5 ms·

If robots are doing all the work, why would landlords be paid for anything?

by jessaustin 6y ago

antihero 6y ago
Because they own stuff and see it as their right to make money for doing nothing.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  Firstly, fairly obvious you've never been a landlord. Second of all, yes, making money by owning stuff is called capitalism and that is the system we have.
  - antihero 5y ago
    Thank you so much for your enlightening comment. Clearly I understood neither of those things and now, I do.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sokoloff 6y ago
If the landlords won’t be paid for anything, why would they provide housing for tenants? Then where will the tenants live? Whatever you think of landlords, people do in general prefer to live indoors and landlords are in the business of offering that service.
- supercheetah 6y ago
  If robots do all the construction and maintenance, then there's probably an AI that owns the building too that just wants the energy to sustain itself, in which case it probably owns the grid too, and probably won't care much about what the humans living in its buildings are doing.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I loved the Matrix movies too, but we’re not at that place in the timeline yet (at least I think the chicken I’m eating is chicken).
  - chii 6y ago
    so who owns the land on which the building was built? who owns the robots that built the building? Who provided the initial capital to build those robots?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Why should they get to offer that service merely because they bought the land first? Why does the service of housing people need to be offered by private citizens?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    What else would buying the land mean? Why do I get to use this laptop, eat this food, wear this shirt, or live in this [owner-occupied] house just because I bought it first? Housing could absolutely be provided by companies or governments. In the US, government has an absolutely horrible track record of providing desirable housing (except perhaps military base officer housing).
    - machinebun 6y ago
      We don't have to have government take over housing, just relax the zoning regulation. The damn real estate owner's association has too much power - if we curb some of it, I will have no problem with privately owned real estate. Remove the carveouts against money laundering for real estate, the preferential tax treatment / mortgage interest deductibility for investment properties, things like that.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Business loans are tax-deductible because we have a tax system based on net income. Why should airlines or manufacturers or other businesses be able to deduct the interest on their loans, while one specific sector cannot?
        machinebun 6y ago
        > Other business loans are tax-deductible because we have a tax system based on net income. I want to make a distinction between productive use of capital and rent-seeking. If you're getting a loan in order to buy an existing piece of property and rent it out - that is not productive, it is rent seeking (since you generate cash flow from just holding onto an asset and not doing anything with it). If you're building a new house or renovating/repairing the existing house with that loan, then the part that goes towards building/renovation is productive and the interest on that part of the loan should be deductible. The point is that people can make a lot of money by buying up real estate "portfolios" and simply sitting on them to generate cashflow, pricing others who want to buy a home out of the market. This would even out the balance a bit and make holding onto lots of investment assets more expensive but buying your first home [relatively] more affordable.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The hypothetical of this thread is "a bright future if we ever get AI to take all the jobs." That's a much bigger change from our current condition than e.g. a renegotiation between capital and humanity with respect to customary provision of shelter. Such renegotiations already occur with regularity, but the robots have never yet done all the work. If the robots ever do this (and since we're assuming a miraculous future, without simultaneously demanding all the decision-making power) there would no longer be a reason to preserve the privileges previously associated with historical investment in residential construction.

If robots are doing all the work, why would landlords be paid for anything?

antihero 6y ago

Because they own stuff and see it as their right to make money for doing nothing.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
Firstly, fairly obvious you've never been a landlord. Second of all, yes, making money by owning stuff is called capitalism and that is the system we have.
- antihero 5y ago
  Thank you so much for your enlightening comment. Clearly I understood neither of those things and now, I do.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sokoloff 6y ago

If the landlords won’t be paid for anything, why would they provide housing for tenants? Then where will the tenants live? Whatever you think of landlords, people do in general prefer to live indoors and landlords are in the business of offering that service.

supercheetah 6y ago
If robots do all the construction and maintenance, then there's probably an AI that owns the building too that just wants the energy to sustain itself, in which case it probably owns the grid too, and probably won't care much about what the humans living in its buildings are doing.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I loved the Matrix movies too, but we’re not at that place in the timeline yet (at least I think the chicken I’m eating is chicken).
- chii 6y ago
  so who owns the land on which the building was built? who owns the robots that built the building? Who provided the initial capital to build those robots?
freeone3000 6y ago
Why should they get to offer that service merely because they bought the land first? Why does the service of housing people need to be offered by private citizens?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What else would buying the land mean? Why do I get to use this laptop, eat this food, wear this shirt, or live in this [owner-occupied] house just because I bought it first? Housing could absolutely be provided by companies or governments. In the US, government has an absolutely horrible track record of providing desirable housing (except perhaps military base officer housing).
  - machinebun 6y ago
    We don't have to have government take over housing, just relax the zoning regulation. The damn real estate owner's association has too much power - if we curb some of it, I will have no problem with privately owned real estate. Remove the carveouts against money laundering for real estate, the preferential tax treatment / mortgage interest deductibility for investment properties, things like that.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Business loans are tax-deductible because we have a tax system based on net income. Why should airlines or manufacturers or other businesses be able to deduct the interest on their loans, while one specific sector cannot?
      - machinebun 6y ago
        > Other business loans are tax-deductible because we have a tax system based on net income. I want to make a distinction between productive use of capital and rent-seeking. If you're getting a loan in order to buy an existing piece of property and rent it out - that is not productive, it is rent seeking (since you generate cash flow from just holding onto an asset and not doing anything with it). If you're building a new house or renovating/repairing the existing house with that loan, then the part that goes towards building/renovation is productive and the interest on that part of the loan should be deductible. The point is that people can make a lot of money by buying up real estate "portfolios" and simply sitting on them to generate cashflow, pricing others who want to buy a home out of the market. This would even out the balance a bit and make holding onto lots of investment assets more expensive but buying your first home [relatively] more affordable.
jessaustin 6y ago
The hypothetical of this thread is "a bright future if we ever get AI to take all the jobs." That's a much bigger change from our current condition than e.g. a renegotiation between capital and humanity with respect to customary provision of shelter. Such renegotiations already occur with regularity, but the robots have never yet done all the work. If the robots ever do this (and since we're assuming a miraculous future, without simultaneously demanding all the decision-making power) there would no longer be a reason to preserve the privileges previously associated with historical investment in residential construction.