3 ms·

It’s not. There are plenty of non-wealthy people who make money from things other than their labor. Small-time landlords are an example, as would be anyone who

by smt88 4mo ago

It’s not. There are plenty of non-wealthy people who make money from things other than their labor. Small-time landlords are an example, as would be anyone who owns a small business and draws cash from profits rather than taking a salary.

contagiousflow 4mo ago
> non-wealthy > landlord If you think these two things are compatible you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble.
- opinion-is-bad 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
    being born into money is not a requirement to own several houses before 30. Do tell.
    - scottyah 4mo ago
      Live in a poor place. There are plenty of cheap houses, but you do have to leave expensive areas (shocking, I know).
    - bonesss 4mo ago
      So “landlord” and “commercial landlord living entirely off of passive income” are worlds apart. Buying a fixer-upper outside of town with high-school and early 20s grinding, renting out 3+ rooms to cover the mortgage for painful years, working 80 hour weeks, refinancing against that first house into another under-maintained property where you live in half while upgrading the other, ending up with a rental duplex and drastically reduced living cost, is viable by 30. Maximizing youth savings, first house programs, and primary residence rules create less punitive economics. It sucks and will let one learn why landlord is a pain in the ass job, and relies on sweat equity and modest lifestyle, wanting to commit to real estate, and non-ideal properties. Trade school or skipping college for early income and low debt make the numbers crunch easier. Investing consistently into the market in your 20s probably out performs it by 65, and a young bankers lifestyle is a joy of its own, but: owning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors.
      - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
        owning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors. The comment wasn't about buying your first house, it was "owning several properties by the time you're 30" which a janitor of all things absolutely cannot do.
        bonesss 3mo ago
        Read my comment again, and think more about what was said. I addressed multiple properties before 30 as a landlord, not first time buying as an employee. Because you are not accounting for cash flow & appreciation over time you are flat wrong. A non-landlord janitor saddled with student loans losing 30%+ of income to housing versus a landlord whose housing is covered that works as a janitor from the get-go have wildly different leverage opportunities and savings potential at 20 and 5 years down the road. Committing to property ownership instead of school and maximally exploiting living at home gets the down payment, committing to property improvement instead of lifestyle is what gears the investment. That massive monthly rental savings snowballs into a down payment in the 5 year picture, the first assets improvements and cash flow support lending for the subsequent property purchase, upgrades to which support refinancing and correcting cash flow in the original property. Backed by those assets and cash flow: multi-tenant properties, incorporation, or more aggressive flipping are straight shots backed by the appreciating assets and ongoing work income. Janitors can clean on the side, work in corporate chains, work in secure facilities, make overtime, juggle multiple jobs, or snowball their hustle into a cleaning company. A landlord-janitor can be creating a crew of live-together like-minded grinders and be building business wealth in parallel to their rental business in a synergistic loop. It is very possible, I know several people who done it, and know of numerous successful businesses structured around the same. A group of immigrants in a house with a cleaning van out front can be a respectable business. Five such houses could be an early retirement. The conceptual breakdown tends to be in willingness to sacrifice, and do hard unglamorous work. “Janitors of all things” can be smart entrepreneurs who grow wealth, just like how programmers, of all things, can misunderstand basic financial calculus.
  - cool_dude85 4mo ago
    So, are the landlords wealthy or not wealthy? I don't get it.
- tonyedgecombe 4mo ago
  Most landlords are leveraged up to the hilt. They may look wealthy from the outside but a close look at the figures says otherwise.
- artisinal 4mo ago
  Not American here. I know a couple of people who took out a second mortgage to buy a small appartement to rent out when mortgages rates were at 1%. They probably have €300k in equity in both the primary and secondary home. And around €600 in income from the rental. I do not consider that wealthy.
  - torginus 4mo ago
    I would describe that as having invested in an appreciating asset (like stocks), and their main income comes from the gains of the property prices as they go up in value. Moreover, they leveraged themselves via loans to acquire income even faster. These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them. Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
- carlosjobim 4mo ago
  The original comment said "ultra wealthy".
- bigstrat2003 4mo ago
  You don't have to be especially wealthy to own a second house and rent it out. That isn't poor, certainly, but I wouldn't call it wealthy either.
- smt88 4mo ago
  > you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble My bubble of... not-ultra-wealthy people? Are you saying I need to talk to more ultra-wealthy people? This makes no sense.
tancop 4mo ago
im going to be controversial and say no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire. anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor (but not vice versa, you can work as a robber or corporate lobbyist). from line cooks to wall street ceos to open source volunteers and stay at home moms who dont get paid but still work. landlords and executives count because management is labor too. if your income comes from a trust fund or owning properties that you dont manage thats a passive reward for doing nothing. you are not productive. you are a parasite living on the back of everyone else and expecting indefinite rewards for a fixed amount of work you or your parents did years ago.
- triceratops 4mo ago
  What if you volunteer 30-40 hours a week but pay your bills with rental income? What's your position on that?
  - 93po 3mo ago
    What if you dump toxic waste into a river to make money, but volunteer 30-40 hours a week? Does it make the dumping less unethical? The point isn't about doing labor, it's about not profiting off of other's labor or rent-seeking.
    - triceratops 3mo ago
      Rent-seeking is different from being a landlord. And I mean that in a "dictionary definition" way - they are literally different concepts. And we all "profit off of others' labor" when we buy things. I was responding to the person who said "anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor". According to them only retired people are allowed to live off investment income. But what if the thing someone labors at doesn't make them income, and they support themselves with investment income? They've satisfied OP's "be useful to society" dictum, so why is it so immoral for them to be a landlord.
      - 93po 3mo ago

by smt88 4mo ago

contagiousflow 4mo ago

> non-wealthy > landlord If you think these two things are compatible you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble.

opinion-is-bad 4mo ago
[flagged]
- b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
  being born into money is not a requirement to own several houses before 30. Do tell.
  - scottyah 4mo ago
    Live in a poor place. There are plenty of cheap houses, but you do have to leave expensive areas (shocking, I know).
  - bonesss 4mo ago
    So “landlord” and “commercial landlord living entirely off of passive income” are worlds apart. Buying a fixer-upper outside of town with high-school and early 20s grinding, renting out 3+ rooms to cover the mortgage for painful years, working 80 hour weeks, refinancing against that first house into another under-maintained property where you live in half while upgrading the other, ending up with a rental duplex and drastically reduced living cost, is viable by 30. Maximizing youth savings, first house programs, and primary residence rules create less punitive economics. It sucks and will let one learn why landlord is a pain in the ass job, and relies on sweat equity and modest lifestyle, wanting to commit to real estate, and non-ideal properties. Trade school or skipping college for early income and low debt make the numbers crunch easier. Investing consistently into the market in your 20s probably out performs it by 65, and a young bankers lifestyle is a joy of its own, but: owning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors.
    - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
      owning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors. The comment wasn't about buying your first house, it was "owning several properties by the time you're 30" which a janitor of all things absolutely cannot do.
      - bonesss 3mo ago
        Read my comment again, and think more about what was said. I addressed multiple properties before 30 as a landlord, not first time buying as an employee. Because you are not accounting for cash flow & appreciation over time you are flat wrong. A non-landlord janitor saddled with student loans losing 30%+ of income to housing versus a landlord whose housing is covered that works as a janitor from the get-go have wildly different leverage opportunities and savings potential at 20 and 5 years down the road. Committing to property ownership instead of school and maximally exploiting living at home gets the down payment, committing to property improvement instead of lifestyle is what gears the investment. That massive monthly rental savings snowballs into a down payment in the 5 year picture, the first assets improvements and cash flow support lending for the subsequent property purchase, upgrades to which support refinancing and correcting cash flow in the original property. Backed by those assets and cash flow: multi-tenant properties, incorporation, or more aggressive flipping are straight shots backed by the appreciating assets and ongoing work income. Janitors can clean on the side, work in corporate chains, work in secure facilities, make overtime, juggle multiple jobs, or snowball their hustle into a cleaning company. A landlord-janitor can be creating a crew of live-together like-minded grinders and be building business wealth in parallel to their rental business in a synergistic loop. It is very possible, I know several people who done it, and know of numerous successful businesses structured around the same. A group of immigrants in a house with a cleaning van out front can be a respectable business. Five such houses could be an early retirement. The conceptual breakdown tends to be in willingness to sacrifice, and do hard unglamorous work. “Janitors of all things” can be smart entrepreneurs who grow wealth, just like how programmers, of all things, can misunderstand basic financial calculus.
- cool_dude85 4mo ago
  So, are the landlords wealthy or not wealthy? I don't get it.
tonyedgecombe 4mo ago
Most landlords are leveraged up to the hilt. They may look wealthy from the outside but a close look at the figures says otherwise.
artisinal 4mo ago
Not American here. I know a couple of people who took out a second mortgage to buy a small appartement to rent out when mortgages rates were at 1%. They probably have €300k in equity in both the primary and secondary home. And around €600 in income from the rental. I do not consider that wealthy.
- torginus 4mo ago
  I would describe that as having invested in an appreciating asset (like stocks), and their main income comes from the gains of the property prices as they go up in value. Moreover, they leveraged themselves via loans to acquire income even faster. These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them. Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
carlosjobim 4mo ago
The original comment said "ultra wealthy".
bigstrat2003 4mo ago
You don't have to be especially wealthy to own a second house and rent it out. That isn't poor, certainly, but I wouldn't call it wealthy either.
smt88 4mo ago
> you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble My bubble of... not-ultra-wealthy people? Are you saying I need to talk to more ultra-wealthy people? This makes no sense.

tancop 4mo ago

im going to be controversial and say no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire. anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor (but not vice versa, you can work as a robber or corporate lobbyist). from line cooks to wall street ceos to open source volunteers and stay at home moms who dont get paid but still work. landlords and executives count because management is labor too. if your income comes from a trust fund or owning properties that you dont manage thats a passive reward for doing nothing. you are not productive. you are a parasite living on the back of everyone else and expecting indefinite rewards for a fixed amount of work you or your parents did years ago.

triceratops 4mo ago
What if you volunteer 30-40 hours a week but pay your bills with rental income? What's your position on that?
- 93po 3mo ago
  What if you dump toxic waste into a river to make money, but volunteer 30-40 hours a week? Does it make the dumping less unethical? The point isn't about doing labor, it's about not profiting off of other's labor or rent-seeking.
  - triceratops 3mo ago
    Rent-seeking is different from being a landlord. And I mean that in a "dictionary definition" way - they are literally different concepts. And we all "profit off of others' labor" when we buy things. I was responding to the person who said "anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor". According to them only retired people are allowed to live off investment income. But what if the thing someone labors at doesn't make them income, and they support themselves with investment income? They've satisfied OP's "be useful to society" dictum, so why is it so immoral for them to be a landlord.
    - 93po 3mo ago