7 ms·

Personally, I find rent-seeking landlords to be an unethical pursuit. I know that's not a mainstream thought, and is the underpinning of many people's income st

Personally, I find rent-seeking landlords to be an unethical pursuit. I know that's not a mainstream thought, and is the underpinning of many people's income strategy ... but I can't support the idea of letting a family live in a property for decades, and then something happening, and they're on the street with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have given in rent.

sidlls 9y ago
There are plenty of families who have no interest in buying even if they can afford it easily. One doesn't have to prey on the impoverished to have rental income.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  A lot of people don't understand the benefits or recognition of money velocity, but are also not privileged enough to care.
- yessql 9y ago
  It is interesting also to see financially independent people who are happy to rent, keeping their assets in more lucrative and flexible investments than the real estate they live in. There are lots of reasons to rent. It is generally a mutually beneficial relationship, like pretty much every other business transaction.
djrogers 9y ago
What exactly should be the relationship between the person who owns a home and the person that lives in it then? One of charity? Or do you think private home ownership is in and of itself wrong?
- jmilloy 9y ago
  There is a position in between "all rental arrangements are okay" and "no rental arrangements are okay". I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their properties and realize a sizable income. Rent-to-own arrangements might also be considered ethically acceptable. I'm not trying to propose a practical policy here, just suggesting some potentially ethical arrangements.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    "I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking" Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means. Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Renting out real estate is not rent seeking. While to a certain extent real estate has been transformed into something that, in some cases, approximates a commodity, it is historically the canonical non-subsitutable monopolized good where each item lacks perfect substitutes, which is why “rent-seeking” is literally named after what landlords do. Renting out real estate is the “trope naming” instance of rent-seeking.
    - CodeCube 9y ago
      ok, then perhaps I should say, "seeking rent for long periods of time on a necessity, with no exchange of value in the long term for the person paying"
  - CodeCube 9y ago
    exactly this ... there needs to be a discussion about what the right balance to strike is. Rent-to-own would be a fantastic thing to be more popular (especially if you can take your equity with you when you leave ... even if only a portion of it, so that renting/risk still has rewards (yes I realize this arrangement probably isn't common (if at all), but it should be)).
reverend_gonzo 9y ago
The reason to rent is for the ability to move on demand. If a family is renting in the same place for decades, that is their problem. The moment you realize you are going to stay in one place for an extended period of time, there is no reason to continue renting. Sure, not everybody can purchase their dream home. But they can purchase something small, build equity, and upgrade in the future. The government also has programs to help first time buyers, especially those with less income. Again, the primary reason to rent is so you can relocate. If you are not planning on relocating in the 5-10 years, you should own, or be working on owning. Furthermore, the landlord is taking on risk (risk of the market moving against him, risk of the tenant not paying him or the place remaining unoccupied after a tenant leaves), is paying property taxes, insurance, is responsible for broken appliances, and is also often taking on a loan with higher interest rates. Should all of this be provided for free?
- codydh 9y ago
  It's common for people to get stuck below or near the poverty line. It's difficult to save for a house down payment (much less build up the credit to get a loan for the rest) when you're struggling to pay for rent, bills, and food. Ignoring this cycle is missing the reality for many, many people.
  - reverend_gonzo 9y ago
    Absolutely. Some people definitely do have it a bit harder than other people. But, outside of medical/mental issues, or just a stream of bad luck, people generally make it harder on themselves due to certain choices in their life. My parents came to America without a dollar in their pockets. My dad's income was running a convenience store which barely made enough to pay his bills. So both parents worked, effectively minimum wage jobs, and saved for years so they could build their dream home and send their children to college. We never went out to eat, rarely went on vacation, and parents don't drink. So, they were able to fulfill their dreams. When people say they want to own a house, but are unwilling to find a cheaper location, stop drinking, stop eating out, drive older beat-up cars, well, then they've made their choice. The system has its issues, but no one deserves anything, and the system is not the problem here.
wbl 9y ago
That's the deal. I like renting because if I want real estate exposure I could buy a diversified REIT.
lsmarigo 9y ago
I'm with you and need someone smarter to make a better argument against renting than I can formulate on my own. All What I was taught: Renting is often times optimal, totally fine, the right choice for a lot of people! What my experience has taught me: Renting is for suckers or the incredibly wealthy that want to be able to move to a new city on a whim. I was a sucker for many years, and paid a very rich man 100k+ for the luxury of paying down his mortage. Never again.
- zfdrdg 9y ago
  The point is, you've got to think it through and see if it's a good deal for you or not. Right now I own a house worth about 400k. If I rented and put that 400k in stocks history says I'd probably make on average almost 20k per year above inflation. Plus the landlord would pay the 4k property taxes and the new roof ill be doing next year. In my area I could easily rent a similar house for 20k per year. So in my case with the market the way it is right now I might be better off renting.
kbutler 9y ago
"I can't support the idea of letting a family buy food for decades, then something happening, and they're starving with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have spent on food."
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Do you spend as much on rent as you do on food? My mortgage is bigger than food and utilities combined.
- CodeCube 9y ago
  Housing is not a perishable resource (to an extent, yes I realize maintenance is a thing). It's not comparable
  - kbutler 9y ago
    > maintenance is a thing Yeah, I used to think "home ownership" meant I owned the home, not the other way around. Speaking as a homeowner, with a garden, fruit trees, and formerly chickens and goats, they're very comparable. Renting meets the daily housing need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future. Buying food meets the daily food need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future. Alternatively, people could buy land and equipment/building and develop skills to use/maintain them, allowing them to meet their future food/housing needs. The key element is that people can choose how they want to spend their resources (money, time, and attention). Sometimes buying is better, sometimes renting is. And yes, people do often make decisions that turn out not to have been in their best long-term interest.
koonsolo 9y ago
I'm sure you have some properties where families can live for free, or at least only have to pay half of the rent? Or you give away interest free montages so they can buy their own place? If not, what the fuck are you talking about then? Landlords offer a service for money. Since when is that unethical?
- CodeCube 9y ago
  People price gouging during disasters is "offering a good or service for money", and it is unethical (and illegal). I propose that long-term gains from a single tenant, without an exchange of value (equity) is unethical. If you own a house, and one person/family has been living there for decades and then have to leave for some reason, they should not be leaving with a zero balance ... they've paid tens of thousands of dollars, and for a landlord to simply take it, and just rent it out to the next schmuck in a few weeks is unethical.
  - clarky07 9y ago
    What you propose is not in fact unethical in any way. They offered a good or service for money without gouging and not during a disaster. you aren't getting nothing out of the deal, you got a place to live for decades out of the deal. That was in fact the deal you signed up for, and what was delivered. They offered you a house for X dollars a month, you paid X dollars a month and got to live in said house for the month. When the month is over, you either pay them again or go find a new house to live in. pretty simple really.

sidlls 9y ago

There are plenty of families who have no interest in buying even if they can afford it easily. One doesn't have to prey on the impoverished to have rental income.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
A lot of people don't understand the benefits or recognition of money velocity, but are also not privileged enough to care.
yessql 9y ago
It is interesting also to see financially independent people who are happy to rent, keeping their assets in more lucrative and flexible investments than the real estate they live in. There are lots of reasons to rent. It is generally a mutually beneficial relationship, like pretty much every other business transaction.

djrogers 9y ago

What exactly should be the relationship between the person who owns a home and the person that lives in it then? One of charity? Or do you think private home ownership is in and of itself wrong?

jmilloy 9y ago
There is a position in between "all rental arrangements are okay" and "no rental arrangements are okay". I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their properties and realize a sizable income. Rent-to-own arrangements might also be considered ethically acceptable. I'm not trying to propose a practical policy here, just suggesting some potentially ethical arrangements.
- roel_v 9y ago
  "I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking" Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means. Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Renting out real estate is not rent seeking. While to a certain extent real estate has been transformed into something that, in some cases, approximates a commodity, it is historically the canonical non-subsitutable monopolized good where each item lacks perfect substitutes, which is why “rent-seeking” is literally named after what landlords do. Renting out real estate is the “trope naming” instance of rent-seeking.
  - CodeCube 9y ago
    ok, then perhaps I should say, "seeking rent for long periods of time on a necessity, with no exchange of value in the long term for the person paying"
- CodeCube 9y ago
  exactly this ... there needs to be a discussion about what the right balance to strike is. Rent-to-own would be a fantastic thing to be more popular (especially if you can take your equity with you when you leave ... even if only a portion of it, so that renting/risk still has rewards (yes I realize this arrangement probably isn't common (if at all), but it should be)).

reverend_gonzo 9y ago

The reason to rent is for the ability to move on demand. If a family is renting in the same place for decades, that is their problem. The moment you realize you are going to stay in one place for an extended period of time, there is no reason to continue renting. Sure, not everybody can purchase their dream home. But they can purchase something small, build equity, and upgrade in the future. The government also has programs to help first time buyers, especially those with less income. Again, the primary reason to rent is so you can relocate. If you are not planning on relocating in the 5-10 years, you should own, or be working on owning. Furthermore, the landlord is taking on risk (risk of the market moving against him, risk of the tenant not paying him or the place remaining unoccupied after a tenant leaves), is paying property taxes, insurance, is responsible for broken appliances, and is also often taking on a loan with higher interest rates. Should all of this be provided for free?

codydh 9y ago
It's common for people to get stuck below or near the poverty line. It's difficult to save for a house down payment (much less build up the credit to get a loan for the rest) when you're struggling to pay for rent, bills, and food. Ignoring this cycle is missing the reality for many, many people.
- reverend_gonzo 9y ago
  Absolutely. Some people definitely do have it a bit harder than other people. But, outside of medical/mental issues, or just a stream of bad luck, people generally make it harder on themselves due to certain choices in their life. My parents came to America without a dollar in their pockets. My dad's income was running a convenience store which barely made enough to pay his bills. So both parents worked, effectively minimum wage jobs, and saved for years so they could build their dream home and send their children to college. We never went out to eat, rarely went on vacation, and parents don't drink. So, they were able to fulfill their dreams. When people say they want to own a house, but are unwilling to find a cheaper location, stop drinking, stop eating out, drive older beat-up cars, well, then they've made their choice. The system has its issues, but no one deserves anything, and the system is not the problem here.

wbl 9y ago

That's the deal. I like renting because if I want real estate exposure I could buy a diversified REIT.

lsmarigo 9y ago

I'm with you and need someone smarter to make a better argument against renting than I can formulate on my own. All What I was taught: Renting is often times optimal, totally fine, the right choice for a lot of people! What my experience has taught me: Renting is for suckers or the incredibly wealthy that want to be able to move to a new city on a whim. I was a sucker for many years, and paid a very rich man 100k+ for the luxury of paying down his mortage. Never again.

zfdrdg 9y ago
The point is, you've got to think it through and see if it's a good deal for you or not. Right now I own a house worth about 400k. If I rented and put that 400k in stocks history says I'd probably make on average almost 20k per year above inflation. Plus the landlord would pay the 4k property taxes and the new roof ill be doing next year. In my area I could easily rent a similar house for 20k per year. So in my case with the market the way it is right now I might be better off renting.

kbutler 9y ago

"I can't support the idea of letting a family buy food for decades, then something happening, and they're starving with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have spent on food."

Chris2048 9y ago
Do you spend as much on rent as you do on food? My mortgage is bigger than food and utilities combined.
CodeCube 9y ago
Housing is not a perishable resource (to an extent, yes I realize maintenance is a thing). It's not comparable
- kbutler 9y ago
  > maintenance is a thing Yeah, I used to think "home ownership" meant I owned the home, not the other way around. Speaking as a homeowner, with a garden, fruit trees, and formerly chickens and goats, they're very comparable. Renting meets the daily housing need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future. Buying food meets the daily food need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future. Alternatively, people could buy land and equipment/building and develop skills to use/maintain them, allowing them to meet their future food/housing needs. The key element is that people can choose how they want to spend their resources (money, time, and attention). Sometimes buying is better, sometimes renting is. And yes, people do often make decisions that turn out not to have been in their best long-term interest.

koonsolo 9y ago

I'm sure you have some properties where families can live for free, or at least only have to pay half of the rent? Or you give away interest free montages so they can buy their own place? If not, what the fuck are you talking about then? Landlords offer a service for money. Since when is that unethical?

CodeCube 9y ago
People price gouging during disasters is "offering a good or service for money", and it is unethical (and illegal). I propose that long-term gains from a single tenant, without an exchange of value (equity) is unethical. If you own a house, and one person/family has been living there for decades and then have to leave for some reason, they should not be leaving with a zero balance ... they've paid tens of thousands of dollars, and for a landlord to simply take it, and just rent it out to the next schmuck in a few weeks is unethical.
- clarky07 9y ago
  What you propose is not in fact unethical in any way. They offered a good or service for money without gouging and not during a disaster. you aren't getting nothing out of the deal, you got a place to live for decades out of the deal. That was in fact the deal you signed up for, and what was delivered. They offered you a house for X dollars a month, you paid X dollars a month and got to live in said house for the month. When the month is over, you either pay them again or go find a new house to live in. pretty simple really.