3 ms·
The bias is explicit here with the reference to "landleeches", but I'm still curious. Not everyone is able or willing to own a house, so landlords offer their p
by dbmnt 5y ago
The bias is explicit here with the reference to "landleeches", but I'm still curious. Not everyone is able or willing to own a house, so landlords offer their property for rent. Typically the rent is determined by market value (supply and demand). What is the alternative in your mind? Would government fulfill that role? Or do you imagine some utopia where everyone can buy a house?
- immibis 5y agoThe alternative is that people could simply buy houses if they didn't have to compete with landlords.
- Xavdidtheshadow 5y agoWhen people turn a necessity (housing) into an investment (and by extension, a source of profit), then people/companies with means will buy up as much as they can and hold it, reducing the supply and raising the price of something that people _have_ to have. So, saying rent is "determined by market value" as if "the market" is an impartial omniscient force is misleading. For a lot of the 20th century, _most_ people could buy a house regardless of their chosen occupation ("most" is doing a lot of work here- there's a long history of racism tied into housing acquisition, but my basic point is the same). You could be a blue collar tradesman and buy a house for your family of 4. So yes, I think that's definitely a (theoretical) possibility. It's not outlandish either. We already have a much healthier model to copy: cars. There's no one buying up _all_ the cars and then leasing them to you at artificially high prices. There's (normally, chip shortages notwithstanding) plenty of cars and you can pick what best suits you- new / old / cheap / expensive / fancy / plain / etc. Housing could be the same way if the goal wasn't to extract profit out of those who can't afford to buy (or weren't born 60 years ago).