• BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    cake
    OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    11 months ago

    The very idea of being a landlord is pretty evil though? Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.

    • TheSambassador@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      So while I generally agree with your sentiment, there are some obvious ways that sometime could be an ethical landlord.

      What if you have a house that’s too big, so you convert a floor into an apartment? You’re adding to the number of housing units available. Should you be forced to sell a portion of your house/building to whoever wants to live there? Or should you be able to rent it out to someone at a reasonable rate? Do we want rules that discourage people from potentially adding units to the market?

      I feel like the “all landlords are evil” narrative is way too simplistic, and that simplistic view turns off people who would otherwise support reasonable limits on landlords and housing ownership. Like, it’s obvious that we need limits and taxes on people who own multiple properties, and it’s obvious that there are companies that exploit renters and drive up prices, but it’s all more complicated than just “landlords evil lol”.

      • Mawks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        11 months ago

        I rent my property because it’s the only way I could’ve bought it at my age and I use that money to pay for the mortgage of it while I live somewhere I don’t want to (under parent’s wing in a crappy city) but angry people rarely if ever consider all scenarios

        • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          11 months ago

          Someone else is litteraly paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it otherwise. How out of touch do you have to be to say that with a straight face?

          • Mawks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            11 months ago

            Thanks for the insult and making my point, I can afford it but in my country you have to make a downpayment of 20% of the value and that ate into my savings, I want to recover some of my savings before moving to another city and eating into those savings more, plus I have to wait a year for my wife’s job, is it wrong to rent it for that year before I move?

            • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              How am I making your point? You litteraly said that you could not afford the place, so you rented it out instead.

              Someone is paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it, and then you will kick that person out when you want to. That person will then have to move again in a market that gets worse by the month.

              I’d say that is pretty bad all around.

              • Mawks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                11 months ago

                How can I not afford the place? This is just to make my life easier I would not artificially make it harder on me if I can rent it to some europeans that will stay on a sabatical in my country.

                What is my other choice? Leave the place abandoned for a year until I move? Prices get worse every year and I found a great opportunity to buy now instead of wait until I could buy it without a bank loan. Prices doubled because I waited so this time I don’t want to wait. My mortgage is 25% of my salary that’s not bad is it?

                • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  20
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You said that you rent the property you bought because that is the only way you could do it. That is litteraly your first sentence.

                  Someone else is paying your mortgage right now so that you can move in later.

                  I am not sure what else can be said.

                  • aikixd@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    12
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    No one is paying for his mortgage. Someone is paying for a rent. If you think this is bad, then rent should be outlawed.

                  • Mawks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    12
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Same not sure how I can explain myself better so let’s just disagree and move on

        • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          So you’re keeping home ownership away from someone who can afford to pay your mortgage is what you’re really saying.

          • aikixd@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            11 months ago

            How did you come to this conclusion? If someone is renting it means they they can’t pay for mortgage. Otherwise they would’ve done so. He said, that he needed to make a 20% payment to even get the mortgage. Idk how much money that was for him, but where I live that would be around 130k$. Clearly not everyone has that kind of cash.

            And what’s your solution? Disallow renting properties for which mortgage wasn’t posted in full?

            • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you buy it, live in it. Stop contributing to the housing crisis. Greed got us here, it certainly won’t get us out.

              • aikixd@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                So disallowing renting. So you don’t control your property, which means you don’t own it but lease it.

                This is problematic, since not being able to open your house is worse than having difficulties with obtaining it. I agree that generally having some people own a lot of housing units is bad, but not being able to own a house means communism. And not as a scare, but quite literally, as in definition.

                • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  If you buy it, live in it. That’s not communism, that’s taking control of a crisis. Feel free to rent out part of the house while you live in it, in fact some places are incentivizing exactly that. But owning multiple homes for profit is the problem, whether it’s by corporations or “mom and pop” landlords. It’s a problem we can and should fix.

    • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Your assuming everyone wants to own property over renting.

      House and property ownership has a lot of responsibility and expenses involved. Your water heater breaks well there is $1000+ your roof needs replacing there is 30K. All of that goes away when you rent as it isn’t your responsibility.

      If you own property it can be harder and more risky to relocate. I know a few people that bought in 2007 and then were stuck as they couldn’t afford to move because they were upsidedown on their house.

      Not saying renting is all sunshine and roses. I personally would rather own then rent but home ownership isn’t for everyone.

      But I do think it is a major problem when you have a few companies buying up all property so no one else can afford it. But I don’t think being a Landlord is inherently evil.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Threw down over 20k in fixes so far in our first year of homeownership, and due to interest rates and closing costs, we don’t really have the opportunity to move anywhere else without taking a significant financial hit.

        You bet it’s not for everyone.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah but you know what, you always have a home. It is very unlikely the bank will ever foreclose on you, they rarely do that, even in 2008 almost nobody lost their homes.

          But me, I lose my home on my landlords whim. At any given time I may have just 30 days to pack my life up and fuck off, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

          You have stable permanent shelter. Don’t undervalue that just because you have to maintain it.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Rights that allow me just 30 days to pack up and leave.

              Right now the news in my area is rife with “renovictions” and landlords kicking people to “move family in” but they never have to give any proof of those things. There is regulation, but there is no enforcement.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                That certainly sucks. Can you sue for wrongful eviction? I know that’s a thing where I’m at.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Definitely not undervaluing it, however it’s worth pointing out that 20k is over a years worth of rent for a similar property where I’m at.

            Are you renting month to month? Typically where I’m from you sign 1 year long rental agreements, so that is surprising to hear. Additionally, in some states, if the tenant has been living in a location for over a year, the owner has to give two months notice.

            At the end of the day, being financially locked down to a location vs having a “permanent” home, as well as having the opportunity to move wherever you want vs having no permanent home are two sides of the same coins.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              You don’t have the opportunity to move where you want when you’re paying 50% or more of your takehome on rent. As an owner you have way more opportunity because you have equity you can leverage if you want to move. Renters have no equity.

              It is the furthest thing from two sides of the same coin.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                That sounds like an income vs cost of living issue to me. It wouldn’t really be feasible to move until many, many years in if you were making mortgage payments of 50% or more of your takehome.

                Ngl in this imagined scenario where shelter is taking up 50% of your income, you’re kinda fucked regardless of renting or owning. There’s no way you’d be able to save enough money to replace the roof (25k?) Replace aging sewer pipes (9k to reline, maybe 15k to replace?) Or replace the windows (haven’t gotten quotes for this yet, but I’m dreading it). You’ll have to get financing for those fixes, so that’s even more interest.

                However if you get a better job elsewhere, it is far easier to take advantage of that opportunity if you rent.

                You have no equity when renting, but you also haven’t spent a cent on maintenance, and you don’t have to deal with closing costs, taxes, and whatnot.

                • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ngl in this imagined scenario where shelter is taking up 50% of your income

                  Imagined? Man, fuck you

                  • papertowels@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Again. This sounds like more of an income vs cost of living issue than a renting vs owning issue.

                    Shelter taking up more than half your take home income is a rough place to be. If that’s what you’re going through I hope you’re able to get into a better situation soon. Nothing much else to say, just the well wishes of a stranger on the Internet.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I actually recently learned about housing co-ops. Basically an apartment complex led by a committee of residents. It’s non profit high density housing, so you can buy a share (meaning rent an apartment) at much lower rates. As an example, in my area the co-ops are at 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of traditional rentals. The downside is, from what I hear, the folks managing the apartment complex can be even worse than an HOA if you’re unlucky.

          IMO this is the sustainable way forward for housing.

          • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Correct, but only one mountain can be climbed at a time. We have more reliable food sources than housing sources right now.

        • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          In a perfect world sure, government is fully funded and runs smoothly people care about the everyone etc… etc…

          But in reality I really would be very hesitant to want to live in that world. It is very scary to have a single organization control all your housing. At least with the way it currently is if you don’t like your landlord you can go somewhere else. If the government owns everything your kind of stuck dealing with the same organization no matter where you go. Governments are not immune to corruption and can screw you over even worse in some cases then an organization.

          In my opinion the best solution is many private citizens and small rental companies combined with government enforcing laws protecting both parties. However one big issues I am seeing is huge companies buy up everything in a small area and build a monopolies on rentals. That isn’t good either.

          • Nalivai
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Governments are not immune to corruptions, but in the democracy there are ways to influence the government. Private companies that buy all the property are doing the corruption by design, in this case it’s not even called corruption, it’s normal profit-driven business, it’s supposed to be like that. And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them

            • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them

              You influence them via your business and local laws. That is why I specifically mentioned that the best solution is having multiple small companies. If you have problems with one you go to another one. Just like what you do with any other company. Yeah it stuck to have to move but it is better move and get a better situation then be stuck in a bad situation.

        • Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You are basically insuring yourself against those expenses, which has a premium. If you are good with money and have a savings, you can afford not to pay that premium. Not everyone is in that position or smart enough with money. So many people are bad with money, that stuff really should be taught in school.

        • steltek@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          But you’re not researching, hiring, and scheduling a contractor to fix it. You don’t need to become an expert in long term planning and anticipate problems. You’re not mentally cataloging basic maintenance tasks like when you last painted the siding or mowed the lawn.

          Home ownership vs renting goes beyond equity and I know a lot of people who were happy renting because it gave them a huge chunk of free time back for trips, hobbies, etc.

    • grue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.

      Housing shortages are caused by bad government policy: namely, low-density zoning. Direct your anger towards the entity that deserves it, and make them fix their fuck-up.

      (Note: I’m not making some kind of Libertarian “all government is bad” argument here. I’m saying that in this specific case, the laws need to be changed.)

      • Nalivai
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        There is enough empty property to house every homeless person 30 times. Some of those empty property are summer houses and shit, but even then the problem isn’t the lack of housing, it’s treating homes as a mean to make money out of people’s basic needs. You can build the best walkable city in the world, but if it will be bought by professional landlords immediately it will not solve shit.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not everyone is able or willing to own their property, what would they do if landlords didn’t exist?

        • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          What if I build a house on a piece of land I own and want to rent it out?

          The second construction is completed I’m all of a sudden a scumbag for privatizing someone else’s right to shelter? Even though it’s a house I built on my land? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

            • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              As I stated in the very first sentence: to rent it out.

              I suppose your response will be “but renting it out is bad! We should make that illegal because you’re extracting wealth from the tenant!”

              Then I will say to you “fine, I suppose I will not build that house at all”

              This is how you get a take a housing shortage in the US and make it far, far worse.

          • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            You’re moving the goal posts here. Did you buy the land for the purpose of building property? Bad. Did you convert arable land into housing? Bad. Was it a rocky bad piece of land that you invested in to build something more out of it? Good. Housing policy isn’t binary but in most cases the current personal private multiownership model doesn’t help anyone. My perspective is no one should be allowed to own more than one house, and if so anything beyond the first house should be heavily taxed.

            • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Buying land for the purpose of building property is bad? I think any policy that discourages development of additional housing is probably not going to be great for house prices. Or if you’re handing out houses in a lottery system, it won’t be great for housing supply at least.

              • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’ll give you an example; my country has food insecurity, rich people take arable farmland and build suburbs on that land instead of infilling the city downtown which has single detached homes less than a kilometre from the centre of the city. Do you think that this is a good thing they’re buying this farmland for suburbs, or a bad thing?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          So they would still have a landlord it would be the government instead and people would be pissed when the government increases rent or throws people out because they’re destroying the place or not paying their rent…

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’d much prefer to have social housing than slumlords that want to make a profit on the rented space while also keeping the value of the building.

            • kbotc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              So, how does the government decide who gets beachfront property and who lives behind the power plant?

              • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                The same way that it works now? The unit is for rent, you take an appointment and the first person that qualifies get it.

                This is not the gotcha you think it is. What so different than the current system?

                  • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Because the government wouldn’t be trying to bleed every penny out of tenants just because they can.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Make it illegal to rent out property you don’t live on.

        If you want to rent out your basement, or build a seperate dwelling on your property then you are adding to the available housing and can rent that. Most people would rather build their own equity given the chance, and this would provide rentals for temporary living situations.

    • SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think everyone in your replies is conflating being a full time landlord and a part time landlord. One of them is definitely more evil than the other.

        • brick@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          My previous landlord was amazing. Dealt with every issue that arose in a timely fashion, never raised my rent (which was already very fair based on the location), and even installed central AC after my first kid was born since the house was old and could get pretty hot in the summers.

          And she wasn’t the only good landlord I’ve had.

          Sorry your experience has been bad with renting, and I agree that most landlords are terrible (I’ve had plenty of those as well), but just because you haven’t ever had a good landlord doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    • PM_ME_FEET_PICS@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The vast majority of landlords are normal people renting out a portion of the home they live in as well.

      What you are asking is that they should close those doors or have the rental be free? Either of those situations is bunk.

    • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      What’s the alternative here? Only letting big companies without any ethical regards rent housing?

      Sure, there’s a good argument to be made that housing is essential to survive and as such should be provided by the government, but that’s not the world we live in. In this society, it’s likely someone is going to have to rent it out and I’d rather it be a person who actually gives a shit and can be held responsible rather than some faceless corporation.

      • willeypete23@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Simple. Only individuals can buy single family homes. No renting of single family homes. And remove zoning restrictions to allow for more multifamily units.

        • WoodenBleachers@lemmy.basedcount.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Oh hoo hoo, when you talk about removing zoning restrictions things get hairy fast. The city of Houston has no zoning restrictions and from what I can tell (I’m not from there) some people love it and some people hate it. Apartments bring with it noise and generally clutter an area. You need nee infrastructure to manage an apartment, the tall place blocks the sun. Now if you’re in a city then you still have to think about where those apartments may be built. If they’re cheap and in a nice neighborhood then they’ll be snagged up so quickly. If they’re in a bad neighborhood then no one is going to want them. So what zoning restrictions would you recommend removing?

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Actually in my experience faceless corporations tend to follow the rules much more stringently.

    • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, certain corporate landlords, like Blackrock, is even. Most small-scale landlords are not inherently evil because they rent out their properties. Having a few is not “hoarding.”

    • state_electrician
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well, renting out property is the only way for most people to achieve some moderate wealth.

      • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        You should never achieve wealth by the oppression of someone else. Housing is a human right, not a salary.

        • WoodenBleachers@lemmy.basedcount.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Should farmers not make money? Healthcare workers? Mechanics? Bus drivers? You can argue that this should be socialized, but it is still a salary.

          • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I said achieve wealth. These people aren’t generating large amounts of personal wealth by withholding a basic human right from someone

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      11 months ago

      Where would people live then? Those don’t want to buy. Under the bridge?

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Best case scenario, rent is low and only covers taxes and building upkeep. Then you’re essentially getting a zero interest loan since property is valuable and it’s being loaned for free.

      • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
        cake
        OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Rent is obscene virtually everywhere. Rent should not preclude someone from saving money towards owning their own home, and it really does.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Also, the available, functionally livable land is going to quickly get smaller with climate change. So the more viable land is hoarded, the more people are pushed into desperate and bad living situations. (For example, who are the people with homes on coastlines affected by rising sea levels going to actually sell their soon-to-be-underwater property to? Won’t it effectively be valueless under water?)

          https://www.semafor.com/article/11/02/2022/climate-change-alters-way-of-life-in-michigans-upper-peninsula

          Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is being gentrified because it’s an area least likely to be affected by climate change. A lot of the mega-rich are buying property around that area.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I don’t disagree. Obscenely high rent is common and bad. That means the interest on the loan that you are getting is extremely high. The solutions would be subsiding it by government owned housing, allowing new housing (especially high density) to be built, and discouraging people from living in cities. I think we should do both the first two.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If the rent is covering the taxes and upkeep then the renter is paying it anyway through a middle man.

        If the rent isn’t covering costs then the landlord is bad at this and won’t be a landlord for long.

    • mke_geek@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      No it’s absolutely not. Your comment displays a complete ignorance of the business.

        • mke_geek@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not a scam. Not taking advantage of people. You’re just wrong on all accounts.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Wrong.

        I’d make a point, but you didn’t bother. Typical landlord unwilling to put in the work.

        • mke_geek@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          11 months ago

          Another person who doesn’t know what they’re talking about who is anti-business.

          • jaackf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m sure they’re not anti business, just anti exploitation

            • mke_geek@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well then it doesn’t make sense because being a landlord has nothing to do with exploitation.

              • jaackf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I mean, even the dictionary spells it out pretty clearly.

                “Explotation: The act of using someone unfairly for your own advantage”

              • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                it has everything to do with maximizing rents and minimizing costs at the expensive of the people living in those properties. There is a reason why there are rules about increasing rents and protests / laws against demovicitions.

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            What’s more pro-business than wanting the people doing all the work to get paid without the leech shareholders that contribute nothing taking all the incentive for that work?

          • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            what do you do as a landlord? Like when you come into work during your weird landlord schedule they always seem to have - what do you actually do?

            • mke_geek@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              Being a landlord means being self-employed. There’s no set 8-5 M-F schedule like there is when working in an office.

              It could mean meeting a contractor at 7:30am on a weekday or it could mean working on the weekend. Or staying at a property until 11pm painting to get it ready for a tenant.

              • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                There’s no set 8-5 M-F schedule like there is when working in an office.

                that’s why I mentioned the weird schedule they always have. My current one has some shit like Saturday 1 pm to 4 pm and then they don’t reopen until Tuesday at noon then are closed again on Wednesday. Like what the fuck.

                I never see my landlord doing shit like that. Just show people to new apartments usually.

                I work from home and look outside. I see people move in and move out all the time. I rarely see the guy in charge doing anything other than handing over some keys.

              • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                or it could mean owning cheap apartment complex and having a building manager take care of almost everything.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Purchasing something that there is a limited amount of in order to profit off someone else wanting it. Sure sounds the same to me…

            No, wait, they are different. Concert tickets are necessary for survival.

            • mke_geek@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              This is a textbook case of “I don’t understand that thing, so I’m going to irrationally fear and hate that thing”. Making a comparison of two things that are completely different displays that lack of understanding.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                This is a textbook example of “I can’t defend a thing, so I’m just going to say you’re wrong for disliking without offering any actual arguments for it.” Making no statements other than “No, your wrong!” Displays your lack of justification.