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?
I and I think many in the left would say no to both of those, especially if you lived there yourself in the second case. The abhorrent behavior is buying multiple houses and charging rent that is high enough to not just cover mortgage and maintenance but also turn a large profit, enough to where you can live entirely off of it at the expense of your tenants. And do things like raise the rent every year because “the market allows for it” even though your mortgage cost hasn’t changed.
There is obviously a grey area in between that everyone will have different opinions on. But in my view it is POSSIBLE to rent a property ethically, using lower than industry rents and being generally nice about it rather than viewing it as an opportunity for exploitation
I would certainly agree with that. But those actions also perfectly describe any capitalist behavior. And it’s that inconsistency in views that I’ve been poking at here. Some want to excuse other capital-focused actions as acceptable but then condemn real estate as though somehow that’s different. To me both are essentially exploitative.
I think it’s a spectrum, some are worse than others. This one is particularly incensing as it drives house prices up for average consumers. Me putting my meager retirement savings in stocks, while still arguably just as much a capitalist behavior, feels a little less negative on the working class. But maybe it is and I just don’t understand economics enough for the nuance
So capitalism is “ok”… sometimes?
If investments in stocks is “just as much capitalist behavior” then what makes investments in real estate somehow worse? Because you could literally be investing in companies that, as an example, seek to privatize access to water or healthcare or other things I would consider basic human rights just as much as housing. At a minimum all companies exploit the labor of their workers in parasitic ways.
“feels a little less negative on the working class” is highly subjective. I can personally see no difference between owning real estate and renting it out vs investing in companies that exploit people in other ways. Many capitalist activities that you could invest in have extremely far-reaching and long-term adverse effects, some very direct, such as use of fossil fuels.
So quite literally it feels like many complain about landlords as a kind of bogey man while the chemical plant down the road is giving their kids brain damage and another is denying them basic health care.