7 ms·

Which is not to say that landlords cannot be productive in their provision of housing. Just that in general in places like the US, or AU (where I am), this is n

Which is not to say that landlords cannot be productive in their provision of housing. Just that in general in places like the US, or AU (where I am), this is not the case. Can you expand upon this? What would that look like, and what are the indications that US and AU landlords aren’t productive?

cam_l 9y ago
Well in the UK for instance they have housing coops which exist solely for the purpose of their tenants. Also tenants have greater protections like right of abode, which encourage a longer term view for both tenants and landlords. Basically for a landlord to be productive and not rent-seeking, there has to be some level of symbiosis to the arrangement. I think this is easier to understand with commercial rents. In my local street a half-dozen or so shops have been closed in the past two months, and sit empty due to excessive rent increases. The landlords have forced an un-productive arrangement due to their rent-seeking. You can apply this same idea to housing, but instead of a business closing, a tenant is strained to the point they make un-productive life decisions, or to the point they cannot pay rent (or cannot see the point of paying rent). But in this case there is a much greater supply of new tenants than new businesses to fill the void, so you never see the issue illustrated as graphically.
- lazyasciiart 9y ago
  Housing co-ops exist in the US too. (Famously, in New York, but there's one up the street from me in Seattle too.)
kelnos 9y ago
I believe the parent means "productive" in the sense that the higher rents charged are justified by capital improvements and/or the rising costs of being a landlord. That's not the case for the markets cited; landlords are charging more simply because they can. This is "unproductive" in the sense that it causes negative economic activity. A person becoming homeless usually ends up not contributing to the economy. A person who has to move to a smaller home in a more remote area has less money to spend, and likely has a longer commute, which wastes money.

cam_l 9y ago

Well in the UK for instance they have housing coops which exist solely for the purpose of their tenants. Also tenants have greater protections like right of abode, which encourage a longer term view for both tenants and landlords. Basically for a landlord to be productive and not rent-seeking, there has to be some level of symbiosis to the arrangement. I think this is easier to understand with commercial rents. In my local street a half-dozen or so shops have been closed in the past two months, and sit empty due to excessive rent increases. The landlords have forced an un-productive arrangement due to their rent-seeking. You can apply this same idea to housing, but instead of a business closing, a tenant is strained to the point they make un-productive life decisions, or to the point they cannot pay rent (or cannot see the point of paying rent). But in this case there is a much greater supply of new tenants than new businesses to fill the void, so you never see the issue illustrated as graphically.

lazyasciiart 9y ago
Housing co-ops exist in the US too. (Famously, in New York, but there's one up the street from me in Seattle too.)

kelnos 9y ago

I believe the parent means "productive" in the sense that the higher rents charged are justified by capital improvements and/or the rising costs of being a landlord. That's not the case for the markets cited; landlords are charging more simply because they can. This is "unproductive" in the sense that it causes negative economic activity. A person becoming homeless usually ends up not contributing to the economy. A person who has to move to a smaller home in a more remote area has less money to spend, and likely has a longer commute, which wastes money.