4 ms·
> Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did. I mean, yeah, they had access to capital. As I understan
by xyzzy123 1y ago
> Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did.
I mean, yeah, they had access to capital.
As I understand it the traditional answer to this is "the landlord took the risk", but in practice I find that explanation questionable when propping up and supporting housing markets is basically political job #1.
I think the landlord was just richer, and was able to use that to exploit the renter.
- Ekaros 1y agoSometimes landlords fails. You just do not hear too much about it because in retrospect it was obvious. Buying units in dying areas with low demand or over paying at times. Generally only winners get looked at. Not the loses in places no one cares about anymore.
- xyzzy123 1y agoSure, but I don't believe "some landlords fail" changes the fact that as a class, they are structurally advantaged over renters. Landlords can leverage existing assets (having 1 property helps you get more), benefit from asset appreciation and get tax advantages. When infrastructure or amenities get built, they capture a share of the value. When jobs are created or wages go up in an area, again the landlord captures value. Their asset class is politically protected in many ways. Then there's the whole inter-generational thing... To a large extent, if your parents were owners, you will be an owner and if your parents were renters, you will be a renter. It's not guaranteed of course, but the effect is very strong. I'm no socialist but I know a rigged game when I see one.