is the same issue when you have such limited housing supply. Someone else isn’t in a house because that house is off the market for people to live. There’s a reason why Airbnb is tightly restricted and banned in many cities.
Now while your stereotype landlord might be a lazy, parasitic ghoul, the fact of the matter is people need to rent just as much as they need to own. If someone owns another piece of property and they rent it out and maintain it, it’s kind of difficult to complain too much about it.
I know people who have had fantastic landlords that kept up the properties, did proactive upgrades, and seldom raised rents. I also know people whose landlords broke the law many times by refusing to deal with maintenance problems on a timely basis, increased rent by the maximum legally allowed amount every year, and were quick to evict the tenants because “family was moving into the home” (they didn’t). You get a great mix of shitheads and good people in any market.
The people arguing at either far end of the spectrum can easily be ignored. At best they have an axe to grind and use every opportunity to engage in hyperbole to support their naive position. At worst they’re trying to manipulate public opinion for their own purposes. At any rate, the more extreme and absolute an opinion you read online, the more easily you should be willing to reject and ignore it.
Ok, but all that nuance aside, if someone comes up to me and asks “Landlords. Guillotine or no?” then I’m going to say “guillotine!” because there wasn’t any room left for a conversation.
Airbnb isn't ethical and definitely a landlord but worse than long-term rental landlords, unless it's also your home (so not all the time) or a guest house. Banning short term rentals lowers rent and decreases homelessness.
Deserving of the guillotine? What? This question doesn't feel sincere, and I wonder whether you're really going to be trying to understand other people's reasoning. I'll bite though. We have enough homes for everyone to have their own home, but a very large number of people rent or are homeless. Big corporations buy up all the property and convert it to rentals so even those who can afford to buy property have a very hard time finding anything, and what's available has jacked up prices. We're talking people like blackrock. THOSE people can burn in hell, those people are taking advantage of every single person who rents from them. It's a scale, you know. Blackrock is evil - my grandpa who rents out his old house is not, even if I disagree with the fact that he's renting at all. Charging someone enough to pay the mortgage and give you a paycheck is well... I mean it's demanding more money than what the property is worth from someone. They'd be better off without you there as a middle-man. At best you're taking advantage of a small number of people, at worst you're literally blackrock. There's no reason a single person should not have their own home, because we already have enough homes to go around.
even if I disagree with the fact that he’s renting at all
Why do you disagree with this, out of curiosity? Having rental properties available is necessary. Not everyone can buy a home (not even taking the monetary reasons into account - think students, people on temporary work assignments, people who are in the country on a non-permanent visa, etc. - there's plenty of reasons why someone might want to rent even if they had the money to buy.) If your grandpa is taking care of the property and his tenants, and is charging a reasonable price, what's the problem?
Charging someone enough to pay the mortgage and give you a paycheck is well… I mean it’s demanding more money than what the property is worth from someone.
If the owner is on top of maintenance and home improvements and all that, and the difference between the mortgage and what they're charging isn't extreme, I'd argue that this isn't necessarily true. If the mortgage is $1000/mo and someone is charging $3000/mo in rent, that's excessive, but charging $1300 rent on a property with a $1000/mo mortgage isn't unreasonable. Again, see the above reasons for why someone might choose to rent who had the means to buy.
It's OK to expect a return on an investment, even if that investment is property. It's not OK to take advantage of artificial scarcity to bleed people dry who have no other option, and to cut every corner that it's possible to cut while doing so. That's the distinction.
I take issue with the entire concept of renting, from the very core. A landlord is a middle-man between the person living in a building, and ownership of said building. The landlord having to to the maintenance doesn't make living in a rental a better experience, it just means more dealing with a middle man any time you need something fixed. It would be pretty nice if I could just call a plumber when my toilet has issues instead of hoping that the leasing office actually sends a repair-man this time. It's not fun having to pick up mail at the post office for ten months because the leasing office and the post office are arguing back and forth over who's responsible for fixing the apartment mailboxes after they were vandalized. Rentals will charge you money every month for a pool you don't want or use even though it's closed 9 months of the year. All renting has ever meant for me, has been a complete lack of control of what I'm allowed to do in my living space, and a constant fear of eviction should something go wrong, and landlords that do everything they can to never repair anything, or maintain the property at all. But onto the individuals that rent out a house or two, they still aren't adding value to living in a rental. All they do is sit in the middle and collect that extra cash on top. It's not that they're not doing any work at all, but being a landlord is not a job, and it's not doing the people living in that space any favors. People can't afford to buy because companies like blackrock are buying up all the property to make rentals, and upcharging all of the property. I'm not saying, either, that there shouldn't be options for temporary living, but our current rental model is so very clearly not it. Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent month buy month? My 700 square foot apartment is over $3,000 on that plan.
but charging $1300 rent on a property with a $1000/mo mortgage isn't unreasonable.
No it's just stupid. With those $300 dollars difference a landlord would need to cover insurance, property taxes, regular maintenance like replacing roof every 30 years, unplanned maintenance like a pipe bursts or aircon breaks. On top of that someone needs to act as the property manager/handyman so either the landlord takes that phone call on a Friday evening for the pipe that is gushing, or is paying someone to do that.
Tenant moves somewhere else and the place is empty for a couple of weeks, no income.
Oh and when you are done with all the above, depending on the country, those $300 count as income and get taxed (rightly so) so it's not really $300.
BTW I don't like landlords, I am not one. I rented most of my life until recently as a choice, been able to move to a new city or country at the drop of a hat. Haven't had to do maintenance and I'm only learning that now. Of course I paid for someone else doing all those things, and taking all the risks for me.
But lemmy users seem to have a thing for over simplifying things and decide what is and isn't excessive based on somethig that comes out of their ass. $300 dollars in this case.
Deserving of the guillotine?
It only took me about 15 seconds to find this comment so yeah:
People famously never make jokes on the internet.
Yeah, I accidentally subscribed to some lemmy.ml communities...
Just unsub from those and maybe pay less attention to users from there, haha
Official communist stance: Corporate landlords who spend all their resources into buying more houses to price everyone out of the market. Renting out a single room out of your family house is immoral, but doesn't hold a candle to the absolute evil of corporate landlords.
Remember: Communists don't give a shit about individuals; that's liberalism. They care about systems and dismantling them. It's those who throw themselves in front of those systems to defend them who end up becoming causalities. There are plenty of examples in socialist history where the most evil of abusers would willingly give up their power (out of cowardice) and would ultimately go on to live a normal life. Perfect example of this was the literal king of China who the figurehead of the system oppressing them. When the communists won they gave up their power and their response was pretty much "You had no way of knowing what you were doing was wrong, we're going to teach you why it was wrong" and even though it was a LOT of work, they did eventually get the picture and integrated into post-monarchy society.
TL;DR don't die on the hill and you won't die on the hill
Renting out a single room out of your family house is immoral
Why? It seems to me that if you’re accommodating having someone in your home, being compensated for that inconvenience wouldn’t be immoral. Certainly not any more immoral than having that room go unused would be.
When AirBNB first arrived, I think we thought it would be a tool to let people rent a spare room in their house short term to travelers, with a built in system for reviews and reputation building to ensure that it's safe for both parties.
Turns out it's a platform that enables wannabe real estate moguls to buy up housing and convert it into unlicensed hotels for a tidy profit.
Also a way to enable breaking regulations for hotels.
It applies to anyone who has a property they only use to generate income via rent
Hotels are a gray area as they provide some amount of service
People extorting money due to the finite nature of land, for the sole reason of having been born with better access to capital.
It's just making money, due to having money. They didn't invent anything, they didnt discover and invest in an emerging company. They didn't do anything innovative or clever. Anyone born to wealth could have done it. Which is why those are, by far and away, the vast majority of landlords.
Even a Conservative, union busting aristocrat like Churchill knew how bad landlordism was and landlords have been hated throughout all of human history. It's only the current neoliberal plague who've attempted to moralise it with rich people worship and bootstrap paradoxes.
It turns out, they dont care about anyone being bitter or hypothetical, let alone the morality of just about anything. They just really don't want people talking about inequality or exploitation.
Needs socialised and subsidized; food, water, shelter, healthcare for example
Wants, not socialised
An example?
There's plenty of people renting out properties on airbnb all year round. And yes, they're landlords. These are perfectly good houses someone could live in, but instead they're used for tourism and money, and not even the kind of tourism money where the hotel owner is actually responsible for cleaning and the full cost of the property. A proper hotel is better for society than a hundred full time airbnbs.
I work in real estate, but I don't hate landlords or rent. I hate the idea that landlording is a job somehow.
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of landlords.
My landlord is an old lady who owns a series of apartment complexes. I assume she is quite wealthy, but the reason I don't take issue with the situation is because she keeps up the property instead of paying a property management firm to do it. She also isn't hoarding complexes or single family homes, she owns a couple, and managing a couple of complexes with a few people under you is a full time job.
The other kind is the people I work with. Fuck them. The property owners we work with are billionaires. They own hundreds or thousands of complexes and god knows how many single family homes. They also don't do anything. They buy a complex from a builder, then they pay a property management firm to run it. All they're doing is skimming excess rent in exchange for assuming the liability of owning the complex. Except they're not even doing that, because everything is insured.
The first kind of people are wealthy, yes, but they work for a living. The second kind do not actually do anything. If we killed them all tomorrow and gave the complexes they own to property management firms or individual managers, nothing would change.
F*** em both. But, that's just my opinion.
Eh renting is something that people need, and some people prefer. At least a local woman owning a couple spots keeps the money in the community instead of an out of state owner paying an out of state management firm to pay some dude peanuts to live there and actually run it or whatever.
It's okay, if you're bashing nice old ladies (which isn't necessarily wrong to do) you can also swear on the internet.
landlords are an unfortunate product of a system that has made it impossible for a normal person to buy a place to live or at least settle on unoccupied land.
you can choose not to be a landlord for ethical reasons, but they will exist as long as people have to rent.
My parents rent out a room to a traveling nurse since my brothers and I moved out, the space was just going to waste. I'm not positive on what she pays, but I think it's around $500.
My parents and grandparents own rent houses. They're active property managers. Most fixes they do themselves. My summers growing up were working on them.
I think the difference between what they do and the corporate owned apartment I'm staying in is the "personal touch" (for lack of a better term). When the owners have never even seen the property, they see renters as numbers on paper instead of people.
Does having an airbnb bikeshed get the guillotine?
Man there's so much indiscriminate hate in here. I rent out an apartment to some tenants, and I rent myself, elsewhere. So I'm both a landlord and a tenant.
The rent I receive doesn't even cover the cost of the apartment. I'm losing money on it every year. So I'm subsidising someone's housing.
So why all the hate?
I like moving around so I'm not going sell and buy every couple of years.
I made this point in another comment but it's because you're forced to rent, even if it doesn't make sense for you. Corporate landlords have bought out all the housing and commodified it, pricing out normal people who just want to live. It's either play their game or die on the streets.
Nobody would give a shit about renting if it were just a convenience thing, or a viable alternative to home ownership.
What's causing you to lose money on your apartment?
I have to pay interest on the loan, and lots of other owning costs, that are greater then the rent I receive.
The rent I receive doesn't even cover the cost of the apartment. I'm losing money on it every year. So I'm subsidising someone's housing.
The third statement might be true, but it does not follow from the first two. Are the two houses of equal size? Are they in equally desirable locations? Also, is the market price of the house you are renting out increasing? You need to account for these.
Because landlording, as a practice, is a fundamental flaw in the system we live in.
That doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it makes you a part of a bad system.
To some degree, we're all part of a bad system. Every time we buy a latte, or a smartphone, we're participating in a broken system that causes unimaginable harm. Half the shit you own was probably made with slave labour.
That's what "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" means. It's not saying "don't consume", it's saying the idea of living a morally pure life in a morally defunct system is impossible.
We don't yet know what a future post-capitalist housing system will look like. Maybe your particular scenario is one that will eventually be seen as perfectly acceptable.
For now, if you feel what you're doing is completely justified then you can simply assume that the hate isn't directed at you. You don't have to jump in and justify yourself at every turn. That's no different than being the guy who has to yell "I'm not like that" every time a woman talks about how shitty her interactions with men are.
And even if what you're doing isn't a moral good in the world, it may simply be that it's the best you can do in a bad system. We're all just trying to survive, and capitalism demands that we be morally impure in order to live, because there are no morally pure ways left to live. Again, you don't need to justify that. We're trying to fix a broken system. No one here called you out personally by name.
What if I rent to family members under market value?
Any useful answer to this will be very long. It pretty much never is. The guy saying it's by majority of use is the closest.
Disclaimer that I'm not in this picture; it seems like just another investment asset to me, exactly as problematic as all the rest.
I am a reluctant landlord. If I had my way, I wouldn't have any properties other people lived in, but alas there are other factors at play. I'm a renter myself, and hope to buy a house soon, but the properties that my family has dog me still.
And the number one answer is........ {ding} --- "A landowner who leases to others" from the WordWeb free dictionary available worldwide! amen.
If they ever owned any land, they get guillotined twice. Reasoning: ultraleftism hasn't worked so far, so clearly we haven't gone ultraleft enough yet
Ultraleftism = above 90 percent home ownership in all socialist nations that we have reliable data on :)
I was joking in response to OP's joke about guillotining everybody who had been a landlord? Even in China, where I think it was 4 million landlords got killed during the land reform movement, there wasn't an intentional policy of just reprisal killing entire classes. (No really, read the history of the land reform movement, it was absurdly violent but even then it wasn't "let's guillotine every single landlord") It's a silly concept and I'm surprised it needs to be explained that murdering entire classes at a time isn't actually the point of revolutionary violence, but hey, it's Lemmy!
House owning crisis incoming in USA ?
Incoming?
Next economic crisis in range I meant.
I am seeing a lot of posts regarding high rents recently.
I was speculating if this is the new domino in the line for the next economic crisis.
I do not think having an AirBNB or any BNB counts, as those are temporary arrangements similar to a hotel. They can also make good use of a property that normally would not be in use. One of my friends is a musician, she lives half of the time in Nashville, because recording studios and producers, and half of her time in Montana where she’s from. Whatever house she’s not living in at the time gets rented out as an AirBNB. I would consider that acceptable, she’s actually using both places, and when she’s not in one, she’s putting it to good use.
In my eyes a landlord is someone who sits on a property, maybe maintains it, maybe not, and makes someone else pay their bills.
I’m lucky enough to own my own place, but one of my coworkers is paying what I pay for my mortgage in rent every month, and he has less space than I do. What is his landlord doing to get a $1800 check every month? Absolutely nothing. That’s not OK. At least apartment buildings typically have amenities. Don’t get me wrong I’m still not a fan of apartment buildings, but they can be done right, they just usually aren’t.
Air BNB counts as landlording. Charging 100 a night instead of 1200 a month is scummy.
I personally put it in the same category as a hotel. It is a necessary service for people who are traveling and need a place to sleep and relax for a week or two. Definitely not a long term thing. That is what differentiates AirBNB from renting, is you don’t expect to live at an AirBNB.
It's deeply immoral because not only is it landlording but it's also gig economy so you have all that baggage thrown in as well.
A landlord is someone who's very good at landing airplanes. It's above landsir and below landbaron.
It's also a parasitic symptom of the commercialization of basic needs.
Unlike you mere peasants all of my pilots are ranked as land viscounts or higher
Landlords aren't inherently evil - it's a useful job... a good landlord will make sure that units are well maintained and appliances are functional. A good landlord is also a property manager.
Landlords get a bad name because passive income is a bullshit lie. If you're earning "passive income" you're stealing someone else's income - there's no such thing as money for nothing, if you're getting money and doing nothing it's because someone else isn't being properly paid for their work.
How many landlords actually do it as a job? And how many just collect the checks and hire bottom of the barrel contractors for anything that involves work? In my experience it's been the latter.
I think most of the older landlords were like this but their renters are very reluctant to move. The landlords that suck have high turn overs - and recently there's been a wave of idiots buying apartments to park their money and get "free" income - so the environment is actively getting worse.
I have never had a single landlord where this isn't the case, except in instances where they are too cheap to even hire professionals to do things that they don't have the skill to do, and they get their dipshit son to "fix" the sink that fell clean out of the kitchen counter with a lumpy bead of clear silicone and a 1' piece of 2x4 wedged underneath.
Another thing that pisses me off is that I'm literally paying >100% of the cost of the property over time, yet they retain full ownership. It's an investment with essentially zero risk, if you have a tenant that isn't a racoon.
Not sure I have a good solution for that issue, honestly, but the idea of it irks me.
My overall position boils down to: Housing should never generate profit. A landlord can take pay for the work they do, and put money aside for maintenance, but there should never be a profit made on rent.
This was less of an issue before as we could save to buy property. Now we must inherit
there absolutely should be a profit for rent. Being a good landlord is work, work should be compensated. Taking the risk of ownership (low though it might be) should be compensated.
The issue isn't profit. The issue is a) artificial lack of supply driving up prices b) greed and exploitation of basic needs.
In some countries, like some of the USA, you get clean drinking water pumped into your house for your toilets. However you do the math a) people need to work on the system to keep it working and they should get paid a living wage b) water is a need even more than housing. We pay for water, and people make profit on it. How you pay for it - taxes, city rates, privately - whatever, you pay for it.
that isn't the issue, just like paying rent isn't the issue. it's the amount which is.
the solution is simple and already exists: universal basic income, and make basic needs like water and rent limited by this amount.
Even if you own your home mortgage free, you're going to be paying >100% of its value in maintenance and opportunity cost over the first ten years.
So basically, a good landlord doesn't make any actually passive income? That makes sense. I just see a lot of people on here saying things like "we should kill all landlords" and they just sound ridiculous to me.
People speak in absolutes as it gets the point across. Also socialism is pretty hot here I myself am a democratic socialist and I have said "kill landlords/rich/owner class" but in reality when the socialist party get in the owner class wont be murder but forced to pay more taxes, slowly forgo they're business and property.
Lemmy is filled with a lot of extremists. Nuanced thinking is in short supply here.
People say that because outside of modern times in the first world, landlords = the mafia. Without expensive police, landlords have to enforce their own rent. So if you're socialist or any other political movement bad for landlords, they probably make up the biggest paramilitary force in your country and if you don't decapitate that chain of command fast you get dumped in a cave with 20,000 other skeletons.
And even in a first world country, the police manhours dedicated to evictions and the private security industry funded almost entirely by landlords is something anybody who wants to deal with housing prices is going to have to worry about.
To emphasize this, I've had both types of landlords:
One apartment I moved into was available because it was the owners residence, but he had to move away for two years because of his job. He wanted to move back afterwards, so he put some money into refurbishing an already decent place, and rented it out to me at a price that mostly just covered mortgage, maintenance, and wear & tear. Best landlord I ever had.
Afterwards I spent two years in a typical predatory unit that was a normal house, but had been, as cheaply as possible, been renovated/converted into a place meant for packing as many renters as possible. It was expensive, there was always something wrong, it took ages to get anything fixed, and it was obvious that the owner who lived elsewhere only used the peiperty as passive income. The only reason why I stayed that long was economic desperation, and a housing market that was awful.
So basically, a good landlord doesn't make any actually passive income? That makes sense. I just see a lot of people on here saying things like "we should kill all landlords" and they just sound ridiculous to me.
To me the question is whether the result of what you're doing makes the world around you better or worse. Would the people living in your place be better off if you were out of the equation? Then you're a bad landlord.
If you're making money from providing labor for the people who live in a place you own, and they're paying your costs to do so, I think there's a case for that being a reasonable occupation to hold. If there's an issue with it, it's not my highest priority, and there's definitely some value in flexible housing stock for people.
If your goal is passive income, or you're making money from owning housing and denying that ownership to people who need a place to live, then you're behaving as a parasite, and I think it's reasonable for people to give you an amount of respect proportional to that.
There's a lot of teenage edgelords on here. Or at least people with that level of maturity.
I earn around 3 to 6k a year of passive income from owning stocks. It's passive because once I've bought the stocks I no longer need to actively do anything to earn interests but it's not "money for nothing" either because I had to work to earn the money to invest and having one's money invested into someone else's business is always inherently risky. Interests are compensation for the risk I'm taking by buying shares in a company and betting on it's success. Renting property is effectively the same thing. It's not necessarily what you do that makes it good or bad, it's how you do it.
I'm not sure what angle you're coming from here. Anything with a risk involved is inherently not bad? or the origin of the investment capital was morally sound, so the profit off the investment must also be morally sound? I'm not even going to touch on the fundamentals and optics of the stock market at this point and what it has done to the economy, business practices, enshittification, etc etc.
People have some myth of passive income. I sold all my rentals because they were taking to much time. I never turned a profit but it was good for my taxes. If you want to slum lord you can turn a profit but even I dislike those people.
Market rent is basically set by current home costs. Any long term owners who have 15+ year old tax base essentially get to pocket the difference due to lower property taxes. Any newer buyer who is renting can only cover costs.