6 ms·

The right reason for not investing in residential real estate is because it’s immoral. Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner o

The right reason for not investing in residential real estate is because it’s immoral. Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner occupier. The landlord renter system has divided our society into haves and have nots. It’s modern serfdom in which landlords own families. So sure, you can avoid investing in real estate for financial reasons but you can also avoid investing in real estate for the same reason you don’t invest in gambling smoking or fossil fuels….. to invest is to support something fundamentally wrong. No doubt the commenters will all jump in with "but waddabout this, waddabout that, so you want no homes to rent eh!?!". I don't care, my point remains - he landlord/renter system is destroying the fabric of our society, has destroyed the social bargain, is robbing young people of the future and if you're a landlord then you are part of the problem even if you hide your identity and sense of guilt behind a managing real estate agent.

angusturner 2y ago
Not sure why this is down-voted so heavily. In Australia, the property market has been artificially inflated for years with favorable tax incentives that encourage investors to hoard properties and sit on them, while writing off any losses as tax deductions. Meanwhile, renters are being squeezed because landlords are trying to pass on the cost of rising interest rates to their tenants, who are forced to choose between groceries and making rent. And yet, I would bet my kidney that when interest rates fall we won't see landlords pass on the savings to their tenants. As the OP's point, the landlord renter system HAS "divided our society into haves and have nots", and it causing serious bitterness in division in our country. And the issue is politically intractable, because the propertied class are not going to accept any reform that lowers the value of their house.
apsurd 3y ago
I agree with your sentiments, but I'm stuck because renting is paying into the exact same problem isn't it?
jen729w 3y ago
That’s very absolutist. There’s a place for rental accommodation. I moved to Australia as a backpacker in 2003 and found a cheap rental. What was I supposed to do, buy a house?
- andrewstuart 3y ago
  The absolutist position is to think I am advocating for an end to renting, and thus dismiss my message. Only a fool or someone choosing to would think I am advocating for an end to renting. But sure if you want to be right, you made your point. My point remains - the renter/landlord system is toxic for healthy society, for families, for young people, for old people, for everyone who is not a landlord - if you have personal integrity then you should not be a landlord.
  - jen729w 3y ago
    > if you have personal integrity then you should not be a landlord Alright. So who rents 2003-me that flat in Elwood? By the way, I still rent. I mostly enjoy it. I like the freedom to move.
    - 000ooo000 3y ago
      Realise that you are in the minority. The majority eventually desire security and stability in their housing for obvious reasons. A system that incentivises a minority with the means to increasingly squeeze potential from those without is not sustainable long term. One doesn't need to look hard now to find sentiment in younger generations that amounts to "what's the point? I'll never afford a home". If you think that's healthy for a society, or justified, because a small portion of the population like the freedom of renting, not sure what to tell you.
      - etrautmann 3y ago
        How are you so sure what people want? I think many people want both stability and freedom to move.
      - 3y ago
toastercat 3y ago
I predict you're gonna get a lot of flak for your comment, but this is something I've started feeling myself in South Florida, where I grew up. We started noticing more and more homes in our neighborhood without permanent residents -- almost every new neighbor we get is a renter who's there for 6 months to a year, and then leaves. Or, we end up finding out that a home on the block is actually an AirBnB that is empty for weeks at a time. The cohesion of a neighborhood where you meet and know your neighbors that I had as a kid is mostly gone. Not to mention the housing prices down here have skyrocketed with a bunch of wealthy folks from up north moving down, buying up real estate, turning them into VRBOs or their summer homes. Meanwhile, a friend of mine who graduated with CompSci from a state university is being offered peanuts by companies down here; he can barely afford to rent an apartment. Anyways, I know this is kinda the norm in places like NYC, so I don't want to sound like a crybaby. Maybe city enshittification is just normal in the US. But my observations have turned me off from real estate investment, which was something I was considering last year.
alchemist1e9 3y ago
How how how does a fairly selective and educated group such as HN users come to believe such collectivist nonsense. What a failure of education systems we have. Unbelievable. History has shown repeatedly that policies to restrict free markets and centrally plan makes everyone poorer and produces catastrophic results. There is absolutely NOTHING immoral about being a landlord or a real estate developer. People need housing but cannot afford to build it themselves. Capitalists take capital they and create housing for people who need housing. This is a fundamental service to the economy and society. A necessary service. It’s simply foolish to have this view that landlords are unethical. It’s been shown over and over and over that high housing prices are a result of restrictive supply caused by government regulations and that without such restrictions and regulations landlords and real estate investors LOWER housing prices this is a fundamental fact of economics!
- greenie_beans 3y ago
  not OP, but your personal attacks don't engage with their ideas at all. and you also stated a strong opinion masquerading as fact.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    No Capitalism is the greatest force for the improvement of the human condition known. That’s a fact and the problem is you have somehow been taught it’s only an opinion. It’s not, it’s an unambiguous empirical fact.
    - andrewstuart 3y ago
      It's the socialism for the rich that ruins it. Tax breaks for property investors, tax incentives for property developers, handing large swatches of public owned land over the mates of the politicians for virtually nothing, selling houses to foreign buyers, selling houses to global money laundering criminal. All to pump up the value of the housing portfolios owned by the politicians. Whenever anyone says "let the market sort it out" I cheer and say "finally, the rich will stop getting their socialist handouts". If that is your capitalist market economics then you might need to rethink how pure it is.
qwerpy 3y ago
Soon to be ex-landlord here. Maybe I'll regret it someday, but I'm winding down all of my rental properties. Being a landlord in Seattle is just not a good idea financially anymore, with how out of whack rents are compared to house values, and how more and more restrictions are making it hard for small-time landlords. So I'm selling everything. Some will be bought by owner-occupiers, and others will be bought by huge property management firms with the analysts and lawyers to still be profitable.
- andrewstuart 3y ago
  >> and others will be bought by huge property management firms with the analysts and lawyers to still be profitable Corporate mega landlords should be banned too. As should foreign owners. Housing should be owned by the citizens and permanent residents of a country, not corporate mega landlords.
  - qwerpy 3y ago
    Yeah I'd think mom and pop citizen landlords with one or two long-term rentals should be the least offensive of the bunch. But we're the ones least able to adjust to the regulations and changing economics. I'm thankful that I'm able to get out without taking a big financial hit, but I'm not sure if the end result is better for society.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    > Corporate mega landlords should be banned too. > As should foreign owners. Housing should be owned by the citizens and permanent residents of a country, not corporate mega landlords. This is completely insane. Envy is one hell of an evil disease, individually and especially socially. I have an alternative proposition. Re-zone and deregulate to allow new developments. Lower all permits and taxes. Remove all barriers to capital and investment, foreign or otherwise. Your housing costs will immediately drop. Collectivism is the economic equivalent to creationism in biology. A false evil fantasy proven endlessly as failed ideas but fueled by primitive human emotions, envy and pride respectively.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Aunche 3y ago
> Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner occupier. And every ounce of food owned by a company is not owned by a person. Oh right, that's why we allow people to produce more food. As Communist China discovered, getting rid of landlords doesn't magically house more people. That just makes it harder to move to areas with more economic opportunities and ensures that any home that requires significant renovations will end up completely uninhabitable. You can offset this by asking the state to fund more housing development, but that still requires you to allow for housing development.
rokkitmensch 3y ago
If only morals were universal...
Ekaros 3y ago
The issue in system is cost of housing and appreciation of thus. With both being lower and appreciation even being negative renting might not be unreasonable deal. Renting is just a service like any other. Someone put initial capital in on housing and should expect reasonable return on that. Problem becomes when capital is too large compared to product and the value of product goes up where as it should go down.
npteljes 3y ago
>Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner occupier. Or, another landlord. What I see is that if we leave things up to contestants, then the contestants will do everything to win. What can be done is a change in the game itself. So, regulation.
edanm 3y ago
> No doubt the commenters will all jump in with "but waddabout this, waddabout that, so you want no homes to rent eh!?!". I don't care, my point remains - No, your point doesn't remain if other people have valid points that refute it. You're making a very strong statement which I imagine most economists would disagree with. Characterizing anyone who disagrees with this as "whiny" or something doesn't make it true - you just might be wrong (and probably are, IMO). This is especially weird since you're making a strong moral claim here - it's not even "we disagree about economics here", it's "we disagree, and you're evil for thinking differently than me".

angusturner 2y ago

Not sure why this is down-voted so heavily. In Australia, the property market has been artificially inflated for years with favorable tax incentives that encourage investors to hoard properties and sit on them, while writing off any losses as tax deductions. Meanwhile, renters are being squeezed because landlords are trying to pass on the cost of rising interest rates to their tenants, who are forced to choose between groceries and making rent. And yet, I would bet my kidney that when interest rates fall we won't see landlords pass on the savings to their tenants. As the OP's point, the landlord renter system HAS "divided our society into haves and have nots", and it causing serious bitterness in division in our country. And the issue is politically intractable, because the propertied class are not going to accept any reform that lowers the value of their house.

apsurd 3y ago

I agree with your sentiments, but I'm stuck because renting is paying into the exact same problem isn't it?

jen729w 3y ago

That’s very absolutist. There’s a place for rental accommodation. I moved to Australia as a backpacker in 2003 and found a cheap rental. What was I supposed to do, buy a house?

andrewstuart 3y ago
The absolutist position is to think I am advocating for an end to renting, and thus dismiss my message. Only a fool or someone choosing to would think I am advocating for an end to renting. But sure if you want to be right, you made your point. My point remains - the renter/landlord system is toxic for healthy society, for families, for young people, for old people, for everyone who is not a landlord - if you have personal integrity then you should not be a landlord.
- jen729w 3y ago
  > if you have personal integrity then you should not be a landlord Alright. So who rents 2003-me that flat in Elwood? By the way, I still rent. I mostly enjoy it. I like the freedom to move.
  - 000ooo000 3y ago
    Realise that you are in the minority. The majority eventually desire security and stability in their housing for obvious reasons. A system that incentivises a minority with the means to increasingly squeeze potential from those without is not sustainable long term. One doesn't need to look hard now to find sentiment in younger generations that amounts to "what's the point? I'll never afford a home". If you think that's healthy for a society, or justified, because a small portion of the population like the freedom of renting, not sure what to tell you.
    - etrautmann 3y ago
      How are you so sure what people want? I think many people want both stability and freedom to move.
    - 3y ago

toastercat 3y ago

I predict you're gonna get a lot of flak for your comment, but this is something I've started feeling myself in South Florida, where I grew up. We started noticing more and more homes in our neighborhood without permanent residents -- almost every new neighbor we get is a renter who's there for 6 months to a year, and then leaves. Or, we end up finding out that a home on the block is actually an AirBnB that is empty for weeks at a time. The cohesion of a neighborhood where you meet and know your neighbors that I had as a kid is mostly gone. Not to mention the housing prices down here have skyrocketed with a bunch of wealthy folks from up north moving down, buying up real estate, turning them into VRBOs or their summer homes. Meanwhile, a friend of mine who graduated with CompSci from a state university is being offered peanuts by companies down here; he can barely afford to rent an apartment. Anyways, I know this is kinda the norm in places like NYC, so I don't want to sound like a crybaby. Maybe city enshittification is just normal in the US. But my observations have turned me off from real estate investment, which was something I was considering last year.

alchemist1e9 3y ago

How how how does a fairly selective and educated group such as HN users come to believe such collectivist nonsense. What a failure of education systems we have. Unbelievable. History has shown repeatedly that policies to restrict free markets and centrally plan makes everyone poorer and produces catastrophic results. There is absolutely NOTHING immoral about being a landlord or a real estate developer. People need housing but cannot afford to build it themselves. Capitalists take capital they and create housing for people who need housing. This is a fundamental service to the economy and society. A necessary service. It’s simply foolish to have this view that landlords are unethical. It’s been shown over and over and over that high housing prices are a result of restrictive supply caused by government regulations and that without such restrictions and regulations landlords and real estate investors LOWER housing prices this is a fundamental fact of economics!

greenie_beans 3y ago
not OP, but your personal attacks don't engage with their ideas at all. and you also stated a strong opinion masquerading as fact.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  No Capitalism is the greatest force for the improvement of the human condition known. That’s a fact and the problem is you have somehow been taught it’s only an opinion. It’s not, it’s an unambiguous empirical fact.
  - andrewstuart 3y ago
    It's the socialism for the rich that ruins it. Tax breaks for property investors, tax incentives for property developers, handing large swatches of public owned land over the mates of the politicians for virtually nothing, selling houses to foreign buyers, selling houses to global money laundering criminal. All to pump up the value of the housing portfolios owned by the politicians. Whenever anyone says "let the market sort it out" I cheer and say "finally, the rich will stop getting their socialist handouts". If that is your capitalist market economics then you might need to rethink how pure it is.

qwerpy 3y ago

Soon to be ex-landlord here. Maybe I'll regret it someday, but I'm winding down all of my rental properties. Being a landlord in Seattle is just not a good idea financially anymore, with how out of whack rents are compared to house values, and how more and more restrictions are making it hard for small-time landlords. So I'm selling everything. Some will be bought by owner-occupiers, and others will be bought by huge property management firms with the analysts and lawyers to still be profitable.

andrewstuart 3y ago
>> and others will be bought by huge property management firms with the analysts and lawyers to still be profitable Corporate mega landlords should be banned too. As should foreign owners. Housing should be owned by the citizens and permanent residents of a country, not corporate mega landlords.
- qwerpy 3y ago
  Yeah I'd think mom and pop citizen landlords with one or two long-term rentals should be the least offensive of the bunch. But we're the ones least able to adjust to the regulations and changing economics. I'm thankful that I'm able to get out without taking a big financial hit, but I'm not sure if the end result is better for society.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  > Corporate mega landlords should be banned too. > As should foreign owners. Housing should be owned by the citizens and permanent residents of a country, not corporate mega landlords. This is completely insane. Envy is one hell of an evil disease, individually and especially socially. I have an alternative proposition. Re-zone and deregulate to allow new developments. Lower all permits and taxes. Remove all barriers to capital and investment, foreign or otherwise. Your housing costs will immediately drop. Collectivism is the economic equivalent to creationism in biology. A false evil fantasy proven endlessly as failed ideas but fueled by primitive human emotions, envy and pride respectively.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Aunche 3y ago

> Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner occupier. And every ounce of food owned by a company is not owned by a person. Oh right, that's why we allow people to produce more food. As Communist China discovered, getting rid of landlords doesn't magically house more people. That just makes it harder to move to areas with more economic opportunities and ensures that any home that requires significant renovations will end up completely uninhabitable. You can offset this by asking the state to fund more housing development, but that still requires you to allow for housing development.

rokkitmensch 3y ago

If only morals were universal...

Ekaros 3y ago

The issue in system is cost of housing and appreciation of thus. With both being lower and appreciation even being negative renting might not be unreasonable deal. Renting is just a service like any other. Someone put initial capital in on housing and should expect reasonable return on that. Problem becomes when capital is too large compared to product and the value of product goes up where as it should go down.

npteljes 3y ago

>Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner occupier. Or, another landlord. What I see is that if we leave things up to contestants, then the contestants will do everything to win. What can be done is a change in the game itself. So, regulation.

edanm 3y ago

> No doubt the commenters will all jump in with "but waddabout this, waddabout that, so you want no homes to rent eh!?!". I don't care, my point remains - No, your point doesn't remain if other people have valid points that refute it. You're making a very strong statement which I imagine most economists would disagree with. Characterizing anyone who disagrees with this as "whiny" or something doesn't make it true - you just might be wrong (and probably are, IMO). This is especially weird since you're making a strong moral claim here - it's not even "we disagree about economics here", it's "we disagree, and you're evil for thinking differently than me".