13 ms·

This is crazy. Everybody expects to lose money in natural catastrophes - except, for some reason, if you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of

This is crazy. Everybody expects to lose money in natural catastrophes - except, for some reason, if you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord), you're entitled to a bailout, for what purpose exactly? What's the human harm that happens if some banks repossess a few over-leveraged rental properties? Compared to the millions who have lost jobs, school years, their health, etc in the pandemic? Making landlords whole should be the last thing anybody is spending money on.

ar_lan 5y ago
A few notes: An active problem in the US' form of capitalism is we don't let businesses die naturally. I think landlords fall under this - if they can't find renters for the prices they are charging, then their business is functionally failing, and it should be allowed to simply die. This is economically healthy at a more macro-level and invites better management practices and reduces people over-leveraging. In this case, people were still renting, however, and functionally for free. Landlords got screwed due to government intervention - the moratorium on evictions forced landlord's hands - it was the state saying "your business structure must be forced to fail" here, which is pretty ridiculously unfair of the state. Making the landlords whole seems entirely correct given their over-stepping measures earlier last year.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Here’s an honest question: where do you draw the line? Government intervention constantly creates winners and losers. New laws are passed, businesses lose licenses, or maybe some other government action causes the business to lose money. At what point do we say “ok you get money because the government destroyed your business” and “too bad for you”? I think I read somewhere that this specific issue is a legal one, but generally speaking I’m not sure why government action here is so different than other actions. Restaurants for example that we’re doing just fine went under. Why isn’t the government making them whole? This probably was an easier one to solve too. You could have just said something like “everyone freeze”. No mortgage for the landlord or interest for one year. Tenants don’t have to pay rent for one year. And then you resume payments. You could argue the bank loses out but I’d say you’re just extending the loan a year so they’re not really taking a loss in the long term either. At least this would have been a better and more just solution.
LanceH 5y ago
Providing shelter to people is the least productive sector of the economy you could think of? Why would land owners get a bailout? Because they were mandated by the government to provide their services without payment.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Landlord are holding shelter hostage, not providing it.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Many people would not be able to afford shelter even if there were no landlords. Can someone making $10 an hour afford a $500k house? Landlords are providing shelter to people who otherwise could not afford it.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      Homes used to be far less expensive relative to minimum wage or median income. Landlords and speculation are precisely why homes are so much more expensive now.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        It may have caused some increase in the price, but it would still be out of price for many people. That is why I said $500k instead of $1m which is quite common throughout California. There are other issues like zoning laws which causes increases in housing pricing which wouldn't be solved by getting rid of landlords.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Owning a building that provides shelter isn't providing shelter. Rentiers are commonly considered to be the least productive sectors of economy, whether they rent homes or software licenses.
- repiret 5y ago
dntrkv 5y ago
Because the government put in place an eviction moratorium. Why do the landlords have to pick up the tab? If there was no moratorium and the landlords had the ability to evict, I would agree with you. But in this case, the government forced them to house people so they should pay up.
- sushid 5y ago
  The government forced companies to stop work (retail, factories, etc.) but the companies had to pick up the tab. They had people on payroll, leases to pay, depreciating assets to get rid of.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    Yes, and there were multiple programs enacted to help business owners (PPP, EIDL, Restaurant Revitalization Fund, etc) and employees (EDD, fed unemployment, etc)
    - brewdad 5y ago
      And the landlords already used those.
      - viro 5y ago
        which one of those helped landlords with mortgage payments?
  - ummonk 5y ago
    No, the government didn’t force them to keep people on the payroll. They were free to fire employees.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    They didn't force companies to continue employing workers, or continue their office leases, or continue any other expense. And they certainly didn't make them continue to pay workers who refused to work (from home or otherwise). Or force them to provide their services/products for free to non-payers.
alert0 5y ago
>you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord) I never really understand this. Let's say I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city. I make housing available to 3 other families in a place they could not afford to own. What is your alternative? I should tear down the apartments and opt to live in a single family home? How does that help anyone?
- silicon2401 5y ago
  You shouldn't be allowed to own property, nor should anyone else. We should all own nothing and like it. We should all live in uniform boxes so that nobody can have something nice unless there's enough for everyone to have some. That's the kind of thing that, if people don't already believe it, they'll believe it soon enough based on recent trends.
- nlitened 5y ago
  Sell it at a loss to somebody who does better risk assessment of their leveraged investments?
  - alert0 5y ago
    The comment is about landlords being predatory, not about an underwater investment.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  1. I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city. 2. I make housing available to 3 other families This is the point - the second sentence does not actually follow from the first. The person who built the building, either the actual builders or the investors, make it available. At this point, it is a normal service-provision kind of relationship you see across the economy. Except, with landlords, it isn't that they provide the building. It's that they provide the land. The land is parcelled out in a manner which, at best could be compared to if we just gave rights to parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to whichever radio stations started pumping waves into it first. Of course, in reality, land ownership is usually rooted in much more brutal and sordid stories in America. So you essentially end up with a class of people who take no risks, provide no service, and add no value, employ nobody, and often literally do nothing.
_-david-_ 5y ago
It is not just a normal natural catastrophe since the government had an eviction moratorium. If there was an earthquake that destroyed your rental you could rebuild and then rent it out to paying people.
Justin_K 5y ago
To say that landlords are predatory is misguided. Why don't you consider the banks predatory? They will foreclose on landlords who don't pay their mortgages. Did you work for free during the pandemic? Should they?
thescriptkiddie 5y ago
It is categorically absurd that the state is even considering compensating landlords for this. If anything, it is the tenants who should be compensated.
azth 5y ago
> the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord), Nothing wrong with being a landlord. The least productive and most predatory sector of the economy is the money lender (with interest of course).

ar_lan 5y ago

A few notes: An active problem in the US' form of capitalism is we don't let businesses die naturally. I think landlords fall under this - if they can't find renters for the prices they are charging, then their business is functionally failing, and it should be allowed to simply die. This is economically healthy at a more macro-level and invites better management practices and reduces people over-leveraging. In this case, people were still renting, however, and functionally for free. Landlords got screwed due to government intervention - the moratorium on evictions forced landlord's hands - it was the state saying "your business structure must be forced to fail" here, which is pretty ridiculously unfair of the state. Making the landlords whole seems entirely correct given their over-stepping measures earlier last year.

ericmay 5y ago
Here’s an honest question: where do you draw the line? Government intervention constantly creates winners and losers. New laws are passed, businesses lose licenses, or maybe some other government action causes the business to lose money. At what point do we say “ok you get money because the government destroyed your business” and “too bad for you”? I think I read somewhere that this specific issue is a legal one, but generally speaking I’m not sure why government action here is so different than other actions. Restaurants for example that we’re doing just fine went under. Why isn’t the government making them whole? This probably was an easier one to solve too. You could have just said something like “everyone freeze”. No mortgage for the landlord or interest for one year. Tenants don’t have to pay rent for one year. And then you resume payments. You could argue the bank loses out but I’d say you’re just extending the loan a year so they’re not really taking a loss in the long term either. At least this would have been a better and more just solution.

LanceH 5y ago

Providing shelter to people is the least productive sector of the economy you could think of? Why would land owners get a bailout? Because they were mandated by the government to provide their services without payment.

lucian1900 5y ago
Landlord are holding shelter hostage, not providing it.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Many people would not be able to afford shelter even if there were no landlords. Can someone making $10 an hour afford a $500k house? Landlords are providing shelter to people who otherwise could not afford it.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Homes used to be far less expensive relative to minimum wage or median income. Landlords and speculation are precisely why homes are so much more expensive now.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      It may have caused some increase in the price, but it would still be out of price for many people. That is why I said $500k instead of $1m which is quite common throughout California. There are other issues like zoning laws which causes increases in housing pricing which wouldn't be solved by getting rid of landlords.
HWR_14 5y ago
Owning a building that provides shelter isn't providing shelter. Rentiers are commonly considered to be the least productive sectors of economy, whether they rent homes or software licenses.
repiret 5y ago

dntrkv 5y ago

Because the government put in place an eviction moratorium. Why do the landlords have to pick up the tab? If there was no moratorium and the landlords had the ability to evict, I would agree with you. But in this case, the government forced them to house people so they should pay up.

sushid 5y ago
The government forced companies to stop work (retail, factories, etc.) but the companies had to pick up the tab. They had people on payroll, leases to pay, depreciating assets to get rid of.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  Yes, and there were multiple programs enacted to help business owners (PPP, EIDL, Restaurant Revitalization Fund, etc) and employees (EDD, fed unemployment, etc)
  - brewdad 5y ago
    And the landlords already used those.
    - viro 5y ago
      which one of those helped landlords with mortgage payments?
- ummonk 5y ago
  No, the government didn’t force them to keep people on the payroll. They were free to fire employees.
- beerandt 5y ago
  They didn't force companies to continue employing workers, or continue their office leases, or continue any other expense. And they certainly didn't make them continue to pay workers who refused to work (from home or otherwise). Or force them to provide their services/products for free to non-payers.

alert0 5y ago

>you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord) I never really understand this. Let's say I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city. I make housing available to 3 other families in a place they could not afford to own. What is your alternative? I should tear down the apartments and opt to live in a single family home? How does that help anyone?

silicon2401 5y ago
You shouldn't be allowed to own property, nor should anyone else. We should all own nothing and like it. We should all live in uniform boxes so that nobody can have something nice unless there's enough for everyone to have some. That's the kind of thing that, if people don't already believe it, they'll believe it soon enough based on recent trends.
nlitened 5y ago
Sell it at a loss to somebody who does better risk assessment of their leveraged investments?
- alert0 5y ago
  The comment is about landlords being predatory, not about an underwater investment.
pasabagi 5y ago
1. I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city. 2. I make housing available to 3 other families This is the point - the second sentence does not actually follow from the first. The person who built the building, either the actual builders or the investors, make it available. At this point, it is a normal service-provision kind of relationship you see across the economy. Except, with landlords, it isn't that they provide the building. It's that they provide the land. The land is parcelled out in a manner which, at best could be compared to if we just gave rights to parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to whichever radio stations started pumping waves into it first. Of course, in reality, land ownership is usually rooted in much more brutal and sordid stories in America. So you essentially end up with a class of people who take no risks, provide no service, and add no value, employ nobody, and often literally do nothing.

_-david-_ 5y ago

It is not just a normal natural catastrophe since the government had an eviction moratorium. If there was an earthquake that destroyed your rental you could rebuild and then rent it out to paying people.

Justin_K 5y ago

To say that landlords are predatory is misguided. Why don't you consider the banks predatory? They will foreclose on landlords who don't pay their mortgages. Did you work for free during the pandemic? Should they?

thescriptkiddie 5y ago

It is categorically absurd that the state is even considering compensating landlords for this. If anything, it is the tenants who should be compensated.

azth 5y ago

> the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord), Nothing wrong with being a landlord. The least productive and most predatory sector of the economy is the money lender (with interest of course).