3 ms·

> there is something morally wrong with being a landlord In the traditional manner, by upgrading through houses over a lifetime and holding onto the prior home

by rekabis 9mo ago

> there is something morally wrong with being a landlord In the traditional manner, by upgrading through houses over a lifetime and holding onto the prior homes as “mortgage helpers”? No, not in the least. In the modern context, by buying up 5, 10, 15, or even more homes in a neighbourhood just to rent them back out for their labour-free “investment income”? Oh YES, VERY MUCH SO. In the modern context - which is practically every rental these days - landlords do not provide housing. They HOARD it and ransom it back to the community for more than it’s worth. Landlords and other “investors” are why North America as a whole has a housing crisis, and by direct-causation proxy, a homeless crisis. When an individual or company can sweep into a neighbourhood and buy up most to all of the houses and then jack up rents to the maximum that the market will bear _just because,_ even when a third or more stand empty, that’s economic parasitism of the working class, plain and simple. So where I stand, if anyone is renting out any sort of a habitable structure that they themselves didn’t live in for the better part of a decade before they turned it into a rental, THEY ARE THE PARASITE.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
As a former landlord - who would rather get a daily anal probe with a cactus than ever do it again - there is nothing “passive” about being a landlord. A quick Google search shows that only 1-3% of homes are owned by institutional investors and has almost nothing to do with the homes not being affordable. It’s a talking point that even the briefest Google search will contradict. Are you also against apartments?
- rekabis 9mo ago
  IMO anyone holding more than 5 rentals is doing so for the purpose of investing; of having a revenue stream well above what is needed for mortgage purposes. Why? Because if you take the traditional route of living in a place, and do so for the average of 8 years that most jurisdictions see people doing before upgrading, and turning that prior home into a rental, it would take you into your 70s or 80s until you have 5 rental places. And having 5 or more rental units accounts for almost ⅓ of all landlords. This means that ⅓ of all landlords are economic parasites, being landlords purely for the income stream. I am not talking about “institutional investors” that hold 100+ homes by themselves (100+ being the industry definition of an institutional investor), they are just included in my concept of a parasitical population of housing “investors”. > there is nothing “passive” about being a landlord. You clearly are an old-school landlord. These days there are “property management” companies that - for a small fee - do all the work for you, and the only effort left to you is to cash the cheque. And many people with multiple properties leverage this system.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    Every business is about buying something or producing something and selling it for a cost higher than it costs you. Why is rental property evil? Do you think building and running an apartment complex is wrong? Every business is about producing an income stream. My 23 year old son and his fiancé rent a house. They don’t want to buy a home and don’t even know whether they are going to stay in the city they are living in There is nothing “small” about the fee that property management companies charge. It’s 50% of the first month’s rent for a new tenant and 10% of rent each month. Standard underwriting for rental income is assume 75% - 80% occupancy and you have to account for slow payments and long eviction processes. Even in a red state like GA it can take around 3 months to evict someone for none payment. And again bringing the 2-3% of homes that are owned by institutional investors won’t make a dent in housing affordability.
    - rekabis 9mo ago
      >Why is rental property evil? Profit margins on all inelastic essential goods are fundamentally evil. A mansion for a single person isn’t an essential inelastic good. A Bachelor suite or basement suite for a single person _is._ Water in general isn’t an essential inelastic good. Sufficient water to keep a single person hydrated, clean, and in good health _is._ Junk food and premium-grade food isn’t an essential inelastic good. Sufficient raw foods to keep a person fed _is._ When you forcibly extract more from a person than providing the product costs you, purely because they have no other choice, you are an evil parasite, full stop. And no, going homeless is not “a choice”. Neither is dying from exposure. And there are plenty of people who work full-time jobs yet don’t earn enough to put a roof over their heads. > bringing the 2-3% of homes that are owned by institutional investors won’t make a dent in housing affordability. But dealing with the ⅓ of all rentals who are owned by parasites _will._
      - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        You refuse to answer the question - do you think that everyone should own a home and their should be no rental market or do you think that landlords should rent at cost? Housing is very much elastic. There is plenty of undeveloped land in the country and there is even more air - meaning building up and not out. Personally, my wife and I sold our big 5 bedroom 3200 square foot house in the burbs that we had built in 2016 for $335K in the burbs of Atlanta in the good school system to move into a 1250 square foot condo in Florida and we couldn’t be happier. Blame the lack of supply on NIMBYism that opposes multi unit housing and zoning laws. As far as raw food, do you also think that people in the supply chain like farmers, packagers, food delivery drivers etc shouldn’t make a profit? You never did answer the question - are you also opposed to apartment complexes owned by investors? The second point you didn’t address is should my 23 year old son and his fiancé be forced to buy home or should his landlord have spent money on a property and rented to him at cost? Me personally, if I were renting a house, I would rather deal with a corporation who did it professionally than deal with an individual landlord. The management companies both times I rented an apartment in Atlanta were excellent. And it’s nonsensical that if you got rid of all of the investors who only own 2-3% of the supply, it would make a dent in housing prices. Do you think everyone who rents wants to buy no matter what their life circumstances? I definitely didn’t want to buy a home when I was single, I wanted the option of moving quickly

by rekabis 9mo ago

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago

As a former landlord - who would rather get a daily anal probe with a cactus than ever do it again - there is nothing “passive” about being a landlord. A quick Google search shows that only 1-3% of homes are owned by institutional investors and has almost nothing to do with the homes not being affordable. It’s a talking point that even the briefest Google search will contradict. Are you also against apartments?

rekabis 9mo ago
IMO anyone holding more than 5 rentals is doing so for the purpose of investing; of having a revenue stream well above what is needed for mortgage purposes. Why? Because if you take the traditional route of living in a place, and do so for the average of 8 years that most jurisdictions see people doing before upgrading, and turning that prior home into a rental, it would take you into your 70s or 80s until you have 5 rental places. And having 5 or more rental units accounts for almost ⅓ of all landlords. This means that ⅓ of all landlords are economic parasites, being landlords purely for the income stream. I am not talking about “institutional investors” that hold 100+ homes by themselves (100+ being the industry definition of an institutional investor), they are just included in my concept of a parasitical population of housing “investors”. > there is nothing “passive” about being a landlord. You clearly are an old-school landlord. These days there are “property management” companies that - for a small fee - do all the work for you, and the only effort left to you is to cash the cheque. And many people with multiple properties leverage this system.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  Every business is about buying something or producing something and selling it for a cost higher than it costs you. Why is rental property evil? Do you think building and running an apartment complex is wrong? Every business is about producing an income stream. My 23 year old son and his fiancé rent a house. They don’t want to buy a home and don’t even know whether they are going to stay in the city they are living in There is nothing “small” about the fee that property management companies charge. It’s 50% of the first month’s rent for a new tenant and 10% of rent each month. Standard underwriting for rental income is assume 75% - 80% occupancy and you have to account for slow payments and long eviction processes. Even in a red state like GA it can take around 3 months to evict someone for none payment. And again bringing the 2-3% of homes that are owned by institutional investors won’t make a dent in housing affordability.
  - rekabis 9mo ago
    >Why is rental property evil? Profit margins on all inelastic essential goods are fundamentally evil. A mansion for a single person isn’t an essential inelastic good. A Bachelor suite or basement suite for a single person _is._ Water in general isn’t an essential inelastic good. Sufficient water to keep a single person hydrated, clean, and in good health _is._ Junk food and premium-grade food isn’t an essential inelastic good. Sufficient raw foods to keep a person fed _is._ When you forcibly extract more from a person than providing the product costs you, purely because they have no other choice, you are an evil parasite, full stop. And no, going homeless is not “a choice”. Neither is dying from exposure. And there are plenty of people who work full-time jobs yet don’t earn enough to put a roof over their heads. > bringing the 2-3% of homes that are owned by institutional investors won’t make a dent in housing affordability. But dealing with the ⅓ of all rentals who are owned by parasites _will._
    - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
      You refuse to answer the question - do you think that everyone should own a home and their should be no rental market or do you think that landlords should rent at cost? Housing is very much elastic. There is plenty of undeveloped land in the country and there is even more air - meaning building up and not out. Personally, my wife and I sold our big 5 bedroom 3200 square foot house in the burbs that we had built in 2016 for $335K in the burbs of Atlanta in the good school system to move into a 1250 square foot condo in Florida and we couldn’t be happier. Blame the lack of supply on NIMBYism that opposes multi unit housing and zoning laws. As far as raw food, do you also think that people in the supply chain like farmers, packagers, food delivery drivers etc shouldn’t make a profit? You never did answer the question - are you also opposed to apartment complexes owned by investors? The second point you didn’t address is should my 23 year old son and his fiancé be forced to buy home or should his landlord have spent money on a property and rented to him at cost? Me personally, if I were renting a house, I would rather deal with a corporation who did it professionally than deal with an individual landlord. The management companies both times I rented an apartment in Atlanta were excellent. And it’s nonsensical that if you got rid of all of the investors who only own 2-3% of the supply, it would make a dent in housing prices. Do you think everyone who rents wants to buy no matter what their life circumstances? I definitely didn’t want to buy a home when I was single, I wanted the option of moving quickly