5 ms·

The article is dumb. If the statement "Landlords don’t employ anyone; their benefit to society is frankly pretty marginal" was true, why did the author willing

The article is dumb. If the statement "Landlords don’t employ anyone; their benefit to society is frankly pretty marginal" was true, why did the author willingly sign his rent or lease contract (which binds him to pay a large regular payments for a long period)... Why would he do it if there is no benefit!?

ianlevesque 7y ago
Because the landlord got there first and staked a claim to the parcel of land, that they then don't use themselves for anything except charging others for the privilege of using it. I mean you can see how it's not a super compelling arrangement even though landlords have made it impossible to avoid in desirable areas.
- appleiigs 7y ago
  Someone paid to make the land useful for you. They cleared the land, built a building, added utilities, and made it convenient for you so you didn't have to do all that yourself.
jlokier 7y ago
The "benefit" obtained by rent is, mainly, permission. When the authoer says landlords don't provide much benefit to society, I think they are comparing against a society in which landlords don't exist. The author pays rent because they have no choice if they want permission to use a property; all available properties are owned by landlords. (You can tell it's more about permission than service provided, because there are so many empty buildings, and many people would be delighted to be permitted to just go ahead and use them.) In the alternative society where landlords don't exist, the author would not need to pay for permission. The "marginal" benefit is other things of value, such as making a nice place, and upkeep and repairs, which many landlords don't do much of.
- ajhurliman 7y ago
  I think you would see the benefit if you got rid of landlords and let anarchy rule real estate.
  - newen 7y ago
    It wouldn't be anarchy. It would be government controlled and distributed based on whatever criteria. I'm sure there are other ways to distribute it too. You don't need to only imagine either this current system existing or anarchy.
    - 6510 7y ago
      It already is anarchy. I can just sneeze on my land lord.
- appleiigs 7y ago
  The benefit of rent is that they are allowing you to use the property for $1,000 per month instead of having you buy the property upfront for $1,000,000.
  - viklove 7y ago
    What universe do you live in that a $1,000,000 property leases for $1,000/mo?
    - 6510 7y ago
      It had me read a bit and 1% is kinda normal for a normal home. If that pushes it to far above what people can pay or to far above what rents are paid for similar properties one would usually lower it. If there is enough inequality in the area the 0.1% rent could be realistic.
  - 6510 7y ago
    they aren't selling they are seeking rent.

ianlevesque 7y ago

Because the landlord got there first and staked a claim to the parcel of land, that they then don't use themselves for anything except charging others for the privilege of using it. I mean you can see how it's not a super compelling arrangement even though landlords have made it impossible to avoid in desirable areas.

appleiigs 7y ago
Someone paid to make the land useful for you. They cleared the land, built a building, added utilities, and made it convenient for you so you didn't have to do all that yourself.

jlokier 7y ago

The "benefit" obtained by rent is, mainly, permission. When the authoer says landlords don't provide much benefit to society, I think they are comparing against a society in which landlords don't exist. The author pays rent because they have no choice if they want permission to use a property; all available properties are owned by landlords. (You can tell it's more about permission than service provided, because there are so many empty buildings, and many people would be delighted to be permitted to just go ahead and use them.) In the alternative society where landlords don't exist, the author would not need to pay for permission. The "marginal" benefit is other things of value, such as making a nice place, and upkeep and repairs, which many landlords don't do much of.

ajhurliman 7y ago
I think you would see the benefit if you got rid of landlords and let anarchy rule real estate.
- newen 7y ago
  It wouldn't be anarchy. It would be government controlled and distributed based on whatever criteria. I'm sure there are other ways to distribute it too. You don't need to only imagine either this current system existing or anarchy.
  - 6510 7y ago
    It already is anarchy. I can just sneeze on my land lord.
appleiigs 7y ago
The benefit of rent is that they are allowing you to use the property for $1,000 per month instead of having you buy the property upfront for $1,000,000.
- viklove 7y ago
  What universe do you live in that a $1,000,000 property leases for $1,000/mo?
  - 6510 7y ago
    It had me read a bit and 1% is kinda normal for a normal home. If that pushes it to far above what people can pay or to far above what rents are paid for similar properties one would usually lower it. If there is enough inequality in the area the 0.1% rent could be realistic.
- 6510 7y ago
  they aren't selling they are seeking rent.