Current Events > Landlords don't even provide an actual service to their community

(+) Yeah! (+)

I own a condo that I rent out and believe me it doesnt make a lot of money, its breaking even at best, and I have to deal with stupid shit sometimes, its terrible

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Well, the number one priority for any landlord is to make a profit, not necessarily to make sure people without homes have shelter.

Because they can't make bank off of poor people, they simply won't provide them with housing.

Profit is the main motivator for any business, so I don't get your point?

That's like asking why restaurants make a profit, if all they're doing is providing the public a necessity.

So, what you're basically asking is why does the worst version of a particular thing exists, even though more than a majority of them are providing a service someone couldn't normally provide for themselves?

---

Fishstick posted...

And where is the government gonna get the money for this? Your taxes will go up and then you'll be complaining about that.

i dont complain about paying taxes, especially when those taxes go towards helping those who need it. don't make assumptions about what i'll complain about, lol.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

So what happens when the landlords keep buying up all the property?

government regulation should prevent them from doing that.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i agree. the government should provide basic housing available to the public.

We tried that once. All it did was concentrate poverty into the urban core.
It's a problem endemic to US urban planning as a whole, where there's no real "transition" from single-family houses to bigass skyscrapers.

Questionmarktarius posted...

We tried that once. All it did was concentrate poverty into the urban core.

that's because it was implemented poorly. have you ever seen "Show Me A Hero"? very interesting series about a true story where an experiment was conducted to build public housing in an upscale neighborhood. the results of that experiment were overwhelmingly positive, it's a shame that idea didn't get expanded upon.

---

bigblu89 posted...

Profit is the main motivator for any business, so I don't get your point?

I never claimed otherwise?

But maybe there's certain industries that shouldn't be run like a private business

---

Some of these dumb replies against landlords are making my head hurt. Are people this stupid?

Landlords frequently buy decaying and rotting houses on overgrown property. They get them cheap, fix them up, make them look nice again, then rent them out. Sounds like a public service to me. Or do you like drug dealers and prostitutes squatting on vacant lots?

Giant_Aspirin posted...

have you ever seen "Show Me A Hero"?

incidentally, I don't want to pay the HBO landlord.

This apparently happened in the 80s, so the long-term effects should be documented somewhere.

Exactly. Actually you could argue that landlords are a disservice to communities because of the economic drain they put on a neighorhood. What landlordism is basically they found a way to be on welfare from the general public legally, that's all it is.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I never claimed otherwise?

But maybe there's certain industries that shouldn't be run like a private business

IMO basic levels of necessities such as housing and health care should be government subsidized and available to those who need it. but private enterprise can and should provide additional for those who want it.

---

pick4six posted...

What landlordism is basically they found a way to be on welfare from the general public legally, that's all it is.

It's all voluntary, though.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's all voluntary, though.

How voluntary is it really when there's a housing shortage and your options are limited?

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

incidentally, I don't want to pay the HBO landlord.

This apparently happened in the 80s, so the long-term effects should be documented somewhere.

it's quite good. you can get it from the library or something. it made me feel weird because while i fully support helping lift people out of poverty, i definitely had a "not in my backyard" reaction to the idea of public housing being built across the street from my house. by the time i finished the series my mind was open to the idea.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

IMO basic levels of necessities such as housing and health care should be government subsidized and available to those who need it. but private enterprise can and should provide additional for those who want it.

That is...acceptable.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

IMO basic levels of necessities such as housing and health care should be government subsidized and available to those who need it. but private enterprise can and should provide additional for those who want it.

But there already is government subsidized housing and healthcare, at least in the US.

What you're really asking for is improvements in those subsidies.


---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

IMO basic levels of necessities such as housing and health care should be government subsidized and available to those who need it. but private enterprise can and should provide additional for those who want it.

the existence of privatized services is inherently a threat to the public versions of those services.

---

bigblu89 posted...

But there already is government subsidized housing and healthcare, at least in the US.

What you're really asking for is improvements in those subsidies.

correct.

---

averagejoel posted...

the existence of privatized services is inherently a threat to the public versions of those services.

that's where adequate regulation comes into play.

while i agree that everyone should have access to having their basic necessities met, i also don't think the government has any right to forbid me from renting out property i own.

---

The main argument I see for landlords is that they provide rentals for people who can't afford to buy houses. But we're in a situation where a lot of people can't afford to rent anymore (even pre-COVID).

---

averagejoel posted...

the existence of privatized services is inherently a threat to the public versions of those services.

Not necessarily.

Like, there being a steakhouse that serves $200 filet mignon dinners isn't a threat to the family of 4 using an EBT card to buy milk, bread, and cereal.

You can't tell people that their ability to live above the poverty line is a threat to those who cannot.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

while i agree that everyone should have access to having their basic necessities met, i also don't think the government has any right to forbid me from renting out property i own.

One could argue that buying property with the sole intent of renting it out is artificially decreasing supply though

---

bigblu89 posted...

Like, there being a steakhouse that serves $200 filet mignon dinners isn't a threat to the family of 4 using an EBT card to buy milk, bread, and cereal.

This is comparing apples to oranges

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This is comparing apples to oranges

Is it though?

You were basically saying there shouldn't be luxury options because the people at the very bottom cannot get what they need.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

One could argue that buying property with the sole intent of renting it out is artificially decreasing supply though

fair point. i feel like that can be solved through regulation.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

fair point. I feel like that can be solved through regulation.

So, you want to cap how many rental properties a particular individual or company can own?


---

bigblu89 posted...

Is it though?

You were basically saying there shouldn't be luxury options because the people at the very bottom cannot get what they need.

this raises the question of whether or not people should be entitled to better quality essential services just because they can afford to do so. I don't think they should.

also remember that it's not only food services that I'm talking about here -- it's healthcare and education and housing too.

---

bigblu89 posted...

Is it though?

Yes, because food is generally plentiful enough that there won't a scarcity.

---

bigblu89 posted...

So, you want to cap how many rental properties a particular individual or company can own?

not necessarily, more about controlling the % owned in a specific market / region. i think there needs to be an adequate amount of public housing available and the government should do whatever necessary to ensure that is the case.

similar to regulation in other industries, i think there should be a maximum amount of the market any one individual is allowed to own. basically apply existing anti-monolopy and competitive laws to housing. sort of like how when two large companies want to merge they need FCC or DOJ approval or whatever,

---

bigblu89 posted...

You were basically saying there shouldn't be luxury options because the people at the very bottom cannot get what they need.

Incidentally, it turns out that rent controls accomplish nothing but accelerating construction of luxury units, and converting the rest into condos.

The only real beneficiaries of rent controls are people lucky enough to get a unit early on, and then never leave it.

averagejoel posted...

this raises the question of whether or not people should be entitled to better quality essential services just because they can afford to do so. I don't think they should.

also remember that it's not only food services that I'm talking about here -- it's healthcare and education and housing too.

That's a slippery slope, especially with housing.

Just thinking of myself as an example. Would the government have denied the purchase of the house I currently own because it has 4 bedrooms, but I only need 3? Or if I decided to upgrade the kitchen or windows, they would decline it because I'd them have a kitchen that was above what they considered essential?

---

bigblu89 posted...

So, you want to cap how many rental properties a particular individual or company can own?

Or, you know, just ban rental property entirely.

Problem solved, right?

bigblu89 posted...

That's a slippery slope, especially with housing.

Just thinking of myself as an example. Would the government have denied the purchase of the house I currently own because it has 4 bedrooms, but I only need 3? Or if I decided to upgrade the kitchen or windows, they would decline it because I'd them have a kitchen that was above what they considered essential?

this is so far removed from what I was talking about that I don't think you're actually making this point in good faith

---

averagejoel posted...

this is so far removed from what I was talking about that I don't think you're actually making this point in good faith

I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said:

averagejoel posted...

this raises the question of whether or not people should be entitled to better quality essential services just because they can afford to do so. I don't think they should.

also remember that it's not only food services that I'm talking about here -- it's healthcare and education and housing too.

What do you mean by "better quality essentials"?

Like, if you have an apartment for rent that's on the luxury side, should you NOT be charging a premium for it?

I'm not arguing, or posting in bad faith, I'm truly trying to understand what you meant.

---

.
---

.
---

Landlord is a fake career. They have absolutely no skill involvement. It's literally "spend money to make money" the job.

---

LostForest posted...

Landlord is a fake career. They have absolutely no skill involvement. It's literally "spend money to make money" the job.

How so? I wanna money

---

I have a property manager with an assistant. >_>

---

bigblu89 posted...

What do you mean by "better quality essentials"?

to use one example of what I'm talking about: private schools. they basically exist to reinforce the existing class hierarchy: ensuring that the kids with rich parents largely interact with each other, and that they're getting a better education than kids who don't have rich parents.

this also contributes to the funding issues within public schools.

the clearest solution is to remove the option of private schooling in the first place and to improve funding for public schools in general

Like, if you have an apartment for rent that's on the luxury side, should you NOT be charging a premium for it?

the option to have privately owned luxury housing in the first place should also be removed

---

God Giant Aspirin is a Giant Tool. I sure hope you're getting paid for this because this is professional level simping.

averagejoel posted...

to use one example of what I'm talking about: private schools. they basically exist to reinforce the existing class hierarchy: ensuring that the kids with rich parents largely interact with each other, and that they're getting a better education than kids who don't have rich parents.

this also contributes to the funding issues within public schools.

the clearest solution is to remove the option of private schooling in the first place and to improve funding for public schools in general

the option to have privately owned luxury housing in the first place should also be removed

Could go the other way with school choice

---

There is good and bad Landlord. Also, there is the rational Landlord that won't Upgrade the housing considerate their Classes.

---

If I buy a house do i automatically start making tons of money?

---

You're not buying a house, you're steing an opportunity from someone else to own it

You only buy oppression and the ability to privately tax the less fortunate

---

So I should let someone else seeze the opportunity?

---

If people want to advocate for free housing then it would only work with other rules such as those who serve the community the most such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc get the best housing and allowed to live on the city.

Those that would be minwage workers would be shuttled to rural areas.

That's the only way to make this fair.

---

The pandemic has exposed a lot of people of taking out mortgages to buy properties solely to rent out on Airbnb and push the mortgage bills on the tenants. This drives up the housing prices due to demand and it makes it harder for people to buy their own home.

I recognize people trying to hustle but housing is a necessity. Between immigration, Airbnb home buyers, foreign investors, and banks buying up all the houses, the future is bleak for those who want a home.

---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

So I should let someone else seeze the opportunity?

Only daddy government is responsible enough to equitably give people their fair chance

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Could go the other way with school choice

sure. there might be several different public schools in the area that are known for different things. but they could all be improved if private schooling were taken out of the equation

---