I mean I guess if it takes you most of your life saving up to buy a house to rent out, but thats not really what we have now we have all these equity firms and stuff
This is the real problem. People on Lemmy like to lump “landlords” into this one big group. If someone buys a second house as an investment property and rents it out to cover the mortgage and if fair and responsible to the tenants, I don’t see why that’s a problem. They could have put the money in a brokerage account in stocks. Then some equity firm buys the house instead. The renter rents either way. But in the first scenario the property still belongs to members of the working class. In the second scenario it belongs to the equity firm, slowly eroding middle class residential ownership, and if that continues soon all property will belong to corporations rather than individuals.
Also no one person owns a large scale apartment complex. Pretty sure those are all owned by corporations.
And that’s really why people should be upset. Not uncle Bob renting out his in-law unit so he can make a few extra bucks. (What’s he supposed to do, let it sit unoccupied when that’s housing someone could use?)
If you’re making passive income from someone else’s labor by leveraging the fact you own the basic necessities of survival, you’re not in the working class. “Lemmy” lumps landlords into one big group because there’s literally zero difference in the fundamental relationship. Mom and Pop landlords aren’t better than small business tyrants and the exact same bullshit is spread around defending them.
spoiler
Tell me you expect to inherit your parent’s house without telling me
Justifying rent seeking just encourages buy in to the very system he’s complaining about. Confusing assets with value production. It’s like a form of corruption that seems normal because it’s how Western society operates.
What’s he supposed to do, let it sit unoccupied when that’s housing someone could use?
Letting it sit unoccupied? How about not hoarding basic necessities and at the very least sell it instead of letting it “sit unoccupied” because he can’t make a quick buck over the backs of the working class?
An “in-law suite” is different from renting a room. It generally has its own entrance, and a devoted kitchen and bathroom. It’s an entire 1-bedroom apartment built into the house or property (often above a garage, for example).
And it’s not slang, it’s a term that’s been used since the early 1900s, and as the term suggests, it has historically been used to be able to care for elderly parents (so they can maintain their independence while still living with family). It’s not like you can sell an in-law suite separately, and selling one’s house while a parent doesn’t need that and expecting to not only buy another house and having one available with an in-law suite when a parent does need it is a pretty extreme expectation. So it really does come down to rent the room or leave it empty.
And plenty of people want that kind of temporary rental, if they don’t want to be tied to a particular spot for long or don’t want the responsibility of owning.
How exhaustingly pedantic. Oh okay. So it’s renting a couple rooms. Totally worth making the distinction.
You’re still hoarding housing in excess of what you can use and using it to generate a passive income. Literally nothing about the argument has changed.
More like you spend most of your life savings to buy a house, but you can only afford it in a rural area, and the mortgage is so high that you require to rent a room out for like $3000 to even it out, and nobody is willing to pay that much for a room.
I mean I guess if it takes you most of your life saving up to buy a house to rent out, but thats not really what we have now we have all these equity firms and stuff
This is the real problem. People on Lemmy like to lump “landlords” into this one big group. If someone buys a second house as an investment property and rents it out to cover the mortgage and if fair and responsible to the tenants, I don’t see why that’s a problem. They could have put the money in a brokerage account in stocks. Then some equity firm buys the house instead. The renter rents either way. But in the first scenario the property still belongs to members of the working class. In the second scenario it belongs to the equity firm, slowly eroding middle class residential ownership, and if that continues soon all property will belong to corporations rather than individuals.
Also no one person owns a large scale apartment complex. Pretty sure those are all owned by corporations.
And that’s really why people should be upset. Not uncle Bob renting out his in-law unit so he can make a few extra bucks. (What’s he supposed to do, let it sit unoccupied when that’s housing someone could use?)
If you’re making passive income from someone else’s labor by leveraging the fact you own the basic necessities of survival, you’re not in the working class. “Lemmy” lumps landlords into one big group because there’s literally zero difference in the fundamental relationship. Mom and Pop landlords aren’t better than small business tyrants and the exact same bullshit is spread around defending them.
spoiler
Tell me you expect to inherit your parent’s house without telling me
So anyone who owns a rental property is not a member of the working class? What a fascinating world you must live in.
It’s a world you can live in too if you accept that words have definitions instead of just vibes
Justifying rent seeking just encourages buy in to the very system he’s complaining about. Confusing assets with value production. It’s like a form of corruption that seems normal because it’s how Western society operates.
Letting it sit unoccupied? How about not hoarding basic necessities and at the very least sell it instead of letting it “sit unoccupied” because he can’t make a quick buck over the backs of the working class?
You don’t know what an in-law unit is.
Yet another person who wants to be a part of the conversation but doesn’t know what the words mean.
No, seriously. If you’re hinging your argument on the fact that they don’t know your latest slang for ‘renting a room’ then you’re a fucking idiot.
An “in-law suite” is different from renting a room. It generally has its own entrance, and a devoted kitchen and bathroom. It’s an entire 1-bedroom apartment built into the house or property (often above a garage, for example).
And it’s not slang, it’s a term that’s been used since the early 1900s, and as the term suggests, it has historically been used to be able to care for elderly parents (so they can maintain their independence while still living with family). It’s not like you can sell an in-law suite separately, and selling one’s house while a parent doesn’t need that and expecting to not only buy another house and having one available with an in-law suite when a parent does need it is a pretty extreme expectation. So it really does come down to rent the room or leave it empty.
And plenty of people want that kind of temporary rental, if they don’t want to be tied to a particular spot for long or don’t want the responsibility of owning.
How exhaustingly pedantic. Oh okay. So it’s renting a couple rooms. Totally worth making the distinction.
You’re still hoarding housing in excess of what you can use and using it to generate a passive income. Literally nothing about the argument has changed.
or you could be a normal person and just explain that term instead of making your whole reaction smug derision
More like you spend most of your life savings to buy a house, but you can only afford it in a rural area, and the mortgage is so high that you require to rent a room out for like $3000 to even it out, and nobody is willing to pay that much for a room.
In Madras fucking Oregon houses in town are going for $500k. What insanity is this?