Reason I’m asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say “city” think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn’t seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I’m not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don’t overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.

I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don’t see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.

Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the “landlords are bad” sentinment?

  • Rimu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Ideologies tend to sort people into a limited number of overly simplistic categories. This makes theorising easier but applying it to reality much harder.

    Very few people could live in a capitalist system and remain pure. e.g. My pension fund is invested in the stock market so I very partially own thousands of companies. I’ve also purchased a small amount of shares in selected companies, a situation I had more agency in creating. Sometimes I subcontract work to other contractors who function as my temporary employees. And so on.

    • @xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      56 days ago

      Is there an ethical way to try and ensure that I will have food, shelter and medical care as I age? In the US we can’t depend on the government safety net. Everyone isn’t as able in their 60’s and 70’s as they were in their 30’s and 40’s, so assuming that I’ll be able to work and make a reasonable income the rest of my life is wildly optimistic. Anyone working at a job for 30+ years shouldn’t be stressed about survival but that’s not reality. Putting money in a savings account at a credit union is good but I don’t think that will move the needle. Any decent pension or retirement plan is gonna put money in the stock market. Even with passive investing in index funds, you’re on of the stock holders that fucks like that UHC CEO was trying to appease. Given the state of the economy in the US today, buying and renting a duplex, triplex or small apartment building might be less evil than owning random stocks.

  • @zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    56
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Unless your aunt is transferring equity in those homes to the tenants based on the amount they pay in rent, then yes, she’s a leech. “Providing shelter” isn’t the service your aunt is providing; she’s just preventing someone else from owning a home.

    And before anyone says “but renting is all some people can afford, they can’t save up enough to make a down payment” - yes, sure, that’s true. But that’s a symptom of the shitty housing market (really the shitty state of the middle class in general*), and landlords aren’t making it any better by hoarding property, even if it’s “just” 3 to 5 townhomes.

  • @Stamau123@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    75 days ago

    My dad was a ‘landlord’ renting out the other three rooms of the house to people. He kept the rent a few hundred bwlow the market because all the rent money was icing on his cake, and he knew housing was hard to come by. Most renters liked him, but he was a poor judge of character and would often give the room to the first person that showed up, leading to drama, but mostly a good experience.

  • @cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    226 days ago

    Making money on the back of someone else with little to no work of yours is parasitic. Having enough money at one point in life to become a parasite doesn’t change anything.

    • @mke_geek@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      65 days ago

      Rental property owners do not “make money off the backs” of anyone. It’s about trading money for a service.

    • dream_weasel
      link
      fedilink
      65 days ago

      Have you considered, on the other side of that coin, if you don’t have that money to be a parasite for doing little to no work at some point in your life, you’re a parasite because you have nothing to contribute that anybody wants?

      Nobody needs to go without a place to live or be hungry and we can ALL fight to make sure that’s the case, but don’t be an entitled fucker in the crab bucket because you kinda suck at decision making.

      EVERYONE deserves a place to live, something to eat, medical care, clothes to wear, etc etc, but let’s not be delusional: some people are taking shit they in no way shape or form contributed to receiving. So maybe don’t be we don’t toss around words like “parasite” when you need a handout, yeah?

      • @cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        15 days ago

        Public service can handle large scale renting situations, ensure that the lodgings are kept up to standard, and limit the ever increasing price of rent by not being profit-driven. Individual landlords that are out there making a profit on something that only gain value and usually requires minimal upkeep (that some don’t even do) are parasites, plain and simple.

        But the concept of public services acting for the well being of others is not well understood in some countries, I guess.

  • I actually have a related question that I’m curious to hear takes on. I’m a leftist, and I own a 1-bed apartment where two good friends of mine rent the apartment right next door. Their landlord is planning to sell next year, and they don’t have the ability to buy it. So depending on who does buy the place, my friends could be out of a home. My sister and I could combine finances to buy their unit (with a mortgage), and ensure that my friends could stay where they are. This would be a bit of a financial burden but doable, and we would need to charge rent to pay back the mortgage.

    Would this be a net good or a net evil? I feel very conflicted about potentially being a landlord (especially for friends) but also don’t want them to need to move.

    • @IMongoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      56 days ago

      Only do this if you have the means to pay that mortgage yourself, imo.

      You and your sister are taking all of the risk here. Your friends could lose their job or simply just move after a short time and then you are on the hook to find more tenets. I suppose you could just sell it if they move but you may lose money.

      You would be a great friend to do that for them so that you could essentially lock them into a fixed rent for many years, but understand that it is not without risk.

    • Wouldn’t you be benefiting from your friends? It’s ok for a little bit, but if they live there permanently then they will pay off your mortgage and have nothing to show for it themselves. That sort of thing might build resentment long term. Though in the short term you both benefit.

      But as I’m sure you’re aware, any money issues may sour the relationship. Even just having a formal contract with exchange of money could change the dynamic drastically.

      • ProdigalFrog
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 days ago

        The ethical option would be to give the deed to the friends after the mortgage is paid off.

    • ProdigalFrog
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      If you take out a loan to purchase the apartment, then have your friends pay just enough rent to pay off the loan without attempting to profit yourself (perhaps a small amount extra to cover any recorded time spent in administration responsibilities, for a reasonable hourly rate). After the nortgage is paid off, you could then give them the deed. That would not be immoral at all, and would, IMHO, be a net good, as you’d be rejecting the profit incentive and giving your friends a very rare opportunity.

  • @lurklurk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    44 days ago

    Landlords are an effect of the system; it’s pretty pointless to shame them if you don’t change the system

  • @scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    125 days ago

    Individual landlords can be the worst ones. Here’s what that often looks like:

    1. individual inherits a home
    2. they rent it out and quit their job
    3. the rent is their only income so they are really cheap about maintenance and repairs
    4. they make any repair the tenant’s “fault” and force them to pay for it
    5. they raise the rent at every opportunity to the maximum the market will bear, because that is the only way their own income ever rises
    6. they do repairs and maintenance themselves, even though they are unskilled, because that’s cheaper, and the quality of all the work is poor, using the cheapest materials possible (I once had a landlord paint our house puke orange because she got a deal on that awful paint).
  • @chilicheeselies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    386 days ago

    We arent a homogenous group, but ill tell you my personal opinion.

    I trust you when you say your aunt is not bad, but what she is doing is bad (and i am sure she is unaware of it). Those 3 to 5 houses she bought are 3 to 5 houses that families cant buy. A few bad side effects:

    1. It lowers the housing stock in the area, so artifucial scarcity brings the prices up artificially.
    2. It seperates families from their communities. When your children grow up and have famailies ofbtheir own, they cant afford to stay in the community and are forced to leave
    3. The families that do stay and are forced to rent arent building any equity for their children. In effect, it stunts upward mobility.

    There are people who do want to rent, and people whoneed to rent, but that should happen in priperly dense apartment building designed specifically for that. When houses meant for families are snatched up to profit off of, it is parasitic.

    I get it, they are just trying to survive. They are playing the game that exists. Thats why i personally dont belive that most landlords like you are describing are bad people. I think the ultinate issue is that out elected officials do nothing about it. It should be illegal, or have tax implications that discourage the practice.

    • @UmeU@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      96 days ago

      There are people who do want to rent, and people whoneed to rent, but that should happen in priperly dense apartment building designed specifically for that.

      Who are you to say what people should or shouldn’t rent. Should all renters be piled on top of each other in over packed buildings with 600 square feet to themselves? Why can’t I rent a 2000 square foot town home for my family so that they are safe while I save up to buy my own home?

      And say I rent a townhome for 10 years, then buy my own townhome, then 10 years later I rent it out to someone else while I buy something bigger? What’s wrong with that.

      I think what we all have a problem with is housing affordability and a lack of systematic focus by the government on eliminating poverty.

      The issue isn’t some small time landlord with 5 condos, it’s the investment groups with 5000 condos which artificially juice the rents year after year.

      It’s insulting to say that all of the poor people who cannot afford to buy a home should have to live in densely packed buildings.

      • I dont think the apartments should be small, ive lived in apartments for most of my life. Msxing out square footage is also a shitty developer tactic, but thats another story

      • AngryMob
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Rent for single family properties is higher than the mortgage of that same property. In theory. So ideally no single family property should be rented as its purely a parasite relationship. Again, in theory.

        The problem is that isn’t always true in practice with today’s market and rules. because if the previous owner has had their mortgage long enough, then it could be quite a lot less than a new mortgage. That makes a situation where rent is higher than their old mortgage (providing landlord profit), but cheaper than a new mortgage (providing a valid choice to a renter).

        But many of us argue that the current situation is unnecessary and drives up overall market costs. Even when done by just small landlords, it all adds up because the system allows it to.

        So its not so much telling you what to rent and what not to rent. its more that in a better system, you wouldnt ever choose to rent that way. Mortgages on small or attached single family homes would just be cheaper and affordable like they were in the past. And if you needed even less costs, renting would be the option in actual properties designed for it. Whether that is sardine packed 600 sqft, or not.

        • @UmeU@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          45 days ago

          Rent for single family properties is higher than the mortgage of that same property. In theory. So ideally no single family property should be rented as its purely a parasite relationship. Again, in theory.

          The problem with this theory is that it’s wrong across the board.

          Take a look at houses on realtor dot com or the like… they show estimated mortgage and also estimated rental value. Single family homes typically rent for far less than a new mortgage on the same property, partly because housing prices are so inflated and partly because as you pointed out, someone who got a mortgage on a property 10 years ago who is renting it out now may be renting it out based on the cost of ownership 10 years ago.

          Secondly, your conclusion doesn’t follow even if your premise was correct.

          Let’s pretend sfh rental prices were higher than the cost of a new mortgage on the same property. How would that then translate to ‘people who can only afford to rent shouldn’t be allowed the dignity of living in a sfh and instead should have no other option but to live in a shared housing environment… how does that follow? How could you possibly think the answer is an increased limitation on what people can rent?

          The real solution is getting rid of corporate ownership of more than say maybe 20 properties at a time.

          I would certainly prefer having hundreds of thousands of small time landlords with 5 or 10 properties, as opposed to dozens of billionaire corporation who each own tens of thousands of properties… be they sfh or condos or whatever is irrelevant.

          • AngryMob
            link
            fedilink
            25 days ago

            Its wrong in the current market, yep. But if we didnt have inflated housing from various factors including parasites and empty housing from those billionaire corps and small time landlords, things would be generally more affordable across the board like they were in the past.

            With the bar for ownership lower, that rental line shifts too. And suddenly the concept of “starter homes” is back on the menu like it was only a few years ago. And maybe we could get some smaller homes being built again to meet that demand.

            Last thing i wanna say is that specific rental options don’t have to be shitty. I was lucky to have snuck my early adulthood right into this mess as it formed. I saved up for my starter house (which i am now stuck in seemingly forever due to this market, but i know i am also lucky) by renting, but i rented an 1000 sqft private entry apartment with good quality. I felt plenty dignified in there. And there are options even better of course. Some people only want to rent forever afterall. Townhomes in particular are more suited for that style of renting. Nothing against that. But also, sardine packed buildings have their place. If someone is that rough off, i’d assume they prefer that to being on the streets. The issue is even those buildings have been royally fucked by today’s market. Those 500sqft apartments shouldn’t cost more than my current mortgage, but they do, and that’s insanity.

  • @SwearingRobin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    74 days ago

    I do believe a lot of landlords don’t care and will make decisions based on what makes them more money versus the well-being of the people living in their property. But I don’t agree that landlords as a concept are bad, and that they all should sell their extra properties to reduce the crazy prices we’re having.

    There are plenty of reasons someone would prefer to rent than to buy, and if there are no landlords or rental houses what happens to those cases? I personally have attended university not at my home city, and I rented an apartment with other students. It makes no sense to buy in that situation. People who intend to live somewhere temporarily would mostly prefer to rent, what would happen then?

    There is a problem with regulation, big companies owning whole apartment buildings, and generally small greedy landlords what will make their tenants life hell. But cutting out the whole concept is trading one issue with another.

  • @enbyecho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    116 days ago

    I have several friends who could not possibly afford to own a home without renting out a room. I was in that situation myself for many years, having barely scraped together enough to buy the property for my farm. I mean without renting out a room I wouldn’t have been able to eat, much less pay the mortgage.

    But nope, apparently this makes us parasites judging from all the comments here, like this one:

    “If you make a profit for allowing another person shelter (particularly if you don’t need that space for yourself and/or your own family), then you are a parasite.”

    Obviously there is some ambiguity around the word “profit” in this context. Owning land or a house is almost always “profit” but that “profit” isn’t usually realizable except over very long time scales.

    But hey, nuance I guess.

  • metaStatic
    link
    fedilink
    66 days ago

    I would still consider this horizontal violence. That equity could be used to make the world a better place instead of extracting value from fellow workers to pay for their kids college and inheritance … and where the debts incurred buying 5 properties?

    You’re right that they are good people, because no one sees themselves as the villain in their own story. That insurance CEOs wife isn’t lying when she says good things about him. Capitalism not only alienates you from your labour but also from your exploitation of others.

    The sheer weight of human misery in your immediate surroundings is immeasurable and you never pay it any mind.