Current Events > A landlord does no productive economic activity.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hey can free beer

---

BilalPowell posted...

The only reason they buy homes is because other people want to give them money to live in them. If they just stopped doing that and lived on the streets the landlords would stop buying more homes.

Because that sounds like a great solution to property owners creating an artificial scarcity....just exercise your buying power by choosing to go homeless.

---

The Trent posted...

Without a comma the first line is real dark

---

Hornezz posted...

Without a comma the first line is real dark

---

shockthemonkey posted...

There is a separation between landlord and maintenance. Upkeep is valuable work. That is not an inherent job of landlord.

Its their responsibility though. Sure, many might choose not to do the job themselves, but even if they delegate out the work to a contractor its still on the landlord to ensure that repairs are taking place and the property is habitable.

---

Damar posted...

And plenty do maintain their properties guy.
But by all means use your anecdotal experience to extrapolate the behavior of landlords across the entirety of America.
And there are plenty avenues available to complain about slum landlords not all of them cost money either.
And who you choose to rent from is a choice just like deciding what restaurant to eat at is.
The only way to get reform is drawing attention to landlords who are breaking their own rental agreements.
Or you could just do nothing and bitch about on here and somehow expect the world to fix these problems for you.

Who you "choose" to rent from is not at all a choice like which restaurant you decide to eat at. Just off the top of my head, the choice isn't between eating at a restaurant and not eating at all like it is with housing. Restaurants aren't subject to decades long wait lists for non-shitty, non-exorbitantly priced housing. The number of restaurants doesn't decrease the amount of food you could reasonably buy from the grocery store. People aren't forced to spend 30/40/50 percent of their income on restaurants just for existing.

Housing rental is not like the rest of the economy, normal notions of choice don't apply.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

I feel like everyone who keeps talking like this is missing out on the entire discussion thats being attempted here. Owning property isnt work. Doing maintenance is. So doing the maintenance and upkeep is good, necessary work, but driving up property prices to continually prevent more people from being able to own homes isnt work and isnt good for society.

And there's no risk assigned to purchasing a property and the mortgage that usually goes with it. No risk in fluctuations in interest rates the housing market or the rental sector(see the moratorium)
The fact that they have to vet the tenants are on the hook if any damage is done to the property or the house.
And have to guarantee an income for that property for the next 15-30 years to meet repayments.
Yeah but because they don't fix a leaky pipe or cut the grass then they aren't doing anything.
How fucking stupid these arguments are.

legendary_zell posted...

Who you "choose" to rent from is not at all a choice like which restaurant you decide to eat at. Just off the top of my head, the choice isn't between eating at a restaurant and not eating at all like it is with housing. Restaurants aren't subject to decades long wait lists for non-shitty, non-exorbitantly priced housing. The number of restaurants doesn't decrease the amount of food you could reasonably buy from the grocery store. People aren't forced to spend 30/40/50 percent of their income on restaurants just for existing.

Housing rental is not like the rest of the economy, normal notions of choice don't apply.

So give me your solution to the landlord "problem" then guy
These answers are always very revealing

Why do you have to contribute to the economy?

---

Can I get a free backrub

---

Damar posted...

So give me your solution to the landlord "problem" then guy
These answers are always very revealing

I mean the solution is pretty simple.

Don't allow people to own 15 different homes they don't need so they can't price regular people out of the market.

---

As a new landlord, I work my ass off maintaining the property. Making sure the AC works, the pool is maintained, pick up trash and clean the place, and etc. I treat my tenants fairly and I've actually bought washers and dryers for them for free. I charge rent at market value as well.

One tenant recently moved out and I spent a lot of money, time and effort furnishing a place for airbnb for two weeks only to take it all out after before a neww tenant comes to live there.

---

You and landlords have a lot in common then

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I mean the solution is pretty simple.

Don't allow people to own 15 different homes they don't need so they can't price regular people out of the market.

And you think most landlords have a property portfolio of upwards of 15 properties huh?

In 2018, 74.4% of rental properties were owned by individual investors and not corporations

Most of those individuals don't have portfolios that large.
So what do we do about the ones that have 1-4 properties?

Gosh thats a lot of evil

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre not even trying to have an honest conversation or listening to what anyone else is saying. Its like you conceptually cant wrap your head around the idea that no one can deal with property without owning so much that it prevents others from being able to own property.

Who is preventing you from owning it?
You can bid on a property the same as everyone else can.
Or should we just make a law preventing certain people from bidding on houses.
I mean better yet should we have the government buy the house for you and then give it to you so you can live rent free in it forever?

is this the topic that will eliminating landlording forever?
stay tuned...

---

Damar posted...

So give me your solution to the landlord "problem" then guy
These answers are always very revealing

To respond to your other post, risks that a landlord takes on as an investor are not services they provide to the public. Every investment has risk, but I don't see other types of investors spinning that as some value they're providing.

As for the answer to this, it's a massive investment in housing as a human right and a social good. For example, the money we spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have provided adequate housing for every man, woman, and child in the country. The key is to increase affordable housing supply to such an extent that people can get it anywhere, anytime, and poverty/crime/drugs etc are not concentrated in any one area. That's how we avoid stigmatizing affordable or public housing and also how we avoid creating crumbling housing projects.

Since we already have enough existing housing to house every person, that could be done through increasing the amount of existing vouchers and eliminating restrictions on them, while requiring landlords to take them. We could build public housing and not let racism cause us to disinvest in it and concentrate all the poorest people in it. Public housing doesn't have to mean "slum", we simply let it mean that because we hated poor people and minorities.

It wouldn't be hard if we actually wanted to solve it. The issue is that we actively don't. Many fear that capitalism will collapse if people don't have the threat of homelessness forcing them to work shitty, abusive, low paying jobs. Americans are also scared of nothing more than the thought of someone somewhere getting something for free or that they didn't "earn". They'd much rather have worse services and a worse society than have an "underserving" person be given anything.

If we saw someone starving on the street, any decent American would give them food. But if we see a homeless person baking in the sun, soaking in the rain, or freezing in the snow, many say "get a job, go rent somewhere"

All of that is what keeps us from making the investment. If we can spend trillions on war, only to achieve nothing, we can house human beings.

---

i was born so you must house me

---

What do NEETs who live in a den of filth and defend the CCP on dead message boards contribute

---

legendary_zell posted...

To respond to your other post, risks that a landlord takes on as an investor are not services they provide to the public. Every investment has risk, but I don't see other types of investors spinning that as some value they're providing.

As for the answer to this, it's a massive investment in housing as a human right and a social good. For example, the money we spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have provided adequate housing for every man, woman, and child in the country. The key is to increase affordable housing supply to such an extent that people can get it anywhere, anytime, and poverty/crime/drugs etc are not concentrated in any one area. That's how we avoid stigmatizing affordable or public housing and also how we avoid creating crumbling housing projects.

Since we already have enough existing housing to house every person, that could be done through increasing the amount of existing vouchers and eliminating restrictions on them, while requiring landlords to take them. We could build public housing and not let racism cause us to disinvest in it and concentrate all the poorest people in it. Public housing doesn't have to mean "slum", we simply let it mean that because we hated poor people and minorities.

It wouldn't be hard if we actually wanted to solve it. The issue is that we actively don't. Many fear that capitalism will collapse if people don't have the threat of homelessness forcing them to work shitty, abusive, low paying jobs. Americans are also scared of nothing more than the thought of someone somewhere getting something for free or that they didn't "earn". They'd much rather have worse services and a worse society than have an "underserving" person be given anything.

If we saw someone starving on the street, any decent American would give them food. But if we see a homeless person baking in the sun, soaking in the rain, or freezing in the snow, many say "get a job, go rent somewhere"

All of that is what keeps us from making the investment. If we can spend trillions on war, only to achieve nothing, we can house human beings.

This is pie in the sky bullshit thinking that has about as much chance of happening as me shitting out pink unicorns tonight.
Base your ideals in the realms of the possible or don't bother.
And if you think guaranteeing a home for 330 million people would cost the same as both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then you are full of shit.
It would put the final nail in our bankruptcy coffin.
You progressives live in a fucking fantasty realm where the government is an ATM that just endlessly shits out money to everyone who wants it.

The Trent posted...

i was born so you must house me

People don't get to choose whether they live or not. And many people can't work, but SSI doesn't pay enough for them to make rent and affordable/public housing waitlists are decades long where I live. In the past, people could simply build their own shelter, wherever another person hadn't already built theirs, but now, almost all livable land is either privately or publicly owned, and so it's illegal to build your own shelter. Every human being needs shelter and it's better for society that they have it.

There's a guy down not 500 yards from me with no legs. He lives in a vacant lot with a tent. All he appears to have is his tent and his wheelchair. Why isn't humanity enough to entitle him to shelter?

---

Damar posted...

And you think most landlords have a property portfolio of upwards of 15 properties huh?

Most of those individuals don't have portfolios that large.
So what do we do about the ones that have 1-4 properties?

Love how no one has bothered responding to this because theres really no argument to be had

People that hate landlords typically have no idea how the real world works.

Theyre cringe

Theyre like the LoL players who only run the bot lane lmao


---

Damar posted...

This is pie in the sky bullshit thinking that has about as much chance of happening as me shitting out pink unicorns tonight.
Base your ideals in the realms of the possible or don't bother.
And if you think guaranteeing a home for 330 million people would cost the same as both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then you are full of shit.
It would put the final nail in our bankruptcy coffin.
You progressives live in a fucking fantasty realm where the government is an ATM that just endlessly shits out money to everyone who wants it.

The possible is not static. It's shaped by what people attempt to do and what we believe is valuable. We could decide tomorrow to just ensure everyone is housed without the government getting involved and without any additional housing. We don't because people believe that others don't deserve housing.

You either think problems can't be solved or that they shouldn't be because your methods won't even get us close. "Free methods" of complaining about your landlord are not gonna get anyone housed and you know that.

You can think what you want about my ideals, but I'm going to attempt to implement them and hopefully, you'll benefit from them and then defend them when they're the status quo instead our current situation.

---

legendary_zell posted...

You can think what you want about my ideals, but I'm going to attempt to implement them and hopefully, you'll benefit from them and then defend them when they're the status quo instead our current situation.

YOU MAY TRY.gif

---

Arcanine2009 posted...

As a new landlord, I work my ass off maintaining the property. Making sure the AC works, the pool is maintained, pick up trash and clean the place, and etc. I treat my tenants fairly and I've actually bought washers and dryers for them for free. I charge rent at market value as well.

One tenant recently moved out and I spent a lot of money, time and effort furnishing a place for airbnb for two weeks only to take it all out after before a neww tenant comes to live there.

Good landlords (or as it sounds like is the case with you, landlords also acting as property managers) never get a ton of attention in these kinds of topics.

I guess that can be a good sign in that the landlord hater crew recognizes that there can, in fact, be good landlords. Or theres just not much of an argument against good landlords (or LL+PMs) who are actually doing a service to society as opposed to the shit ones and/or shady corporations who are detracting from the greater good and giving all LLs a bad name.

---

legendary_zell posted...

but I'm going to attempt to implement them

I dont think anyone is worried given the last few election attempts by progressives lmao

Imagine being Nina Turner and losing LMAO

---

People need a place to rent

Landlord provides

legendary_zell posted...

The possible is not static. It's shaped by what people attempt to do and what we believe is valuable. We could decide tomorrow to just ensure everyone is housed without the government getting involved and without any additional housing. We don't because people believe that others don't deserve housing.

You either think problems can't be solved or that they shouldn't be because your methods won't even get us close. "Free methods" of complaining about your landlord are not gonna get anyone housed and you know that.

You can think what you want about my ideals, but I'm going to attempt to implement them and hopefully, you'll benefit from them and then defend them when they're the status quo instead our current situation.

So you'll just cling to your utopian ideals that have zero chance of being implemented.
Instead of looking for incremental solutions within the existing framework that can actually help people.
Your way gets nothing done and helps no one.
That's the problem with you types.
You think change happens overnight instead of the long and gradual process it always is.
But yeah everybody could decide to just open their doors to the homeless people of America tomorrow
I'm sure that'll happen.
And I know for a fact that a large proportion of you Rose Garden virtue signalers are fake as fuck. The type of people who wouldn't piss on a homeless person if they were on fire or open their door to one if it was the apocalypse outside.

.

shockthemonkey posted...

No one is even arguing in favor of landlords economic impact or defending their existence beyond I dont think theyre bad, why dont you just do it then if youre so mad?

it's 2021, no one has to defend their existence anymore pal
get with the times

---

None of the folks defending landlords have managed to come up with some way they provide anything beneficial to the economy. People have tried, but nothing mentioned is something that wouldn't be able to happen without a landlord. Land, housing, warehouses etc are not mobile. So unlike the heavy equipment renter they are unable to provide the value of distributing equipment to where it is needed. Construction can occur when the intended user of the land is also the owner or when land is unowned and the people utilizing it decide to construct something. Therefore landlords are not needed for that.
Maintenance on properties occurs due to the needs of the ones utilizing the property. It occurs even when there is no landlord.

What needs to be done is the destruction of land speculation. In the ideal situation, the value of land today and the value of the same land 10 years from now should be identical.

---

Samurontai posted...

Love how no one has bothered responding to this because theres really no argument to be had

People that hate landlords typically have no idea how the real world works.

Theyre cringe

Theyre like the LoL players who only run the bot lane lmao

I don't think what I think because I don't know how the world works, I think it because I do. At least more than the many people in this topic who have clearly never thought about what housing rental is at its core, at least at the low end.

My job is evaluating the housing market as a whole for barriers to housing and assessing the impact of those barriers on people. In that role, I see the circumstances of the rental market as a whole, not just anecdotes about slumlords or good landlords.

Many millions of Americans rent out of necessity rather than choice. They rent substandard housing with substandard management. They have few rights in practice and experience frequent evictions that are both caused by and cause poverty. Because of the very rent that they pay, they're unable to invest in purchasing housing and building wealth.

I say what I say because of that. Not out of any hatred of landlords. Not because I'm a neet. Not because I want a free ride. I'm good. My current landlords are pretty good. But just down the street, people are living in apartments not that much cheaper, full of rats, noise, and crime. They're not there because they want to be. They're there because they have no other option. And it's not good for anyone. Their needs are not being met and everyone pays for that, whether they know it or not.

---

uwnim posted...

None of the folks defending landlords have managed to come up with some way they provide anything beneficial to the economy. People have tried, but nothing mentioned is something that wouldn't be able to happen without a landlord. Land, housing, warehouses etc are not mobile. So unlike the heavy equipment renter they are unable to provide the value of distributing equipment to where it is needed. Construction can occur when the intended user of the land is also the owner or when land is unowned and the people utilizing it decide to construct something. Therefore landlords are not needed for that.
Maintenance on properties occurs due to the needs of the ones utilizing the property. It occurs even when there is no landlord.

What needs to be done is the destruction of land speculation. In the ideal situation, the value of land today and the value of the same land 10 years from now should be identical.

This fucking idiotic economic argument again.
It's real simple guy.
Name one country in the world that doesn't have private landlords,
And what superior thing have they replaced them with.

Damar posted...

So you'll just cling to your utopian ideals that have zero chance of being implemented.
Instead of looking for incremental solutions within the existing framework that can actually help people.
Your way gets nothing done and helps no one.
That's the problem with you types.
You think change happens overnight instead of the long and gradual process it always is.
But yeah everybody could decide to just open their doors to the homeless people of America tomorrow
I'm sure that'll happen.
And I know for a fact that a large proportion of you Rose Garden virtue signalers are fake as fuck. The type of people who wouldn't piss on a homeless person if they were on fire or open their door to one if it was the apocalypse outside.

.

Nah dude, try again. I'm a fair housing attorney. I devote most of my waking hours to getting rid of discrimination in housing, reducing barriers to housing, and encouraging the building of affordable housing.

I do what I can in the present framework every single day, but I know that more can and must be done. I know that change does not happen overnight, I know people have died just getting us where we are. But I also know that tonight, some family who was being charged outrageous rent for an unlivable place will be thrown out on the street, when housing is abundant. That's unacceptable to me and I'll do what I can to make that a thing of the past, regardless of how unlikely you think that is.


---

uwnim posted...

None of the folks defending landlords have managed to come up with some way they provide anything beneficial to the economy. People have tried, but nothing mentioned is something that wouldn't be able to happen without a landlord. Land, housing, warehouses etc are not mobile. So unlike the heavy equipment renter they are unable to provide the value of distributing equipment to where it is needed. Construction can occur when the intended user of the land is also the owner or when land is unowned and the people utilizing it decide to construct something. Therefore landlords are not needed for that.
Maintenance on properties occurs due to the needs of the ones utilizing the property. It occurs even when there is no landlord.

What needs to be done is the destruction of land speculation. In the ideal situation, the value of land today and the value of the same land 10 years from now should be identical.

You could keep house prices down by curtailing immigration. Housing demand is the main driver of rises. Are we all agreed that immigration needs to mostly end then?

I'm gonna guess... NO

---

legendary_zell posted...

Nah dude, try again. I'm a fair housing attorney. I devote most of my waking hours to getting rid of discrimination in housing, reducing barriers to housing, and encouraging the building of affordable housing.

I do what I can in the present framework every single day, but I know that more can and must be done. I know that change does not happen overnight, I know people have died just getting us where we are. But I also know that tonight, some family who was being charged outrageous rent for an unlivable place will be thrown out on the street, when housing is abundant. That's unacceptable to me and I'll do what I can to make that a thing of the past, regardless of how unlikely you think that is.

Then by all means fight the good fight.
But also know that your perspective is influenced/warped by the people you come into contact with.They are the minority of those that rent not the majority.
Landlords will always be with us and it sucks that those at the bottom get the shaft.
And what I also know is tonight a family of drug addicts are facing eviction for trashing their landlords apartment and not paying their rent.
And rightfully so.
Not everyone at the bottom is an innocent victim that is also something to keep in my mind.

This landlord hate thing doesn't make sense, because it's not just landlords being attacked, but the concept of renting as a whole for anything. If landlords are being scummy, then so is any organization renting cars, or equipment, or anything else.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

you mean the basis of the entire topic that you just dont want to acknowledge?

It's fucking idiotic. Landlords often employee people or sub contract out matienance work which contributes to the economy.
They pay property and income tax on their rental income which goes to state and federal governments.
And they like everyone else are going to spend the money they earn in the economy.
The idea that landlords are somehow uniquely economically unproductive is ridiculous.

untrustful posted...

This landlord hate thing doesn't make sense, because it's not just landlords being attacked, but the concept of renting as a whole for anything. If landlords are being scummy, then so is any organization renting cars, or equipment, or anything else.

Never mind that man how many of these hypocrites have got a Netflix subscription

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I mean you're kinda paying a mortgage, just not your own.

Easy solution, then, genius. Go get your own mortgage. Brilliant.

---

Damar posted...

Never mind that man how many of these hypocrites have got a Netflix subscription

.......are you okay man? Housing is fundamentally different from infinite digital intellectual property? None of the things in that post are necessary for healthy life or borderline illegal not to have.

---

legendary_zell posted...

.......are you okay man? Housing is fundamentally different from infinite digital intellectual property? None of the things in that post are necessary for healthy life or borderline illegal not to have.

Housing is not a fundamental right and it never will be.
So in the free market system we operate in it is the same as any other rental agreement people enter in to.
The fact you people can't comprehend this is incredible.

Damar posted...

Landlords often employee people or sub contract out matienance work which contributes to the economy.

I don't understand why this arguments keeps getting made. It's not like the demand for maintenance would suddenly disappear if all renters owned their homes. People are still going to need plumbers. Who owns the house doesn't change that.

---

I mean they had to acquire the money to buy those properties somehow in the first place.

So obviously they did something for the economy

---