3 ms·

And the rent is paid by the tenants while the equity accrues to the owner. That’s it’s an investment with variable ROI is not anyone’s problem but the investor

And the rent is paid by the tenants while the equity accrues to the owner. That’s it’s an investment with variable ROI is not anyone’s problem but the investor who stuck their money in this asset class instead of something else. No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment. Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. Landlord profits are arbitrage between 1) long term and short term financial obligation, 2) High credit and low credit individuals, 3) high and low assets at stake. Just like how a bank makes a % interest for taking risk and providing capital that owners wont, landlords do the same thing. Landlords get paid a profit to take on risk and long term liability (to the bank), and again provide capital. In short, banks loan cash to landlords because they are more credit worthy and take on liability. They in tern loan a home to renters, who have worse credit and much less liability. It is all about paying a premium for others to take on financial risk.
- bugglebeetle 2y ago
  > Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. In parts of America anyway, although states like New York do in fact have a right to shelter. This is nonetheless not the clever jibe you think it is, so much as indicative of moral bankruptcy. That all are not guaranteed housing, that the few can pursue greed at the cost of others survival, is a social and moral failure.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Positive rights implies the right to slaves. If one has a right to a house, they have a right to make someone build them a house. Now, societies can choose to provide services which are not rights.
    - bugglebeetle 2y ago
      As I already mentioned, New York has had a right to shelter for something like 40 years and as far as I understand abolished slavery in 1827. Finland also has this in their constitution and does not have a slaves building homes for people. I think your model of reality is a bit off.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property.
        chefandy 2y ago
        > As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property. You might solicit fewer snarky comments by avoiding asinine comparisons between slavery and eviction regulation, and then admonishing people for not having a realistic take.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
        >If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. >Maybe the most important structural change in Finland is that we've renovated our temporary accommodations in shelters and hostels into supported housing. For example, the last big shelter in Helsinki, run by the Salvation Army, had 250 beds. It was completely renovated in 2012. Now they have 81 independent, modern, apartments in that same building. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 Again, your model of reality is quite warped and off by being rooted in American cruelty.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

>No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment. Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. Landlord profits are arbitrage between 1) long term and short term financial obligation, 2) High credit and low credit individuals, 3) high and low assets at stake. Just like how a bank makes a % interest for taking risk and providing capital that owners wont, landlords do the same thing. Landlords get paid a profit to take on risk and long term liability (to the bank), and again provide capital. In short, banks loan cash to landlords because they are more credit worthy and take on liability. They in tern loan a home to renters, who have worse credit and much less liability. It is all about paying a premium for others to take on financial risk.

bugglebeetle 2y ago
> Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. In parts of America anyway, although states like New York do in fact have a right to shelter. This is nonetheless not the clever jibe you think it is, so much as indicative of moral bankruptcy. That all are not guaranteed housing, that the few can pursue greed at the cost of others survival, is a social and moral failure.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Positive rights implies the right to slaves. If one has a right to a house, they have a right to make someone build them a house. Now, societies can choose to provide services which are not rights.
  - bugglebeetle 2y ago
    As I already mentioned, New York has had a right to shelter for something like 40 years and as far as I understand abolished slavery in 1827. Finland also has this in their constitution and does not have a slaves building homes for people. I think your model of reality is a bit off.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property.
      - chefandy 2y ago
        > As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property. You might solicit fewer snarky comments by avoiding asinine comparisons between slavery and eviction regulation, and then admonishing people for not having a realistic take.
      - bugglebeetle 2y ago
        >If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. >Maybe the most important structural change in Finland is that we've renovated our temporary accommodations in shelters and hostels into supported housing. For example, the last big shelter in Helsinki, run by the Salvation Army, had 250 beds. It was completely renovated in 2012. Now they have 81 independent, modern, apartments in that same building. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 Again, your model of reality is quite warped and off by being rooted in American cruelty.