When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?
When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?
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?
You're viewing a single thread.
I'd say the only ethical way to be a residential landlord is if you are renting out the only house you own because you aren't in a position to use it as a house - say you've brought a house, but had to move somewhere for a few years for work and intend to move back at some point.
The moment you own 2 houses, you are profiting from a system that only works because of inelastic demand - you could have put your money into the stock market and made it do something productive, but instead you are collecting rent, making it harder for others to meet their own basic needs, and profiting from a speculative bubble
What about families that need a place but don't want to buy? Like if I'm getting a job in a new area and needed to move but know I'll be leaving in 1-5 years. I wouldn't want to deal with the paperwork. I wouldn't be mad to rent a house.
Ideally houses that aren't used by anyone would be cared for collectively, and would be free for anyone to use for as much time as they need it.
That assumes that housing is a human right, and that adequate housing exists with a small surplus in most societies (and considering there are more empty homes than there are homeless in the US right now, that would be a feasible thing to achieve were capitalism not creating intense conflicts of interests).
Real question, do we have a surplus if we take out community housing options like apartments? Would everyone be able to have their own house?
Dense community housing would still be optimal for cities and towns, especially if housing was a human right, as it's much more efficient and uses less resources. They would still exist as cooperative housing, where each tenant owns a share of the complex. Those already exist today quite successfully, they're just not the norm as it doesn't generate profit for a landlord or realestate investor.
Individual houses would likely still exist in the countryside, though I think it would be pethaps unreasonable to expect communal maintainence if they are remote, in which case it would likely just be up to the individual using it.
What's the difference between profiting from stocks or profiting from rent? Either way, I'm increasing my spending power
People need a place to live, they don't need stocks to live. By owning more properties than you need you are contributing to a scarcity and inflated pricing for a basic necessity.
If we lived in a dream where housing was somehow always provided, sure. But we don't. So what to all the people who don't have savings for a down payment do if the only option is to buy? Not live anywhere?
Your stocks do not deprive anyone else of an essential human need, while owning and renting out a house you do not personally use artificially deprives another of buying that house, which further raises housing prices, making an essential human need, an investment vehicle.
Using a different analogy, if you lived in an area with scarce water resources, but happened to purchase land with a particularly abundant spring, you could then profit handsomely by selling that water to the thirsty at an extremely high rate, exploiting the human need for water, and depriving those who cannot afford it in exchange for your own enrichment.
If you buy stocks, you’re essentially just hoping to find someone who is willing to pay more for the same thing. If you own property and rent it out, you’re providing a service to someone who needs it. In the latter case, you’re creating value.
As noted above, this isn't completely true. You can also buy stocks for dividends.
That is also true, but where’s the real world value you create by spending money on stocks? Does it bring any benefit to anyone other than you?
Rental income is just a dividend on a real estate investment. Even if you own the house you live in, you get that dividend in the form of not having to pay rent to a landlord.
Putting money in the stock market isn’t making it do something productive. It’s not like your average person is able to participate in IPOs and fund some new venture. If I buy shares of company, the company already got the money years ago; I’m just speculating that someone else will want to buy my shares for more in the future. And then if I buy stock in Shell Oil or United Healthcare, that’s pretty evil. But I also don’t have the time and skills to actively manage a portfolio to meet some bare minimum ethical standards.
I'm just speculating that someone else will want to buy
No, not entirely. Lots of companies pay dividends. Buy stock in those, and you're speculating that they'll continue to be profitable enough to pay dividends.
don't have the time and skills
I'm not sure I can agree on this point, either. The time, maybe. The skill? If you're skilled enough to use Lemmy, you're skilled enough to set up a brokerage account and click "buy" on whichever companies meet your criteria. It's not actually any more complicated than online banking IMO.
I mean, the technical buying and selling is easy but knowing what to buy and sell and how to time it isn’t obvious. Automatically buying low cost index funds is super easy and generally yields the best outcome for most consumer investors. Managing a balanced portfolio of B corps and the like without taking on too much risk and ending up broke is not trivial.
Also, dividends don’t change the fact that buying stock isn’t investing in a business. Buying stocks is giving the previous owner of the stock some money and maintaining or increasing the value of the stock which impacts executive compensation.