3 ms·

Who would you suggest should own the property instead of landlords? Should all housing be state owned instead? Without bail outs we have the potential to see

Who would you suggest should own the property instead of landlords? Should all housing be state owned instead? Without bail outs we have the potential to see many more properties bought by the largest companies, who are often far harsher on tenants then small mom-and-pop owners.

ardy42 6y ago
>> Collecting rents from people without the capital to own housing, in addition to increases in land value, is about as textbook an example of parasitism as one could imagine. Let [the landlords] take a bath and keep people housed. > Who would you suggest should own the property instead of landlords? Should all housing be state owned instead? Why would state ownership be their first choice? There are obviously other, more moderate options that solve the landlord issue, such as having housing units owned by their occupants.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  Where do new houses come from, if occupants aren't paying their share of the labor and material cost that went into them? There are always popular areas without enough space for everyone, who decides who gets to live there? Why single out my landlord to lose everything for choosing a different asset class than I did?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Where do new houses come from, if occupants aren't paying their share of the labor and material cost that went into them? Landlords are out to make a profit, so renters are obviously already "paying their share" of the cost of their unit in rent. If they weren't, their landlord would be broke. > Why single out my landlord to lose everything for choosing a different asset class than I did? Call it "creative destruction." Like the buggy-whip makers of old, maybe he made a bad choice about what business to get into?
    - erik_seaberg 6y ago
      I was replying to "housing units owned by their occupants". From then on who's paying who for what? Buggy whips are obsolete, it doesn't matter if nobody makes more. Housing is not, and it's important to compensate people that provide it because that's very expensive.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > I was replying to "housing units owned by their occupants". From then on who's paying who for what? Obviously their (perhaps new) owners, their occupants. It'd be exactly the same situation as owner-occupied housing today. I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.
        quicklyfrozen 6y ago
        You need a reasonable financial buffer (or at least good credit) to be a homeowner to cover the large expenses that invariably come up. If you're not handy and need to call professionals for every minor repair--well, though service calls will add up quick. Sometimes people need to change their housing circumstances in a hurry (e.g. bad break up or bad neighbor) and negotiating two real-estate transactions would be time consuming. In short, there are lots of good reasons people don't want the burden of being a home-owner, but still need a place to live. Someone has to own and be responsible for those places.
        erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Wait, I'm stuck with the mortgage indefinitely in your scenario? That's not a solution, that is the problem that landlords solve.
- quicklyfrozen 6y ago
  Because many people don't want the responsibilities of home ownership, or to be exposed to the risk. Also makes relocation a lot more complicated. There's no particular guarantee that land value will continue to increase either, or that market rates for rentals will continue to increase.

ardy42 6y ago

>> Collecting rents from people without the capital to own housing, in addition to increases in land value, is about as textbook an example of parasitism as one could imagine. Let [the landlords] take a bath and keep people housed. > Who would you suggest should own the property instead of landlords? Should all housing be state owned instead? Why would state ownership be their first choice? There are obviously other, more moderate options that solve the landlord issue, such as having housing units owned by their occupants.

erik_seaberg 6y ago
Where do new houses come from, if occupants aren't paying their share of the labor and material cost that went into them? There are always popular areas without enough space for everyone, who decides who gets to live there? Why single out my landlord to lose everything for choosing a different asset class than I did?
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Where do new houses come from, if occupants aren't paying their share of the labor and material cost that went into them? Landlords are out to make a profit, so renters are obviously already "paying their share" of the cost of their unit in rent. If they weren't, their landlord would be broke. > Why single out my landlord to lose everything for choosing a different asset class than I did? Call it "creative destruction." Like the buggy-whip makers of old, maybe he made a bad choice about what business to get into?
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    I was replying to "housing units owned by their occupants". From then on who's paying who for what? Buggy whips are obsolete, it doesn't matter if nobody makes more. Housing is not, and it's important to compensate people that provide it because that's very expensive.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > I was replying to "housing units owned by their occupants". From then on who's paying who for what? Obviously their (perhaps new) owners, their occupants. It'd be exactly the same situation as owner-occupied housing today. I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.
      - quicklyfrozen 6y ago
        You need a reasonable financial buffer (or at least good credit) to be a homeowner to cover the large expenses that invariably come up. If you're not handy and need to call professionals for every minor repair--well, though service calls will add up quick. Sometimes people need to change their housing circumstances in a hurry (e.g. bad break up or bad neighbor) and negotiating two real-estate transactions would be time consuming. In short, there are lots of good reasons people don't want the burden of being a home-owner, but still need a place to live. Someone has to own and be responsible for those places.
      - erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Wait, I'm stuck with the mortgage indefinitely in your scenario? That's not a solution, that is the problem that landlords solve.
quicklyfrozen 6y ago
Because many people don't want the responsibilities of home ownership, or to be exposed to the risk. Also makes relocation a lot more complicated. There's no particular guarantee that land value will continue to increase either, or that market rates for rentals will continue to increase.