Reason I’m asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say “city” think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn’t seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I’m not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don’t overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.
I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don’t see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.
Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the “landlords are bad” sentinment?
Don’t take it personally, but landlordism is fundamentally parasitism. It’s a matter of fact that private property, whether it’s a townhouse or a factory, enables its owners to extract value from working people. If people personally resent landlords like your aunt, it’s probably not so much because that’s where the theory guides them as it is that almost everyone has had a bad experience with a landlord or knows someone who did. Landlords have earned a bad reputation.
“Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets.”
https://lifehacker.com/why-everyone-hates-landlords-now-1849100799
That said, I do think there need to be ways to rent housing rather than buy it, since many people need that flexibility. Looks like the answer to that might be community land trusts?
The answer you receive will vary based on which political ideology you ask.
I will answer from the perspective of an anarchist.
Your Aunt and her Husband are not committing the greatest of evils, but in the grand scheme of things, they’re a part of a bigger problem, one that they themselves would not even perceive, and in fact would have strong personal incentives not to grant legitimacy were it explained to them.
Anarchists, or libertarian socialists, are generally against the concept of private property in all forms. This is not to be confused with personal property, which are things you personally own and use, such as the house you live in, your car, your tools.
Private property is something you own to extract profit from simply by the act of owning it, and necessarily at the deprivation and exploitation of someone else.
By owning those townhomes that they themselves do not live in, they are able to exploit the absolute basic human requirement for shelter in an artificially restricted market, and thus acquire surplus value in a deal of unequal leverage.
You could argue they are justified due to offering below market rates, taking on the financial risk of owning and maintaining the property, and fronting the capital to own the investment.
But the issue is: their choice to become landlords is what in fact creates the conditions for which they can then offer solutions in order to claim moral justification.
For if we consider if landlordism were completely abolished, and people were only allowed to own homes they personally use, it would result in an insane amount of housing stock to flood the market, causing housing prices to plummet. This would in turn allow millions of lower income people to be able to afford a home and pay it off quickly, allowing them to actually build wealth for the first time instead of most of it going to pay off rent (remember, your aunt charging below market is the exception, not the norm).
Most humans would much rather pay off a small mortgage on a non-inflated home themselves, instead of paying off someone else’s artifically inflated mortgage and then some.
But that’s all assuming we have a housing market still. In an ideal Anarchist society, housing would be a human right, and every human would have access to basic shelter and necessities of life, like was enacted for a short time in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.
(remember, your aunt charging below market is the exception, not the norm)
Isn’t this definitionally true? The norm, by definition, is the market rate.
Yes, and charging below that would be a deviation from the norm.
It’s shades of gray. A company that rents out millions of houses is millions times worse than your aunt. Your aunt is still contributing to unaffordable housing and keeping 2-3 families from permanent housing. How bad she is is up for debate and I for one don’t care to debate that. Being upset about people like your aunt is pointless when we should be insanely angry about corporate mass homeownership.
Landlordism is parasitic. The point of Leftism isn’t to attack individuals, but structures, and replace them with better ones. Trying to morally justify singular landlords ignores the key of the Leftist critique and simplifies it to sloganeering.
Thank you! Nicely put. The problem isn’t people like your aunt, its massive shareholder-controlled investemet machines that own thousands or even millions of homes. Your aunt probably knows eafh renter by name - there can exist a personal relationship. There’s two things limiting your aunt becoming a money-hungry antisocial ghoul:
- raising the rent is a relatively large amount of work for relatively small of a reward. If she raises rent she has to write these 4-5 renters a letter explaining why she has to increase it. Those renters might disagree, have objections, ask for reasons and proofs (like the central heating bill or maintanance costs etc). If she raises the rent by lets say 2% it’s 2% of not that much money (with her single digit number if houses).
- she is raising the rent on people she knows. She is taking money away from people she even may like - have a personal relationship with.
So increasing rent is a lot of hassle and her renters might like her less after that - which might be a factor.
Now lets think of the hugr real estate company. They have thousands of renters and maybe hundreds of employees. They have lawyers employed. If they raise rent by 2% they have to send thousands of letters. But these letters are sent by people whose job it is to do so. Tyey can calculate in advance that from their renters X% will just accept the nrew rent, Y% will require some manouvering, Z% might move out and so on. They can estimate the cost of raising rent pretty well based on experience and compare to the profits they make. And with thousands of apartmants 2% is a lot of profit. The employees have no relationship to the thousands of renters. Renters are just numbers anyway. Everything is much more efficient. Also: Shareholders. They demand profits and dont’t care how. They care even less aboht the renters. They demand more profit and will just say “make it happen”. If thr ceo doesn’t raise profits - with whatever means necessary - the shareholders will replace the ceo.
The soltion IMHO would be some progressive tax That makes it basically unprofitable to have more than 10 apartments. And to prevent legal entities owning other legal entities owning apartments in order to circumvent this. If there exists (and can reasonable exist) a personal relationship between landlord and renter everything is alright in my opinion. People usually are not animals to eaxh other if they know eaxh other personal.
And to prevent legal entities owning other legal entities owning apartments
This is one huge issue I have with our current end stage capitalistic system. If corporations are “people” then how can they own other corporations, which are also “people” right?
If shareholders want to own shares in multiple companies, they can still do that.
Ideologies tend to sort people into a limited number of overly simplistic categories. This makes theorising easier but applying it to reality much harder.
Very few people could live in a capitalist system and remain pure. e.g. My pension fund is invested in the stock market so I very partially own thousands of companies. I’ve also purchased a small amount of shares in selected companies, a situation I had more agency in creating. Sometimes I subcontract work to other contractors who function as my temporary employees. And so on.
Is there an ethical way to try and ensure that I will have food, shelter and medical care as I age? In the US we can’t depend on the government safety net. Everyone isn’t as able in their 60’s and 70’s as they were in their 30’s and 40’s, so assuming that I’ll be able to work and make a reasonable income the rest of my life is wildly optimistic. Anyone working at a job for 30+ years shouldn’t be stressed about survival but that’s not reality. Putting money in a savings account at a credit union is good but I don’t think that will move the needle. Any decent pension or retirement plan is gonna put money in the stock market. Even with passive investing in index funds, you’re on of the stock holders that fucks like that UHC CEO was trying to appease. Given the state of the economy in the US today, buying and renting a duplex, triplex or small apartment building might be less evil than owning random stocks.
I would argue that nobody should own a home they don’t actually live in. All renting out does is increase the housing cost overall because nobody would ever operate at a loss or to break even. This is the issue people have with say, Blackrock who buys hundreds of homes at a time and rents them out.
Your family aren’t bad people but the business they decided to take up is inherently bad by design. If the law changed tomorrow saying all multi homes must sell to non homeowners, everyone would watch prices drop and be able to afford it.
Using homes as an investment is at its basics, exploiting a need by interpreting it as a want or practical goods. Homes are for living in. The housing industry views homes like commodities as if people have a wide choice and selection when it’s really “Omg we can afford this one that popped up randomly, we have 12 hours to decide if we want to pay 50k more to beat others away” and then lose anyway after bidding to Blackrock who pays 100k over asking.
Homeowners also treat their home as an investment. Which also makes housing more expensive and inaccessible. Moving away from renting is not the solution, we need a more comprehensive change in the system.
The context here is quite different; in other words, you got an apples vs oranges issue here. A single home owner does not expect to profit from that investment; the increase in value is more of an insurance than anything (mortgages are taken out to cover emergencies, or the increase in value provides the means to move to a new home, etc). So, again, the context is extremely different.
Besides, if the expected inflation in value were the issue, shouldn’t I expect increased wages to make up the difference? I.e. no, that would not contribute to making the housing market too expensive for the average person to find accessible.
A single home owner does not expect to profit from that investment
What are you talking about? People definitely buy homes as an investment so that they can sell it and retire.
increase in value provides the means to move to a new home
What is this, if not profiting off an investment?
What are you talking about? People definitely buy homes as an investment so that they can sell it and retire.
That’s insurance. The “profit” goal is not to rent seek or enrich themselves. And in this market it’s a risky gamble, anyways.
If the so called profit is intended to be entirely consumed to take care of moving or retiring, it’s insurance to allow you to move or retire; it’s not profit you add to your income. It’s not even properly described as “profit” since it’s, by definition, unrealized gains.
These are not circumstances where you “cash out” and buy something fancy, or even pay your day to day bills. Context matters.
it is not possible to have a property as an investment, without screwing someone else over. So yeah, her too.
The landlord charges enough in monthly rent to cover mortgage, house maintenance, and provide profit. So the argument about it being a service to tenants is BS as the tenant could afford this on their own.
Landlords rely on the credit system for denial and cost of entry into property ownership to exploit tenants.
Houses aren’t investments, so yes.
Treating a basic human need as an investment is, and has always been, abhorrent. It has royally fucked over economics as a whole by making people’s retirement funds dependent on housing costs going up infinitely.
Landlords being parasites isn’t even a leftist sentiment, it’s common sense. Here’s Adam Smith:
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
They are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind"
Unless your aunt is transferring equity in those homes to the tenants based on the amount they pay in rent, then yes, she’s a leech. “Providing shelter” isn’t the service your aunt is providing; she’s just preventing someone else from owning a home.
And before anyone says “but renting is all some people can afford, they can’t save up enough to make a down payment” - yes, sure, that’s true. But that’s a symptom of the shitty housing market (really the shitty state of the middle class in general*), and landlords aren’t making it any better by hoarding property, even if it’s “just” 3 to 5 townhomes.
People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them. Until someone comes along to create government housing or whatever, this is the best we can offer as an individual.
On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?
People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.
On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?
If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.
But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.
If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.
That’s a rather arbitrary rule. You would still need a bunch of stipulations on top of that to make sure it’s fair to the renter.
Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?
Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right? My definition of parasitic requires being a net negative to the “host”. The threshold between parasitic and non-parasitic is at net neutral for both parties, and we’re discussing where that line is.
But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.
Right, because the system is broken.
That’s a rather arbitrary rule.
It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.
Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?
At the end of your lease, if you choose not to renew, you still have equity in a property which is worth something, rather than ending up with nothing in the current system.
Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right?
The relationship between a landlord (parasite) and a renter (host) is absolutely a net negative for the renter*, because at the termination of the relationship, the landlord ends up with much more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).
Right, because the system is broken.
Exactly. So what’s not to understand? A broken system means problems exist, and you can do things to compensate for those problems. Things that provide value to others. Now, we can go into what it means to “need” something and whether we ever actually “need” anything, but that’s a whole other discussion and not the one we’re here to have. In this context, “someone needs to do X” means that doing X provides value to someone else.
It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.
Co-ownership refers to the ownership structure, doesn’t it? I’m talking about the threshold you proposed for the landlord-tenant relationship to not be parasitic.
the landlord ends up with more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).
And I’m saying it doesn’t have to be that way. Do we at least agree that if the landlords sets the rent at $1/month, then the transaction will be to the benefit of the tenant? And if you set it to market rates, then it benefits the landlord. There exists some middle ground between $1/month and market rates where it’s a net neutral.
Do we at least agree that if the landlords sets the rent at $1/month, then the transaction will be to the benefit of the tenant?
No. A tenant never gains anything once the terms of the lease expire. The property owner is the only one that gains, as long as the price of rent is a positive number.
once the terms of the lease expire
I feel like this is the main point of contention. No, you’re left with no new physical assets after spending that $1. But why is that a problem? Not everything is about physical possessions. If you purchase a meal and eat it, you’re left with nothing at the end of the meal. If you pay someone to move an old couch out of your home, then you’re left with nothing after they’re done. If you pay a taxi to drive you home, you’ve again gained nothing physical at the end of the transaction. But in all these cases, you’ve gained something, or else you wouldn’t spend your money there.
When you pay a landlord for shelter, you’ve exchanged some sum of money so that you’re protected from the elements and live to see the next day. Similar to buying a meal and eating it.
You are incorrect. The service is providing someone a home if they don’t want to own their own or if they don’t have the financial means to do so
No landlords hoard property. The property is used by people.
No landlords hoard property.
Fine, landlords hoard property ownership.
The property is used by people.
As long as the landlord permits it, and as long as the landlord gets their premium.
Landlords profit off of permitting people access to shelter, a basic right that any human should be entitled to. It’s literally modern day feudalism.
No, landlords earn money by providing a service. Properties don’t maintain themselves.
Taking away the opportunity of home ownership is not a service.
So let’s say a landlord sells their property and somebody else buys it to live in.
Where do the original renters live now?
Or in a rental property, who is paying to maintain it if the landlord is not charging above their mortgage costs?
Or why would a landlord take on the risk of loaning an expensive asset to somebody at cost knowing they may not get paid? Or the boiler stops working and they have to spend thousands fixing it without any risk to the tenant?
If their rent went toward equity in the home they were renting, when the landlord sells, an equitable portion of the cash made during the sale would go to the renters. Ideally, the renters could then use that nest egg of cash to put a down payment on a home.
If a person is paying money for access to and upkeep of a particular home, I think it’s very fair for them to build equity in that home proportional to what they pay in rent. If landlords find that too risky or not lucrative enough, well, they don’t have to be landlords.
So let’s say the landlords don’t want to do this and sell up, or at least try to… who can afford to buy now? Yes the prices will come down but that doesn’t remove the need for a deposit/downpayment - yes that will be smaller but how is somebody going to save that money still? Where do they live while doing that? That is still the biggest problem… the UK does have a help to buy scheme where the government owns part of your property (acts as deposit) and you pay the mortgage on the rest, but you also pay some rent to the government for their share.
The whole system needs overhauling to make it work these changes alone won’t sort it out.
That’s not what rental property owners do. They provide housing, not take it away.
Builders provide housing. Landlords are nothing more than a middle man.
Builders build housing. Then they sell it. Rental property owners provide housing.
Renters hoard property rentership.
You have to actually consider what the other person is saying if you want to have a productive conversation. Being snarky or just responding with memes and cliches only distracts from the point being made.
What is a person who made good (or lucky) decisions and made enough money to be comfortable in the present but not so much to retire supposed to do with their money?
Give it to you instead?
Sure, billionaires and X00 millionaires don’t need to exist, but so far as I can tell “leftists” are a .ml / tankie crab bucket. Fuck me for having more money than you but not enough to take the homeless off the street as is my obligation. Please tell me how to keep leftist virtue so I can have ~30 upvotes to retire on.
I don’t understand. You think the only two things one can do with excess money is buy real estate, or give that excess to me? I’m flattered to be sure, but there’s a whole lot of other options out there
She should kick out her tenants and then rotate living between all 3 properties, thereby no longer being a leech.
I agree, there are lots of options. I’m asking you for the leftist allowable top list.
If I put it in the stock market and make money for nothing, I’m a parasite. If I buy a vacation house and rent it the other 2/3 of a year I’m not using it, I’m a parasite. If I save it and suddenly accrue more than some magic limit, then someone is on the street and I don’t liquidate to them I’m a Taylor Swift parasite.
So I’m asking you: What am I allowed to do with extra money above and beyond what I need to survive the winter, pay for my healthcare, and house myself and my family? 🤔
I’ll let you know after the next leftist meeting lmao.
Real talk though, save it, donate it, or spend it. Burn it for all I care. Just don’t buy real estate you don’t plan on living in.
Do you agree with my spending assessments? I don’t think it’s quite so cut and dry as you’re laying out
I appreciate that there is not an annual meeting of all leftists, and I honestly consider myself a lefty except for this weird fetishisation of how money can be spent by middle class people. It’s nonsense.
I think your spending assessments are exaggerated for effect, but ultimately sort of the embodiment of “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, a leftist slogan that, while maybe oversimplified, I mostly agree with.
I’m not fetishizing anything though. I’m just saying it’s unethical to profit off of your ability to deny access to a basic human need.
I wasn’t exaggerating anything except the bank account limit.
There are plenty of locations where owning an extra residence is not denying a basic human need, and more to the point there is a level of “wealth” that is basically the whole run of 6 figures to 7 figures where you probably can’t retire, you can cover college for kids, and you’re on board with most leftist concepts. On that train yeah it does sometimes make sense to buy property. I hope one day to afford something like that. But I refuse to see a place that is mostly safe to park money while the next president lights stuff in fire to put me on the same level as rental companies buying every property on the market.
It’s not nice to call people leeches, esp. if you really don’t know anything about them.
If you make a profit for allowing another person shelter (particularly if you don’t need that space for yourself and/or your own family), then you are a parasite.
A bit of a hyperbole, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s say there is a house and no one can afford it but me. If I don’t buy it and rent it, no one can live in it. What would be the right thing to do?
Reduce the price of the house
The market determines the price. If no one can afford it the price is too high.
I take umbrage with the hypothetical itself. Do you believe that buying the property and renting it out is the only possible solution here?
The “right thing” would be to not have a situation like that in the first place where only one person (or one small group of people) can afford to own the roof over their head.
But, obviously, an option you’re neglecting here, is letting people live in the property without paying rent. Nobody is forcing you to make a profit off people’s basic needs for survival.
I your Aunt and Uncle are probably lovely people. They’re trying to survive in the same system we’re all stuck in.
Ask yourself this, who is paying the mortgage on those properties? If the renters can afford the rent, they can afford the mortgage and then some. Your aunt and uncle, and all landlords, are collecting a premium on housing, what do they actually provide? If they’re trying to save for retirement, by renting homes, who’s actually paying for their retirement? Will those people be about to afford to retire if they’re spending so much on rent? They’ll end up with nothing when they leave. Your aunt and uncle will still have 3 to 5 extra properties.
They own suburban townhomes, in some cases you find a renter who’d rather not own a home. In most cases, the market has progressed to a point where home ownership is impossible because people are hoarding homes and withholding access for rent.
It’s an unethical system. Your aunt and uncle are small line landlords and a symptom of a larger problem. They’re participating in an unethical system to gain an advantage, and it’s hard to blame them for that. That doesn’t make it ethical, or good.
Jefferson said he “participated in a broken system that he hated.” In reference to slavery. He actively tried to reform that system and was rebuffed. He’s still seen as a slave holding landed gentry today, and it remains a black spot on his (admittedly spotty) legacy. How are the people who owned 3 to 5 slaves different from those who owned 50? How are they compared to those who could afford and benefit to own slaves, and still advocated for abolition?
I lost my original comment I was typing as my device died so I’ll keep it short. Your aunt extracts money from people on the basis of owning private property (private property is property that is owned by an individual for non-personal use). She doesn’t earn the money through her own labour, she gets it by owning an asset that she herself has no use for and someone else needs and charges that person for using it. This is a parasitic relationship. Now to answer your question about if she is a bad person because of it, I would say not necessarily. The fact that landlords exist is a bad thing. We live in a system however where investment in private property (something inherently parasitic) is often the only way to retire. Every working Australian is required by law to invest a portion of their pay into an investment fund. This too is parasitic. That doesn’t however make every working Australian a bad person, they are just working within the system and doing what is required of them to live. Another thing to keep in mind is that for every house that is owned as an investment property, the price to buy a house goes up. By being a landlord, you make it harder for others to own a home.
