3 ms·

At the very least, they do maintain housing. It takes constant upkeep and updating to keep a structure in decent condition. Unless they're a slum lord, which is

by cko 5y ago

At the very least, they do maintain housing. It takes constant upkeep and updating to keep a structure in decent condition. Unless they're a slum lord, which isn't the most sustainable business model. Some landlords rehab a completely unlivable structure into something livable. That's something too. I am a renter and I hesitate to own my home because of the upkeep costs and responsibility. So I subscribe to shelter-as-a-service.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Yes, landlords maintain housing. So do homeowners who live in their homes. If anything, homeowners have more incentive to properly maintain their property than landlords, because they live there. Maintaining things properly often costs more money than doing the type of "good enough" repair that a landlord would be tempted to do because it's less money out of their pocket. So, if anything, "landlords maintain housing" is an argument against landlords. The point is that "landlords maintain housing," along with "landlords pay property taxes" and other such statements are at best a wash. Those things would happen anyway, no matter who owned the housing.
- cko 5y ago
  Yup. What a homeowner does to maintain their home is a nontrivial amount of work and cost, so if a landlord does it they should charge a nonzero price for that service, right? Or are you saying they shouldn't be 'competing' with homeowners at all? In my experience a landlord is not willing to buy at the same price point as an owner occupier, as they are less emotional about the property. I used to be a landlord and didn't enjoy it much, so nowadays I own paper (stocks, notes) and literally do nothing.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    The residents are no better off paying a landlord to pay for repairs than they are paying for them themselves. That's ridiculous. How does paying an inflated price for the same "service" I can do for myself by picking up a phone benefit me? To be clear, I am saying landlords should not exist, at least not as they do now. They're the equivalent of scalpers for housing.
    - cko 5y ago
      In that case I see them more as travel agents for housing. More work than scalping.

by cko 5y ago

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Yes, landlords maintain housing. So do homeowners who live in their homes. If anything, homeowners have more incentive to properly maintain their property than landlords, because they live there. Maintaining things properly often costs more money than doing the type of "good enough" repair that a landlord would be tempted to do because it's less money out of their pocket. So, if anything, "landlords maintain housing" is an argument against landlords. The point is that "landlords maintain housing," along with "landlords pay property taxes" and other such statements are at best a wash. Those things would happen anyway, no matter who owned the housing.

cko 5y ago
Yup. What a homeowner does to maintain their home is a nontrivial amount of work and cost, so if a landlord does it they should charge a nonzero price for that service, right? Or are you saying they shouldn't be 'competing' with homeowners at all? In my experience a landlord is not willing to buy at the same price point as an owner occupier, as they are less emotional about the property. I used to be a landlord and didn't enjoy it much, so nowadays I own paper (stocks, notes) and literally do nothing.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  The residents are no better off paying a landlord to pay for repairs than they are paying for them themselves. That's ridiculous. How does paying an inflated price for the same "service" I can do for myself by picking up a phone benefit me? To be clear, I am saying landlords should not exist, at least not as they do now. They're the equivalent of scalpers for housing.
  - cko 5y ago
    In that case I see them more as travel agents for housing. More work than scalping.