4 ms·

Landlords have at least one asset. The vast majority (all?) of their tenants have zero assets. This is a measure of wealth, but Bloomberg makes the same mistak

Landlords have at least one asset. The vast majority (all?) of their tenants have zero assets. This is a measure of wealth, but Bloomberg makes the same mistake that all of these borderline propaganda rags make which is to compare incomes.

lobotryas 6y ago
It’s not wealth if you are still paying off a mortgage on the rental unit. Even if you owed the rental unit outright the “it’s wealth” argument is foolish. What’s the point? Sell your only source of income and live off the money until you become homeless or die? It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.
- generalpass 6y ago
  > It’s not wealth if you are still paying off a mortgage on the rental unit. Even if you owed the rental unit outright the “it’s wealth” argument is foolish. What’s the point? Sell your only source of income and live off the money until you become homeless or die? > It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine. These are all assets that can be liquidated for something. The renters have no such assets. The landlords are just as capable of going and getting a job as anyone. Most landlords are not employed full time simply because there isn't enough work to be done as a landlord to justify 40 hours of labor every week, at least until a substantial number of units are being rented out. The income the landlord receives is typically declared after all costs of ownership, which include any mortgages. So, the work of the landlord results in a greater share of their asset ("equity"). The jobs their tenants have likely do nothing to increase the value or share in an asset.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Landlording doesn't work out? Sell your assets, get a real job. You'll still end up much better than your tenants.
abeppu 6y ago
I do think it's totally plausible that tenants in the NYC Chinatown apartments would have some assets. It's NYC, downtown, and really kind of depends on how old the lease is, right?

lobotryas 6y ago

It’s not wealth if you are still paying off a mortgage on the rental unit. Even if you owed the rental unit outright the “it’s wealth” argument is foolish. What’s the point? Sell your only source of income and live off the money until you become homeless or die? It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.

generalpass 6y ago
> It’s not wealth if you are still paying off a mortgage on the rental unit. Even if you owed the rental unit outright the “it’s wealth” argument is foolish. What’s the point? Sell your only source of income and live off the money until you become homeless or die? > It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine. These are all assets that can be liquidated for something. The renters have no such assets. The landlords are just as capable of going and getting a job as anyone. Most landlords are not employed full time simply because there isn't enough work to be done as a landlord to justify 40 hours of labor every week, at least until a substantial number of units are being rented out. The income the landlord receives is typically declared after all costs of ownership, which include any mortgages. So, the work of the landlord results in a greater share of their asset ("equity"). The jobs their tenants have likely do nothing to increase the value or share in an asset.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Landlording doesn't work out? Sell your assets, get a real job. You'll still end up much better than your tenants.

abeppu 6y ago

I do think it's totally plausible that tenants in the NYC Chinatown apartments would have some assets. It's NYC, downtown, and really kind of depends on how old the lease is, right?