6 ms·

> If being a landlord is so easy, why wouldn't everyone do it? maybe just sit and think about this one for a minute? the answer is that they don't have the ca

> If being a landlord is so easy, why wouldn't everyone do it? maybe just sit and think about this one for a minute? the answer is that they don't have the capital, which is why it's a relationship of exploitation. by virtue of owning more capital than me, my landlord feels entitled to the fruit of my own labor. it's just feudalism in a new garb, as reflected in the terms we use (landlord/lady)

endisneigh 5y ago
You don’t need much capital to be a landlord, hence mortgages. If you’ve never owned a house you can put literally 0% down. The reasons to not be a landlord are plenty: - potential downturn in the area - tenants ruining your property - inability to do maintenance affordably - provide basic amenities and keep up with legal obligations can and do change unexpectedly - potential eviction expense and risk - rent collection, as we’ve seen from the pandemic - dealing with people People who think being a landlord is a slam dunk as long as you have the capital and it’s no work don’t know what they’re talking about. Reminds me of people who think running a website is free money because the computer does everything.
- maxmamis 5y ago
  I never said it was “free money,” i said it was exploitation. just because it takes some effort to extract money from me doesn’t make it justifiable. In other words, here’s the world’s smallest violin for my landlord’s “potential eviction expense and risk” as for mortgages, please show me a worker living paycheck to paycheck who’s been approved for a mortgage for a twelve unit building
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    How is being a landlord any more exploitative than offering any other service? Tenants are under no obligation to rent to a given landlord or in a given area. Your example doesn’t really make sense - someone living paycheck to paycheck would default on a mortgage even if they got one. It’s for those people that renting makes the most sense. You originally implied that renting out property is not a job, which implies no work. To receive money for doing nothing would be “free.” Anyway, you seem to have an irrational hatred of landlords based on falsehoods. Hopefully you can find solace.
    - maxmamis 5y ago
      > Your example doesn’t really make sense - someone living paycheck to paycheck would default on a mortgage even if they got one. It’s for those people that renting makes the most sense. you just made my point for me — there is a class of the population that is forced into spending a third (often more!) of their income on housing, which is being hoarded by another class. no different from a feudal serf being forced to turn over their hard-won harvest to the nobility. but sure, they can go find another manor to live on, they’re under no obligation to give their labor to this particular lord...
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        So are you saying that people should not be allowed to.. accumulate capital? It's a bit of a radical thing to suggest. How did the landlord get the money to afford the building in the first place? Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?
        maxmamis 5y ago
        it’s only “radical” from the narrow perspective of the last few hundred years of western capitalism. > Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly? he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. (that’s also how he accumulated the capital in the first place — but that’s another conversation.)
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        > last few hundred years of western capitalism. "Capitalism" is just liberty + private property. The idea of a free class of citizens has been around for millenia, and the idea of private ownership of property has been around for longer. Property owners and tenants have existed since the dawn of agrarian civilization. The radical innovation of the last few centuries was the private, limited liability corporation, but that's not really the problem here is it? > he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. As every living thing competing with other living things in an environment of material scarcity has done since life began.

endisneigh 5y ago

You don’t need much capital to be a landlord, hence mortgages. If you’ve never owned a house you can put literally 0% down. The reasons to not be a landlord are plenty: - potential downturn in the area - tenants ruining your property - inability to do maintenance affordably - provide basic amenities and keep up with legal obligations can and do change unexpectedly - potential eviction expense and risk - rent collection, as we’ve seen from the pandemic - dealing with people People who think being a landlord is a slam dunk as long as you have the capital and it’s no work don’t know what they’re talking about. Reminds me of people who think running a website is free money because the computer does everything.

maxmamis 5y ago
I never said it was “free money,” i said it was exploitation. just because it takes some effort to extract money from me doesn’t make it justifiable. In other words, here’s the world’s smallest violin for my landlord’s “potential eviction expense and risk” as for mortgages, please show me a worker living paycheck to paycheck who’s been approved for a mortgage for a twelve unit building
- endisneigh 5y ago
  How is being a landlord any more exploitative than offering any other service? Tenants are under no obligation to rent to a given landlord or in a given area. Your example doesn’t really make sense - someone living paycheck to paycheck would default on a mortgage even if they got one. It’s for those people that renting makes the most sense. You originally implied that renting out property is not a job, which implies no work. To receive money for doing nothing would be “free.” Anyway, you seem to have an irrational hatred of landlords based on falsehoods. Hopefully you can find solace.
  - maxmamis 5y ago
    > Your example doesn’t really make sense - someone living paycheck to paycheck would default on a mortgage even if they got one. It’s for those people that renting makes the most sense. you just made my point for me — there is a class of the population that is forced into spending a third (often more!) of their income on housing, which is being hoarded by another class. no different from a feudal serf being forced to turn over their hard-won harvest to the nobility. but sure, they can go find another manor to live on, they’re under no obligation to give their labor to this particular lord...
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      So are you saying that people should not be allowed to.. accumulate capital? It's a bit of a radical thing to suggest. How did the landlord get the money to afford the building in the first place? Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?
      - maxmamis 5y ago
        it’s only “radical” from the narrow perspective of the last few hundred years of western capitalism. > Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly? he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. (that’s also how he accumulated the capital in the first place — but that’s another conversation.)
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        > last few hundred years of western capitalism. "Capitalism" is just liberty + private property. The idea of a free class of citizens has been around for millenia, and the idea of private ownership of property has been around for longer. Property owners and tenants have existed since the dawn of agrarian civilization. The radical innovation of the last few centuries was the private, limited liability corporation, but that's not really the problem here is it? > he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. As every living thing competing with other living things in an environment of material scarcity has done since life began.