anothernobody@lemmy.world
on 03 Sep 12:55
nextcollapse
Depends on how greedy you are.
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Sep 13:02
nextcollapse
You are part of the society. You cannot escape it.
It’s not because you own property (which, if you can, is a wise investment) that you can’t see how messed up the system is at the expense of the working poor.
Absolute copium. Yes seeing a problem and choosing to contribute to it is bad. Perhaps worse than being an ignorant contributor.
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Sep 17:26
nextcollapse
You can’t live outside the system, love it or hate it. I don’t blame people more fortunate for making good decisions. I do blame them for not recognizing the system is shit and bragging they’re better when the tables are tilted.
If we are to make the system better, we need a big coalition, and personally I applaud people like OP that can at least see reality for what is is.
First, having rentals available is a necessity. There are plenty of people who simply do not want the responsibility, or need the flexibility to move more easily than owning allows for (like university students and people moving around for jobs). If rental units are needed, someone has to be a landlord to provide that.
Second, choosing to significantly impact your own own life because of country-wide problems is heroic, but fucking useless. The change in this space will not come from all landlords all choosing to be better people. That’s never going to happen, and if you think that’s an option you’re the one being ignorant. The only realistic way this housing situation changes is if the laws change, and the laws change when voters pick politicians who will change them.
The only time this person is a hypocrite is if they say they want to fix the problem, but then do not vote for the person who will fix it.
An addition to this statement as well. People always seem to find renting and owning as two polar opposites, but this doesn’t have to be the case. A landlord can also do something called rent to own, car dealerships do the same. It’s where you can rent for as long as you want, and it is known up front that the rent payments partially contribute towards the cost of the loan, eventually the amount paid via rental is equal to the market value(plus usually whatever the landlord stated they wanted their profit of it being) or a big enough prepayment to be able to afford an actual loan or full payment on it, and at that point the deed/title is transferred over to the renters(or the loan company if they went that route). It’s an alternative to getting a mortgage, and it benefits both parties because the renter could decide to leave any time (once their current lease expires or unless stated otherwise) and the landlord is still getting their profits (and in many cases a higher profit due to the way it works). Generally speaking with these types of agreements though, the rental cost is higher than others to make up for the downpayment as well.
That’s not really an in-between, You’re still a renter and usually get no benefit if you fail to reach the specific criteria in the allotted time. It really doesn’t solve anything other than issues with credit scores or available down payments.
It helps you when you are not sure if you want the building or not though, since it lets you start the process without locking yourself into a long term commitment. Additionally not all rent to own have a specific timeframe to pay it. Many are just cumulative and can be bailed whenever the leases run out, and the only thing the renter is out of is the extra money paid.
Okay buddy imma just go around murdering people. Which is fine and morally correct because I vote anti murder. And yes, me murdering people and then voting “don’t murder” isn’t hypocritical.
At the time, yes, trying to run a commercial farm without slaves while you tried to get the laws changed would have been completely reasonable.
Morality is not absolute, its situational and relative. Applying modern morals to judge the past is an effort in stupidity.
“I wouldn’t have done that” yes you definitely would have, because you would have been raised to do that.
There are things you do today that future generations will judge you as immoral for doing that you think are perfectly fine.
Do you think eating animals is acceptable? Future generations may think you just as barbaric for allowing that as you think people were for allowing human slaves. Or maybe they’re fine with eating meat, but they will think you barbaric for allowing paid healthcare to exist and people to suffer because they’re poor.
laws have nothing to do with morality. laws protect the powerful and the at social institutions that made them powerful. the fact that private property laws exist means powerful people depend on private property to maintain power.
Morality is determined by society. Society has not agreed that being a landlord is immoral.
Very few people want to eliminate rentals altogether. You can go look at polls, even the polls where you find the most support for restrictions only want secondary rental homes to be taxed higher.
can you tell me what ethical system says morality determined by society? it’s been a few years since my philosophy degree, and it wasn’t specialized in ethics, but I seem to remember moral relativism as being universally appalling.
so you’re saying it’s just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn’t actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.
I think it’s one thing to not be willing to go live as a hermit to avoid unethical consumption and another thing to simply… not participate in rent seeking behavior like this.
Hm I’d say not necessarily.
That depends on your situation I guess. The question comes down to “would you give up your property for other people to live in?”
If you own 1-2 small properties, that’s not being a greedy landlord. And it would make it possible for you to give people housing they could afford (while still profitable for you, if you needed it to be).
If you charge insane rents, then you’re not only a hypocrite but maybe also schizophrenic. That just sounds like a disconnect.
But it’s very possible to “change the system from within”, even if that’s not my political opinion. If you can buy property, maybe you should. And then rent it to people for an affordable price.
I’m sometimes thinking people should get together and buy mansions to convert into shelters
I think it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation.
Did you buy a single family home / house that you’re living in, and renting out part of to help pay your mortgage? Then it depends on the rent you charge.
If you charge market rates and you can afford to charge less than market rates, or if you hire contractors and maintenance people for the unit that are cheaper / worse than the ones you use for your own unit, then yes, you are being exploitative and hypocritical.
If, however, you treat the unit like your own and charge below market rates then no, you’re not.
If you build an addition on your house, or build a laneway house or something, then it’s more reasonable to charge market rates for rent because you’ve actually added new housing to the area, an act that in itself should help to slightly drop rents. Same thing if you buy vacant property and build rental units on it. However, if you continue charging the most you possibly can long after you’ve made your money back then you’re back into the territory of being an exploitative hypocrite.
And if you’re just in a hot market and buying up houses / condos, and renting them back to people as is, or just doing the cheapest and shittiest job you can turning them into apartments, then yes you are being a hypocrite. At that point you’re just using your capital to buy up a limited quantity item and sell it back to people at exploitative rates. It would be like being stranded in the desert and buying up the remaining water and then selling it back to people for a profit. You’re providing no value to society, just using past success to force people into a corner where they have to pay you for a necessity that’s in limited supply.
Yes. Housing is a necessity. It’s not a way to gain financial freedom or security. Anyone that participates in the system of commodifying a need in any capacity is a greedy and awful person. You can’t be for affordable housing while also having some poor person paying your mortgage and shrugging that “this is just how it is”.
In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.
Your assumption that our government is somehow not for profit is the flaw here. “Someone has to own it” why not a person? Why do people have to pay for shelter?
That’s not my assumption. I know people that only want to rent, they don’t want to own. In that worldview someone owns it.
In regards to paying for shelter, unless you get rid of money, things have to be maintained, that costs money, and someone has to be paid to fix it, even if it’s the government paying a contractor.
The government doesn’t like owning things that require enormous amounts of maintenance. It’s a liability, because they can’t then focus efforts on actually serving their citizens. So if the government is already going to pay someone to maintain buildings, it’s better to not own the buildings and instead regulate in a manner than serves everyone.
That means there will still be landlords. There are still people that want to rent, the government doesn’t like owning buildings, so there will still be people owning and renting their places out.
If renting didn’t exist you think people would choose it? If every person was given a spot of land and a small home at like 18, you really think they’d be like “no thank you I want to never be secure in the knowledge that I have a safe place to live until my death”? Capitalism has really done a number on you. Plus your belief that the government focuses on serving it’s citizens is just laughably insane. I’d wager you own property you rent out.
I know people (including myself who actually owns a house) who would love to (or already do) travel the world. Buying and selling houses in every location you travel would be a hindrance not a help.
There is no black and white, this is an ethics discussion, there are shades of gray for everything. Just because you want to stay in one location and never move doesn’t mean others want what you want.
Edit: adjusted sentence to make it easier to understand
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Sep 21:41
collapse
I know people that only want to rent, they don’t want to own.
you say this as if most people would be like that. whereas most people don’t want to travel all the time, for most that wouldn’t even be possible because of their job, most just want a place to live, and feudalists are taking advantage of (and contributing to) prohibitively expensive housing prices
you say this as if most people would be like that. whereas most people don’t want to travel all the time
I do not, I say it because it has to be involved in any discussion of ethics. It isn’t a binary problem. There are shades of gray to everything, which people hate talking about.
I know many people that like renting because they want to move every few months or years. Their job affords it (which any reasonable nation also allows), they work remote, or they’re mobile, etc.
Acting like everything is black and white when it literally never is is making it impossible to have actually discussions that enact change.
Wouldn’t you like to travel the world and see the sights? Would you want to have to buy a house and sell your old one every single time you changed countries? I think not.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Sep 04:07
collapse
where did I imply it is black and white? I did not say that there are no people who reasonably want to rent, of course there are.
but I’m pretty sure that it’s not even half the people.
the problem is not that people who want to rent can’t, they have plenty of options! but that people who specifically dont want to rent, very often does not have amy other choice.
buying a house for a family comes with a lifelong loan, with all the aid possible, and buying a house as an individual or as a couple is just not possible anymore where I live. unless you have an exceptionally high salary. even just buying an empty parcel or one where there’s only a house so bad it needs to be demolished costs so much, if there’s a habitable house the bank won’t even give a loan.
Wouldn’t you like to travel the world and see the sights? Would you want to have to buy a house and sell your old one every single time you changed countries? I think not.
I want to travel, but not through all my life. maybe move to another country if that becomes reachable. but you shouldn’t assume the majority wants to move that often.
The top comment I replied to stated that this was a black and white issue. Either you are a landlord and that’s unethical or you’re not and it’s ethical. You seem to have taken this conversation in a completely different direction. It is solely about whether you can be a landlord ethically.
I also did not assume the majority want to do anything.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
on 03 Sep 13:34
nextcollapse
If you’re arguing for a particular public policy, then it’s not necessarily hypocritical (which isn’t to say it’s good).
If you’re arguing for social change based on personal behavior, then you should lead by example.
I’d say if they are solely an investment, then yes you are part of the problem. Because you expect a return on your investment and so inherently rent has to be increased to generate the necessary profits.
If you’d live in a house that has more room than you need and rent these out that’s fine in my book.
But possession solely for profit is one of the main problems of our current economic system.
Yes. That is, if you’re actively hurting the availability of affordable housing, that would be hypocrisy. Your economic interests are at odds with your stated ethical stance, which means your ethical stance is unstable.
Owning the property is not the problem: Rent-seeking is. Running it as a managed coöp would be the ethical path forward in that situation.
But if you’re advocating for changing the system there is nothing hypocritical about owning it since your impact is a drop in the bucket. In order to make changes you need power and power comes from wealth.
I’d say that you’re unlikely extract enough wealth to make a difference in the large scale, but you absolutely have enough power to make an immediate difference for however many people can live in your building.
That’s the problem with consequentialism: A certain evil now for a possible good later. I don’t agree with that.
lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world
on 03 Sep 14:11
nextcollapse
I would make the argument that it could actually be a means to align with affordable housing (although that would likely be very difficult in this current housing market). Managing a property is a service, you have to manage vacancies, repairs, rent collection, etc.
If you don’t offload this to a management company and do it all yourself it is technically feasible to make a profit from the labor of managing the property even when charging below market rate for the property (difficult to do right now, but after owning the property for a period of time definitely possible).
If you were to do this you would be directly combatting the affordable housing problem by introducing competition at a lower price (it would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be fighting for affordable housing).
If the property is giving you any kind of return, you’re extracting profit, so the property is less “affordable” than it would be if the resident owned it.
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
on 04 Sep 06:06
nextcollapse
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Most people can’t buy a property, because they don’t have enough money. In order to go around that problem, they either borrow money or rent the property. Either way, some extra money always goes somewhere.
Some of it is justified, because you need to go around the problem not having enough money to buy a house. However, there are many cases where that extra expense is absolutely wild and rooted in greed.
Actually, if you happen to own the property, some extra money will go to periodic maintenance and miscellaneous expenses you never even think of if you just rent the place. You just don’t pay for those things every month a little bit at a time. Instead, you pay a large bill once a year or an enormous bill every 10 years.
I’ve been a landlord and I know how it works. The liquidity problem you mention is real, but so is rent seeking. Landlords may help make housing available, but they absolutely do not help make it affordable. Quite the opposite.
Think about payday loans services. They help make money more available, but they make it as expensive as they can. No one believes they are providing a valued service at affordable. rates.
It’s possible to offer loans and rental housing at really reasonable rates, but that’s not what we have in our society. Investors and the wealthy buy up all the property, creating scarcity, this causes a price bubble which shuts out many buyers who get priced out. Then the renting begins, and I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but I couldn’t afford to rent the house I own.
Not everyone is in a position to be buying a house at any given time, though. Providing housing at a less-than-the-very-top-of-the-market-value is still a necessary service that can benefit both parties.
The issue is the hoarding of that resource in certain areas, and the psuedo/full-on price fixing to max out returns
It’s true that it everyone is in a cash position to buy a house, but that’s made worse by housing being so expensive. And housing is expensive in part because of the hoarding and rent-seeking behaviors of landlords and investors. So renting is a “solution” to a problem it partly makes itself.
If people don’t have cash to buy houses, I’d look at that as a problem for lenders. Someone else renting out the house doesn’t necessarily have to be the only solution. I don’t think it’s possible to eliminate renting because we need some very flexible housing / short term housing.
But if we imagine a world where renting is incredibly restricted, perhaps to 4-unit apartments and up, instead of every single residence on the market, I think we would see a more affordable market where more people COULD be in a position to buy a house.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
on 04 Sep 17:05
nextcollapse
There are other scenarios besides “not being able to afford to buy” that would make people lean towards renting.
Yeah, that’s why I said we need flexible and short term housing. The trick is to make renting serve the needs of renters, because those needs do exist. Today it’s more about serving the profit margin of owners.
When I rented out my property, for example, I felt it was my responsibility, my job, to offer a residence where everything worked. I maintained the place meticulously and paid for every repair. However if you simply scan reddit you’ll see thousands of posts from renters who, for example, have a broken down refrigerator and will have to pay to fix it themselves. I find that disgusting - the landlord holds the renter responsible for anything that happens while they are there. So the landlord gets their monthly debt service paid for by the rent, plus profit, plus they enjoy to market appreciation, PLUS the renter is on the hook for all maintenance? Fuck that.
vurt_konnegut@lemmy.world
on 05 Sep 12:06
collapse
Interest rates are more of a significant variable. At 7%+ interest, renting will be cheaper.
Methinks it is only not hypocritical under a few circumstances:
I am renting a place myself and simultaneously leasing out my otherwise primary residence
The property is my primary residence and is not oversized (so no buying a duplex and renting out one), but I rent out parts of it for roommates/traditional BnBs
Unique property ownership situations that shouldn’t last longer than 6 months (maybe I’m downsizing, maybe house swapping… Not sure)
Any other condition is in principle hypocritical… Although there is probably still a massive moral difference between someone with a severe disability who owns a few rentals to pay for bills vs a professional investor who systematically prices out locals to improve profit margins
What if you think affordable housing should be government subsidized? Or as is the case in many places, below market priced units that the builder is required to include, with limits on how they are used (income qualifications and owner occupation).
Neither of those requires you not to rent to other people. It would be like saying I'm for mental health services being paid for by the government but running a psychiatric business.
On this… I did read a prior research work suggesting that US government should use subsidy/housing vouchers in private markets instead of public housing construction; this way it helps with creating affordable housing while avoiding risks of defunding public housing projects due to political changes. I’m not sure if the findings of that work apply to other countries or if the author was mainly thinking about US
I guess I was thinking more about my personal morals. In terms of actual implementation, I do think you’re correct that the goal of “affordable housing for everyone” can be done even in a completely private housing market, as long as the market is well-managed with abundant supply (so no shortages, no institutional landlords maximizing profits at 91% occupancy instead of 100%, etc)
If you say that "look at how much money I'm making, tax me harder daddy" it's another.
That is a bad thing for affordable housing. For affordable housing you need profits from investment property just enough to be worth doing. Any taxes a property owner pays needs to come from the rent they charge so high taxes mean they are charging more rent to cover it. So if taxes are high that means that rents are higher than they could be. You should get rich - to the extent you do - in property ownership by owning a lot of property for a long time, not charging high rents.
For many people owning their own housing is the wrong decision. That means somebody else needs to own their housing and that person may as well be you (depending of course on your situation - it isn't for everyone)
I don’t like fighting… in the spouse attractive? Maybe we could work this out. I prefer little spoon.
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 19:55
collapse
That you’ll have to fight me for, she’s simply too wonderful to put into words. Plus little spoon is my spot.
OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network
on 03 Sep 21:19
nextcollapse
Yeah this is the thing that makes me really disagree with the whole “landlords are necessarily bad” thing. A lot of them are, to be sure, and there is so much wrong with our housing market, but there should still be a place for those who wish to rent to rent. I mean just speaking for myself right now, I would not want to own a home right now, even if it was affordable. I’d like to some day but where I am at life right now I would rather rent.
fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Sep 21:29
collapse
So why not have it be owned by some kind of non profit organization or handle it like local utilities?
I only mention it because a lot of what I’ve seen on the topic is people saying the point you made and nothing else. It just seems like we’ve (largely) figured out and implemented a way for the system to work in many places, but only for certain basic needs and not others.
That doesn't change anything useful. There are many not for profit health insurance companies in the us - they are no cheaper and don't have better service than the for profit ones.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
on 03 Sep 16:17
nextcollapse
Are you renting them for unaffordable amounts? Maybe. But I think you can both live in the world that exists, and argue for a better one.
And I guess if your investment property is affordable housing then you are also walking the walk, right? So no I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical. Likely so, but not necessarily so.
We’ve rented for much less than it costs to buy a house here, in fact all of the places we rented were like that. Old houses that were paid off, that we did not want to buy, just paid to live in them month to month. Sure we can wish for a better system but sometimes renting is affordable.
HubertManne@piefed.social
on 03 Sep 18:20
nextcollapse
If your profit is modest no. Even less so if you live on the property like renting out a room or having a multiflat or coachhouse.
It depends on how you are looking at it. Since you called it “Investment properties” I have to assume you plan to maximize profits on it so I would have to say yes it is. However if you are renting the property out for a minimum value and only charging enough to be able to cover costs and the mortgage and maybe a minor income on the side, I don’t think it is. Obviously you need to cover expenses for the property or else someone else who won’t do the same is going to obtain it.
BUT, if you are trying to maximize return and charging as much as you can, then yes it is super hypocritical to be defending the cause while contributing to the other side of the cause. I still think defending is better than just ignoring it but, yea it isn’t helping your case if anyone ever finds out you do.
Only two avenues I could see nothing being hypocritical, signing it over/forming a co-op or doing rent-to-own with rent control and everything being transferable to “next of kin” upon some kind of accidental death.
It’s not hypocritical if you are providing affordable housing for someone.
Despite the kneejerk hate towards landlords lately, which is largely justified due to the extreme levels of rent-seeking behavior evident in today’s completely unaffordable rental market, affordable rental housing is actually a legitimate market and there needs to be availability to meet that demand. Renting on its own is not a crime. Some people even prefer it. It can provide significantly more flexibility and less responsibility, stress and hassle, at a lower monthly cost than home ownership IF (and ONLY IF) you have a good landlord, either because they choose to be or because the laws require them to be, which is not so much the case with most of the laws.
So for me those are the dividing lines. If you are not:
A slumlord providing “affordable” rental housing by leaving your tenants in unsafe, unsanitary, and unmaintained properties.
Demanding luxury-priced rents for an extremely modest property with no features that can be considered a luxury and no intention of maintaining anything to luxurious standards.
Then maybe it’s not hypocritical. And I don’t mean just taking the highest price you can find on rentfaster and posting your property for that price because “that’s what the market price is” I mean actually thinking about whether that price you’re asking is actually affordable for real human beings living in your area.
Basically, if you treat your tenants like actual human beings with the understanding they may be struggling to get by, trying to raise a family, working as much as they can even when work is not reliable, and dealing with all life throws at them, and you don’t treat these things as immediately evictable offenses like a battleaxe over their head just waiting to drop, then yes, you absolutely can argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone – because you are helping provide it.
If, after contributing to legitimate maintenance expenses and reserves, you are making a tiny profit, barely breaking even or even losing money renting, good. If you are treating it as a cash cow that funds your entire life, fuck you.
joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de
on 03 Sep 22:36
collapse
Maybe it is different elsewhere but according to my calculations, renting property is not very profitable. Investing in stocks is better if you only want to make money and do not care about the apartment otherwise.
You can’t easily get your money out of the property and if loan rates go up, you pay more and the property value goes down.
The real parasite is the bank who takes a cut but has little risk as the money it lends out is created from thin air.
pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 00:00
nextcollapse
That’s not at all how interest rates work on homes… They’re fixed and yes while fluctuations in interest rates can have an effect on the home value, that won’t change how much your mortgage payments are, and can only effect your property taxes by at most 2% per year
Rent doesn’t have to fluctuate with interest rates at all as it’s up to the home owner
Edit: unless you’re in a variable rate interest loan in which case, yeah your lender is screwing you
A parallel analogy I see here all the time: driving cars is bad for the planet. It contributes to climate change. So should you give up your car for the sake of the climate? No - because if you live in an auto-dependent area (which is a lot of affordable areas), then you need a car to effectively live your life. To have a job, go to the grocery store, spend time with friends, etc. The problem is the structures and incentives which don’t appropriately dissuade people from driving and provide alternatives. You as an individual giving up your ability to transport yourself will have an entirely negligible impact on the climate while severely hampering your life. It makes total sense to continue driving a car while advocating for better climate policy.
Similarly, owning a handful of rental properties has no impact on the housing market, but choosing to eschew this potential source of revenue could severely hamper your future finances. If you don’t buy these properties as rentals, odds are, someone else will. Your noble intentions will lead to exactly the same result, except you are worse off. On the other hand, if you do take action and buy these rental properties and rent them out at a fair market rate, you can be a good landlord - someone who is communicative about issues and prompt about fixing things when they break. And you are stopping a corporate buyer from owning the property and being a shitty landlord. While you do this, you can also advocate for better housing policy, which is the lever to pull to actually solve the problem.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 00:54
collapse
You could make a lot of these same arguments for owning slaves. If you don’t buy them then someone else will, and they may be a worse master then you. Better that you buy them and treat them right, provide them good food and housing, while at the same time advocating for the abolition of slavery.
In both secenarios you may say you want what’s best for them, but that desire is in direct conflict with your desire for profit so either you become a bad investor or a bad slave master / landlord. Why bring yourself into that conflict instead of investing in something without those moral implications?
I feel like this is a reasonable counterargument. My response is that you can reasonably and ethically seek a profit with real estate investment because pieces of land are not people. And any harm you do to people is going to be extremely distributed across the population. Like, if you went around to everyone in your city and whistled an annoyingly saccharine tune next to them while they walked to work on a Monday morning, maybe the total negative utils would add up to a single human life of slavery - but I still think distributed harm is far more justifiable.
It’s a gradient of more or less unethical things. You could also use the slavery analogy to less and less unethical investments, to reach the conclusion that you shouldn’t invest in anything that you have even the most miniscule ethical issues with.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club
on 03 Sep 21:45
nextcollapse
It isn’t hypocritical, but I’d question why I would invest in something that I would want to lose value from a moral standpoint.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 00:54
nextcollapse
This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:
Supply of housing influencing its cost
Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)
The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 04 Sep 01:56
nextcollapse
Nah fuck that.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 02:06
nextcollapse
Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?
The price to buy housing is influenced by how many people want to buy. People who want to live there are competing with landlords who want to rent out the housing. So it drives up the buying price.
A landlord buying for a higher price will likely try to charge a higher rent as to recoup the investment.
More potential landlords means higher rent prices. Every single landlord is increasing the problem.
This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.
That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 01:14
nextcollapse
Yes, there are plenty of other investment opportunities, the fact that you chose the one that profits off of housing insecurity shows you don’t care enough about it to forgo a little bit of extra money.
Like other people have mentioned you would also have to be advocating against your own interest. Yes you can do that but your passion will at least be dulled by your innate desire for profit. You’d have more passion and will for the cause if you didn’t own investment properties, even more if you are renting and are a victim of housing commodification.
Another point is that you’d be adding to the demand of houses and thus raising the price. You could argue it’s a drop in the ocean, but that sort of attitude leads to a million drops in the ocean and rising sea levels. You would also probably be buying it on a mortgage that’s larger then the house was previously on so the floor for rent , the break even point, would be higher.
Eg. If you bought the property for $400,000 on a mortgage for say $2,000 a month from someone who only had a $200,000 mortgage on it for $1,000 a month you’ve now upped the rent floor $1,000.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world
on 04 Sep 01:58
nextcollapse
You can not blame people for using a system that is legal. Just because you believe something is immoral doesn’t make it wrong.
sopularity_fax@sopuli.xyz
on 04 Sep 03:23
nextcollapse
Only if you’re advising on how to close all the bullshit loopholes you’ve exploited preventing them from being used further.
Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
It would be hypocritical to tell others not to own investment properties while you do.
What does that have to do with my comment? Again, the question is not whether it’s bad. It is bad, but it’s totally besides the point. Housing was just an example anyway.
OP is asking if it’s hypocritical to argue against a bad thing being commonplace, while doing the bad thing yourself.
Another example could be campaigning for stricter car emission laws while owning a car that wouldn’t meet them.
I agree. And I think that not in all of such situations you would be misaligned with your values.
For example you may argue for making cars illegal, while you yourself own a car. You are not being a hypocrite, you are hoping that if cars were illegal, society would become more bike-friendly which is your ultimate goal, enabling you to stop needing a car.
Key point being that you are not telling others not to own car, or not to buy investment properties while you yourself do. That would be hypocritical. Arguing for these things being illegal is not hypocritical, because it would affect you all the same.
You are still missing the point, judging by the “to justify it”, since I never said anything is trying to justify anything. I just recognize the difference between “bad” and “hypocritical”. You can do a bad thing and not be a hypocrite, you can do a good thing and be a hypocrite.
If you use a car. You are okay using cars.
Correct. Which doesn’t conflict with my point at all. The person in that example is okay using cars. Where they are legal. And wants to make them legal in less places. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Of course it would be wrong. And not hypocritical.
But I guess a Trump voter like you would never understand the difference.
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip
on 04 Sep 04:03
nextcollapse
If you make even a penny of profit, then yes. Housing should never be something someone does to make money. Shelter is a basic human need for survival.
Should buying and selling homes be completely removed as a private institution then? What about land ownership entirely?
edit: when land ownership is controlled by a position of authority who decides who gets to live where and move where, congratulations, we’re back in monarchy. We can do this smarter without holding completely delusional values.
While I get the concept, it’s kind of as realistic as Star Trek. We have a long, long way to go before people will voluntarily want to live in a system where your government owns the land, starting with developing a government that can be trusted and a society that doesn’t feel insecure about where they live or what safety nets they have. I don’t see that happening in the next several thousand years.
morphballganon@lemmy.world
on 04 Sep 17:14
collapse
If you don’t make profit then either you’re losing money or straddling the line between profit and losing money, neither of which is sustainable. Then someone else will come in and try.
Yes, that is like being a pacifist but investing in weapon manufacturers. It is easy money and it is attractive, but it is wrong and by making money off of it you become part of it.
“If you want peace, prepare for war” is literally a 2500 year-old sentiment. If you were a mugger, whom would you rob, a guy who walks around saying how he has no means to defend himself, or a guy who is armed to the teeth?
No country just defends itself. Look at history. Not the worlds fault USA tries to catch up with EU history with speedrun tactics ( we are currently in dark middle ages - Jerusalem, Crusading, Plague ( soon ) and fall of education )
sopularity_fax@sopuli.xyz
on 04 Sep 08:52
nextcollapse
I dont think this set of facts has ever aligned in the history of…forever
xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
on 04 Sep 11:07
nextcollapse
You can work within a legal framework while arguing for changing that framework to no longer benefit yourself.
I have investment properties because of a variety of reasons, I need them for my retirement or I’ll end up a homeless
I don’t think that having a few properties is a problem anyway, I have a problem with the guy owning tens of thousands of properties
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
on 04 Sep 16:39
nextcollapse
Not much of a difference if you’re a landlord. I don’t entirely disagree, but Lemmy hates landlords even if you’re a good one.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Sep 04:14
collapse
I know Lemmy is gonna bring out the pitchforks, but honestly, if we had UBI, socialized universal healthcare, free college, well funded retirement system, childcare, fair wages, then people would never need to do things like leasing out property. Its not your fault, its a systemic issue.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world
on 04 Sep 16:52
nextcollapse
Was it hypocritical of RATM to spread anti-establishment messages via a major record label? No, of course not. Systemic change being somehow at odds with doing what you can within the existing system has always been a false dichotomy propagated by those who benefit from division.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 17:31
nextcollapse
I work in residential construction, but I make sure to tell colleagues that we are all parasites on the backs of other parasites.
I’m doing my part!
angrystego@lemmy.world
on 04 Sep 17:34
nextcollapse
I feel like it kind of is. There are surely other investment possibilities. Why choose the one you’re against?
Because (historically speaking) its arguably the safest and highest yield form of investment that the working class can make. That being said obviously theres a tipping point in regards to the amount of income you’re generating at which it becomes predatory.
Funding a nice retirement? Ok. Making it so only one parent has to work? Fine. Jacking up the rent to cover the insurance on the new Lambo? Fuck you.
You are assuming they were against it at the time they bought it, if they even bought it and not for example inherited it.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Sep 20:17
nextcollapse
I believe in a baseline level of food, shelter, healthcare, and education being provided to all regardless of means. Plus things like parks, infrastructure, physical safety and security, etc.
But just because I believe that everyone should have enough to eat doesn’t mean that I don’t believe there is a qualitative difference between that baseline level of sustenance and all sorts of enjoyment I can get from food above that level. A person has a right to food, but that doesn’t change the fact I might be able to farm for profit. Or go up the value/luxury chain and run an ice cream parlor, or produce expensive meals, or buy and sell expensive food ingredients. I want schools to provide universal free lunch but I also know that there will always be a market for other types of food, including by for-profit producers (from farmers/ranchers to grocers to butchers to restaurateurs).
The existence of public parks shouldn’t threaten the existence of profitable private spaces like theme parks, wedding venues, other private spaces.
So where do real estate investors sit in all this? I’m all for developers turning a profit in creating new housing. And don’t mind if profit incentives provide liquidity so that people can freely buy and sell homes based on their own needs.
I don’t personally invest in real estate because I think it’s a bad category of investment, but I don’t think those who do are necessarily ideologically opposed to universal affordable housing. It’s so far removed from the problems in affordable housing that you can’t solve the problems simply by eliminating the profit.
BigDiction@lemmy.world
on 05 Sep 04:27
nextcollapse
Solid prompt question OP. I see 116 votes and 116 comments, that’s a legit conversation stater.
artifactsofchina@lemmy.world
on 05 Sep 14:45
collapse
Thanks 😄
I’m stoked by the engagement; I initially found the question following some article posted on bluesky. Replying there resulted in crickets. I thought to ask here on a hunch, and it’s been wonderful to read all the responses.
Back in the day people would claim that what was good about reddit was that it was a community. Well it’s not that anymore.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to do something and at the same time want a world where it’s no longer a thing.
If you argue against capitalism, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also shop for groceries at a store?
If you argue that we should live in a moneyless utopia and yet you charge money for your services, is it hypocritical?
If you argue for climate change action and yet you drive a car, is it hypocritical?
Of course, owning investment properties contributes to the problem and there is no excuse for that, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to see the problem and want to stop it.
I feel like you are not considering that your examples are necessary to be able to participate in todays society, unless you want to live in a 100% self sustaining homestead. Owning investment properties is not necessary for that.
IMO it largely depends on how the properties are being handled. If it’s just like any other property, and is being handled solely for profit’s sake, I think it is hypocritical to argue for affordable housing for everyone, as it just adds to the problem while you really didn’t need to. If the properties are handled in a way that actually improves the situation, makes no or only little profit, and thus provides affordable housing, it is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, as it is actively working towards the ideological goal you have.
Not really, believing there should be affordable housing for everyone doesn’t mean all housing should be affordable to anyone.
I believe there should be different levels of density of housing and pricing in different areas, and that the state should subsidise some percent of rent based on income, possibly up to 100% up to a certain cost, if you haven’t had evictions on record; but I also own different properties I rent at market rate because it’s commensurate to the cost of living in the area, and a lower rent would not make living there any more affordable, and would open me up to possible tenant disputes if someone who can’t afford to live there were to move in.
If the cost of living went down in the area I would also adjust accordingly, as I don’t believe in fleecing people and it’s also generally beneficial to be in line with market value to maximise client volume.
Affordability isn’t a “rent is too high” issue only. It’s a “there is no place I can afford to live in that makes sense for the places I need to reach” issue too.
Cost of living is a huge factor, I have friends who work in the service industry who almost had to move completely out of the city due to the 22-23 price hike, despite local laws preventing rent from following inflation.
It’s only hypocritical if you believe no housing should be market controlled, which is a non-serious opinion, to be frank.
threaded - newest
Depends on how greedy you are.
You are part of the society. You cannot escape it.
It’s not because you own property (which, if you can, is a wise investment) that you can’t see how messed up the system is at the expense of the working poor.
Absolute copium. Yes seeing a problem and choosing to contribute to it is bad. Perhaps worse than being an ignorant contributor.
You can’t live outside the system, love it or hate it. I don’t blame people more fortunate for making good decisions. I do blame them for not recognizing the system is shit and bragging they’re better when the tables are tilted.
If we are to make the system better, we need a big coalition, and personally I applaud people like OP that can at least see reality for what is is.
Your clearly using “the system” as an excuse not to improve yourself and to justify you doing things you morally disagree with. Like I said, copium.
Oh you’re one of those that shames people, I thought you actually cared. Nevermind.
Rich coming from someone who doesn’t care enough to change themselves
Ok boomer
*zoomer
I completely disagree with this.
First, having rentals available is a necessity. There are plenty of people who simply do not want the responsibility, or need the flexibility to move more easily than owning allows for (like university students and people moving around for jobs). If rental units are needed, someone has to be a landlord to provide that.
Second, choosing to significantly impact your own own life because of country-wide problems is heroic, but fucking useless. The change in this space will not come from all landlords all choosing to be better people. That’s never going to happen, and if you think that’s an option you’re the one being ignorant. The only realistic way this housing situation changes is if the laws change, and the laws change when voters pick politicians who will change them.
The only time this person is a hypocrite is if they say they want to fix the problem, but then do not vote for the person who will fix it.
An addition to this statement as well. People always seem to find renting and owning as two polar opposites, but this doesn’t have to be the case. A landlord can also do something called rent to own, car dealerships do the same. It’s where you can rent for as long as you want, and it is known up front that the rent payments partially contribute towards the cost of the loan, eventually the amount paid via rental is equal to the market value(plus usually whatever the landlord stated they wanted their profit of it being) or a big enough prepayment to be able to afford an actual loan or full payment on it, and at that point the deed/title is transferred over to the renters(or the loan company if they went that route). It’s an alternative to getting a mortgage, and it benefits both parties because the renter could decide to leave any time (once their current lease expires or unless stated otherwise) and the landlord is still getting their profits (and in many cases a higher profit due to the way it works). Generally speaking with these types of agreements though, the rental cost is higher than others to make up for the downpayment as well.
That’s not really an in-between, You’re still a renter and usually get no benefit if you fail to reach the specific criteria in the allotted time. It really doesn’t solve anything other than issues with credit scores or available down payments.
It helps you when you are not sure if you want the building or not though, since it lets you start the process without locking yourself into a long term commitment. Additionally not all rent to own have a specific timeframe to pay it. Many are just cumulative and can be bailed whenever the leases run out, and the only thing the renter is out of is the extra money paid.
Okay buddy imma just go around murdering people. Which is fine and morally correct because I vote anti murder. And yes, me murdering people and then voting “don’t murder” isn’t hypocritical.
Your argument is weak.
There’s already a law that says “Murder is bad, go to Jail” so no it’s not fine, and society deemed it morally incorrect.
Society has not yet agreed that renting to people is morally incorrect, that’s why it’s still legal and why millions of people are landlords.
Lol. Slavery was morally correct because it was legal too I’m guessing?
At the time, yes, trying to run a commercial farm without slaves while you tried to get the laws changed would have been completely reasonable.
Morality is not absolute, its situational and relative. Applying modern morals to judge the past is an effort in stupidity.
“I wouldn’t have done that” yes you definitely would have, because you would have been raised to do that.
There are things you do today that future generations will judge you as immoral for doing that you think are perfectly fine.
Do you think eating animals is acceptable? Future generations may think you just as barbaric for allowing that as you think people were for allowing human slaves. Or maybe they’re fine with eating meat, but they will think you barbaric for allowing paid healthcare to exist and people to suffer because they’re poor.
Gtfo slavery apologist
I don’t eat animals btw
laws have nothing to do with morality. laws protect the powerful and the at social institutions that made them powerful. the fact that private property laws exist means powerful people depend on private property to maintain power.
Morality is determined by society. Society has not agreed that being a landlord is immoral.
Very few people want to eliminate rentals altogether. You can go look at polls, even the polls where you find the most support for restrictions only want secondary rental homes to be taxed higher.
can you tell me what ethical system says morality determined by society? it’s been a few years since my philosophy degree, and it wasn’t specialized in ethics, but I seem to remember moral relativism as being universally appalling.
“universally appalling” despite it literally having supporters arguing over it for over a thousand years…
Just because your class of idealist youth didn’t like it doesn’t make it universally appalling.
this isn’t an answer
Your question didn’t require an answer, since it answered itself.
so you’re saying it’s just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn’t actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.
That’s only one variation of moral relativism. It is, as most things in ethics are, not black and white.
your version is no more defensible than divine command theory, and it’s totally useless for debating what we ought to think is moral.
I already stated what I believe to be moral in this situation, and how I arrived at that conclusion.
…with all the authority of a Bible thumper.
I think it’s one thing to not be willing to go live as a hermit to avoid unethical consumption and another thing to simply… not participate in rent seeking behavior like this.
Hm I’d say not necessarily. That depends on your situation I guess. The question comes down to “would you give up your property for other people to live in?” If you own 1-2 small properties, that’s not being a greedy landlord. And it would make it possible for you to give people housing they could afford (while still profitable for you, if you needed it to be).
If you charge insane rents, then you’re not only a hypocrite but maybe also schizophrenic. That just sounds like a disconnect.
But it’s very possible to “change the system from within”, even if that’s not my political opinion. If you can buy property, maybe you should. And then rent it to people for an affordable price.
I’m sometimes thinking people should get together and buy mansions to convert into shelters
No, it’s just having basic empathy for other humans.
I think it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation.
Did you buy a single family home / house that you’re living in, and renting out part of to help pay your mortgage? Then it depends on the rent you charge.
If you charge market rates and you can afford to charge less than market rates, or if you hire contractors and maintenance people for the unit that are cheaper / worse than the ones you use for your own unit, then yes, you are being exploitative and hypocritical.
If, however, you treat the unit like your own and charge below market rates then no, you’re not.
If you build an addition on your house, or build a laneway house or something, then it’s more reasonable to charge market rates for rent because you’ve actually added new housing to the area, an act that in itself should help to slightly drop rents. Same thing if you buy vacant property and build rental units on it. However, if you continue charging the most you possibly can long after you’ve made your money back then you’re back into the territory of being an exploitative hypocrite.
And if you’re just in a hot market and buying up houses / condos, and renting them back to people as is, or just doing the cheapest and shittiest job you can turning them into apartments, then yes you are being a hypocrite. At that point you’re just using your capital to buy up a limited quantity item and sell it back to people at exploitative rates. It would be like being stranded in the desert and buying up the remaining water and then selling it back to people for a profit. You’re providing no value to society, just using past success to force people into a corner where they have to pay you for a necessity that’s in limited supply.
Yes. Housing is a necessity. It’s not a way to gain financial freedom or security. Anyone that participates in the system of commodifying a need in any capacity is a greedy and awful person. You can’t be for affordable housing while also having some poor person paying your mortgage and shrugging that “this is just how it is”.
In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.
Your assumption that our government is somehow not for profit is the flaw here. “Someone has to own it” why not a person? Why do people have to pay for shelter?
That’s not my assumption. I know people that only want to rent, they don’t want to own. In that worldview someone owns it.
In regards to paying for shelter, unless you get rid of money, things have to be maintained, that costs money, and someone has to be paid to fix it, even if it’s the government paying a contractor.
The government doesn’t like owning things that require enormous amounts of maintenance. It’s a liability, because they can’t then focus efforts on actually serving their citizens. So if the government is already going to pay someone to maintain buildings, it’s better to not own the buildings and instead regulate in a manner than serves everyone.
That means there will still be landlords. There are still people that want to rent, the government doesn’t like owning buildings, so there will still be people owning and renting their places out.
If renting didn’t exist you think people would choose it? If every person was given a spot of land and a small home at like 18, you really think they’d be like “no thank you I want to never be secure in the knowledge that I have a safe place to live until my death”? Capitalism has really done a number on you. Plus your belief that the government focuses on serving it’s citizens is just laughably insane. I’d wager you own property you rent out.
I know people (including myself who actually owns a house) who would love to (or already do) travel the world. Buying and selling houses in every location you travel would be a hindrance not a help.
There is no black and white, this is an ethics discussion, there are shades of gray for everything. Just because you want to stay in one location and never move doesn’t mean others want what you want.
Edit: adjusted sentence to make it easier to understand
you say this as if most people would be like that. whereas most people don’t want to travel all the time, for most that wouldn’t even be possible because of their job, most just want a place to live, and feudalists are taking advantage of (and contributing to) prohibitively expensive housing prices
I do not, I say it because it has to be involved in any discussion of ethics. It isn’t a binary problem. There are shades of gray to everything, which people hate talking about.
I know many people that like renting because they want to move every few months or years. Their job affords it (which any reasonable nation also allows), they work remote, or they’re mobile, etc.
Acting like everything is black and white when it literally never is is making it impossible to have actually discussions that enact change.
Wouldn’t you like to travel the world and see the sights? Would you want to have to buy a house and sell your old one every single time you changed countries? I think not.
where did I imply it is black and white? I did not say that there are no people who reasonably want to rent, of course there are.
but I’m pretty sure that it’s not even half the people.
the problem is not that people who want to rent can’t, they have plenty of options! but that people who specifically dont want to rent, very often does not have amy other choice.
buying a house for a family comes with a lifelong loan, with all the aid possible, and buying a house as an individual or as a couple is just not possible anymore where I live. unless you have an exceptionally high salary. even just buying an empty parcel or one where there’s only a house so bad it needs to be demolished costs so much, if there’s a habitable house the bank won’t even give a loan.
I want to travel, but not through all my life. maybe move to another country if that becomes reachable. but you shouldn’t assume the majority wants to move that often.
The top comment I replied to stated that this was a black and white issue. Either you are a landlord and that’s unethical or you’re not and it’s ethical. You seem to have taken this conversation in a completely different direction. It is solely about whether you can be a landlord ethically.
I also did not assume the majority want to do anything.
If you’re arguing for a particular public policy, then it’s not necessarily hypocritical (which isn’t to say it’s good).
If you’re arguing for social change based on personal behavior, then you should lead by example.
Arguing for social change based on personal behavior is pretty stupid
Yeah. It’s up to you to decide if you care about being a hypocrite though.
I’d say if they are solely an investment, then yes you are part of the problem. Because you expect a return on your investment and so inherently rent has to be increased to generate the necessary profits.
If you’d live in a house that has more room than you need and rent these out that’s fine in my book. But possession solely for profit is one of the main problems of our current economic system.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game
Yes. That is, if you’re actively hurting the availability of affordable housing, that would be hypocrisy. Your economic interests are at odds with your stated ethical stance, which means your ethical stance is unstable.
Owning the property is not the problem: Rent-seeking is. Running it as a managed coöp would be the ethical path forward in that situation.
But if you’re advocating for changing the system there is nothing hypocritical about owning it since your impact is a drop in the bucket. In order to make changes you need power and power comes from wealth.
I’d say that you’re unlikely extract enough wealth to make a difference in the large scale, but you absolutely have enough power to make an immediate difference for however many people can live in your building.
That’s the problem with consequentialism: A certain evil now for a possible good later. I don’t agree with that.
I would make the argument that it could actually be a means to align with affordable housing (although that would likely be very difficult in this current housing market). Managing a property is a service, you have to manage vacancies, repairs, rent collection, etc.
If you don’t offload this to a management company and do it all yourself it is technically feasible to make a profit from the labor of managing the property even when charging below market rate for the property (difficult to do right now, but after owning the property for a period of time definitely possible).
If you were to do this you would be directly combatting the affordable housing problem by introducing competition at a lower price (it would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be fighting for affordable housing).
Unless you are by extension making those properties affordable for whomever is leasing or renting, then absolutely it is, yes.
You can make them affordable by screening for high income.
If the property is giving you any kind of return, you’re extracting profit, so the property is less “affordable” than it would be if the resident owned it.
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Most people can’t buy a property, because they don’t have enough money. In order to go around that problem, they either borrow money or rent the property. Either way, some extra money always goes somewhere.
Some of it is justified, because you need to go around the problem not having enough money to buy a house. However, there are many cases where that extra expense is absolutely wild and rooted in greed.
Actually, if you happen to own the property, some extra money will go to periodic maintenance and miscellaneous expenses you never even think of if you just rent the place. You just don’t pay for those things every month a little bit at a time. Instead, you pay a large bill once a year or an enormous bill every 10 years.
I’ve been a landlord and I know how it works. The liquidity problem you mention is real, but so is rent seeking. Landlords may help make housing available, but they absolutely do not help make it affordable. Quite the opposite.
Think about payday loans services. They help make money more available, but they make it as expensive as they can. No one believes they are providing a valued service at affordable. rates.
It’s possible to offer loans and rental housing at really reasonable rates, but that’s not what we have in our society. Investors and the wealthy buy up all the property, creating scarcity, this causes a price bubble which shuts out many buyers who get priced out. Then the renting begins, and I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but I couldn’t afford to rent the house I own.
Not everyone is in a position to be buying a house at any given time, though. Providing housing at a less-than-the-very-top-of-the-market-value is still a necessary service that can benefit both parties.
The issue is the hoarding of that resource in certain areas, and the psuedo/full-on price fixing to max out returns
It’s true that it everyone is in a cash position to buy a house, but that’s made worse by housing being so expensive. And housing is expensive in part because of the hoarding and rent-seeking behaviors of landlords and investors. So renting is a “solution” to a problem it partly makes itself.
If people don’t have cash to buy houses, I’d look at that as a problem for lenders. Someone else renting out the house doesn’t necessarily have to be the only solution. I don’t think it’s possible to eliminate renting because we need some very flexible housing / short term housing.
But if we imagine a world where renting is incredibly restricted, perhaps to 4-unit apartments and up, instead of every single residence on the market, I think we would see a more affordable market where more people COULD be in a position to buy a house.
There are other scenarios besides “not being able to afford to buy” that would make people lean towards renting.
Yeah, that’s why I said we need flexible and short term housing. The trick is to make renting serve the needs of renters, because those needs do exist. Today it’s more about serving the profit margin of owners.
When I rented out my property, for example, I felt it was my responsibility, my job, to offer a residence where everything worked. I maintained the place meticulously and paid for every repair. However if you simply scan reddit you’ll see thousands of posts from renters who, for example, have a broken down refrigerator and will have to pay to fix it themselves. I find that disgusting - the landlord holds the renter responsible for anything that happens while they are there. So the landlord gets their monthly debt service paid for by the rent, plus profit, plus they enjoy to market appreciation, PLUS the renter is on the hook for all maintenance? Fuck that.
Interest rates are more of a significant variable. At 7%+ interest, renting will be cheaper.
Methinks it is only not hypocritical under a few circumstances:
Any other condition is in principle hypocritical… Although there is probably still a massive moral difference between someone with a severe disability who owns a few rentals to pay for bills vs a professional investor who systematically prices out locals to improve profit margins
What if you think affordable housing should be government subsidized? Or as is the case in many places, below market priced units that the builder is required to include, with limits on how they are used (income qualifications and owner occupation).
Neither of those requires you not to rent to other people. It would be like saying I'm for mental health services being paid for by the government but running a psychiatric business.
On this… I did read a prior research work suggesting that US government should use subsidy/housing vouchers in private markets instead of public housing construction; this way it helps with creating affordable housing while avoiding risks of defunding public housing projects due to political changes. I’m not sure if the findings of that work apply to other countries or if the author was mainly thinking about US
I guess I was thinking more about my personal morals. In terms of actual implementation, I do think you’re correct that the goal of “affordable housing for everyone” can be done even in a completely private housing market, as long as the market is well-managed with abundant supply (so no shortages, no institutional landlords maximizing profits at 91% occupancy instead of 100%, etc)
If you argue that others should not own investment property for whatever reason but you are a valid exception it’s one thing.
If you say that “look at how much money I’m making, tax me harder daddy” it’s another.
That is a bad thing for affordable housing. For affordable housing you need profits from investment property just enough to be worth doing. Any taxes a property owner pays needs to come from the rent they charge so high taxes mean they are charging more rent to cover it. So if taxes are high that means that rents are higher than they could be. You should get rich - to the extent you do - in property ownership by owning a lot of property for a long time, not charging high rents.
For many people owning their own housing is the wrong decision. That means somebody else needs to own their housing and that person may as well be you (depending of course on your situation - it isn't for everyone)
Yeah even in a perfect utopia not everyone would own a house. Sometimes you’re only living in a place for a short time
Personally I’ve grown to despise home ownership and its constant cycle of maintenance. I’d love to let that be someone else’s problem again.
I’ll take it lol
You’ll have to fight the spouse for it lol just do it in the yard, I can’t risk the floor dropping out
I don’t like fighting… in the spouse attractive? Maybe we could work this out. I prefer little spoon.
That you’ll have to fight me for, she’s simply too wonderful to put into words. Plus little spoon is my spot.
Yeah this is the thing that makes me really disagree with the whole “landlords are necessarily bad” thing. A lot of them are, to be sure, and there is so much wrong with our housing market, but there should still be a place for those who wish to rent to rent. I mean just speaking for myself right now, I would not want to own a home right now, even if it was affordable. I’d like to some day but where I am at life right now I would rather rent.
So why not have it be owned by some kind of non profit organization or handle it like local utilities?
I only mention it because a lot of what I’ve seen on the topic is people saying the point you made and nothing else. It just seems like we’ve (largely) figured out and implemented a way for the system to work in many places, but only for certain basic needs and not others.
That doesn't change anything useful. There are many not for profit health insurance companies in the us - they are no cheaper and don't have better service than the for profit ones.
Yes
Why
Are you renting them for unaffordable amounts? Maybe. But I think you can both live in the world that exists, and argue for a better one.
And I guess if your investment property is affordable housing then you are also walking the walk, right? So no I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical. Likely so, but not necessarily so.
We’ve rented for much less than it costs to buy a house here, in fact all of the places we rented were like that. Old houses that were paid off, that we did not want to buy, just paid to live in them month to month. Sure we can wish for a better system but sometimes renting is affordable.
If your profit is modest no. Even less so if you live on the property like renting out a room or having a multiflat or coachhouse.
It depends on how you are looking at it. Since you called it “Investment properties” I have to assume you plan to maximize profits on it so I would have to say yes it is. However if you are renting the property out for a minimum value and only charging enough to be able to cover costs and the mortgage and maybe a minor income on the side, I don’t think it is. Obviously you need to cover expenses for the property or else someone else who won’t do the same is going to obtain it.
BUT, if you are trying to maximize return and charging as much as you can, then yes it is super hypocritical to be defending the cause while contributing to the other side of the cause. I still think defending is better than just ignoring it but, yea it isn’t helping your case if anyone ever finds out you do.
Only two avenues I could see nothing being hypocritical, signing it over/forming a co-op or doing rent-to-own with rent control and everything being transferable to “next of kin” upon some kind of accidental death.
It’s not hypocritical if you are providing affordable housing for someone.
Despite the kneejerk hate towards landlords lately, which is largely justified due to the extreme levels of rent-seeking behavior evident in today’s completely unaffordable rental market, affordable rental housing is actually a legitimate market and there needs to be availability to meet that demand. Renting on its own is not a crime. Some people even prefer it. It can provide significantly more flexibility and less responsibility, stress and hassle, at a lower monthly cost than home ownership IF (and ONLY IF) you have a good landlord, either because they choose to be or because the laws require them to be, which is not so much the case with most of the laws.
So for me those are the dividing lines. If you are not:
Then maybe it’s not hypocritical. And I don’t mean just taking the highest price you can find on rentfaster and posting your property for that price because “that’s what the market price is” I mean actually thinking about whether that price you’re asking is actually affordable for real human beings living in your area.
Basically, if you treat your tenants like actual human beings with the understanding they may be struggling to get by, trying to raise a family, working as much as they can even when work is not reliable, and dealing with all life throws at them, and you don’t treat these things as immediately evictable offenses like a battleaxe over their head just waiting to drop, then yes, you absolutely can argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone – because you are helping provide it.
If, after contributing to legitimate maintenance expenses and reserves, you are making a tiny profit, barely breaking even or even losing money renting, good. If you are treating it as a cash cow that funds your entire life, fuck you.
Maybe it is different elsewhere but according to my calculations, renting property is not very profitable. Investing in stocks is better if you only want to make money and do not care about the apartment otherwise.
You can’t easily get your money out of the property and if loan rates go up, you pay more and the property value goes down.
The real parasite is the bank who takes a cut but has little risk as the money it lends out is created from thin air.
That’s not at all how interest rates work on homes… They’re fixed and yes while fluctuations in interest rates can have an effect on the home value, that won’t change how much your mortgage payments are, and can only effect your property taxes by at most 2% per year
Rent doesn’t have to fluctuate with interest rates at all as it’s up to the home owner
Edit: unless you’re in a variable rate interest loan in which case, yeah your lender is screwing you
Even if your costs only break even, you’re building equity
Often the difference in profitability is whether you pay for a property manager or do the work yourself
I know a couple people who did it and made money, fwiw. They gave up so they didn’t have to deal with people
No, not at all.
A parallel analogy I see here all the time: driving cars is bad for the planet. It contributes to climate change. So should you give up your car for the sake of the climate? No - because if you live in an auto-dependent area (which is a lot of affordable areas), then you need a car to effectively live your life. To have a job, go to the grocery store, spend time with friends, etc. The problem is the structures and incentives which don’t appropriately dissuade people from driving and provide alternatives. You as an individual giving up your ability to transport yourself will have an entirely negligible impact on the climate while severely hampering your life. It makes total sense to continue driving a car while advocating for better climate policy.
Similarly, owning a handful of rental properties has no impact on the housing market, but choosing to eschew this potential source of revenue could severely hamper your future finances. If you don’t buy these properties as rentals, odds are, someone else will. Your noble intentions will lead to exactly the same result, except you are worse off. On the other hand, if you do take action and buy these rental properties and rent them out at a fair market rate, you can be a good landlord - someone who is communicative about issues and prompt about fixing things when they break. And you are stopping a corporate buyer from owning the property and being a shitty landlord. While you do this, you can also advocate for better housing policy, which is the lever to pull to actually solve the problem.
You could make a lot of these same arguments for owning slaves. If you don’t buy them then someone else will, and they may be a worse master then you. Better that you buy them and treat them right, provide them good food and housing, while at the same time advocating for the abolition of slavery.
In both secenarios you may say you want what’s best for them, but that desire is in direct conflict with your desire for profit so either you become a bad investor or a bad slave master / landlord. Why bring yourself into that conflict instead of investing in something without those moral implications?
I feel like this is a reasonable counterargument. My response is that you can reasonably and ethically seek a profit with real estate investment because pieces of land are not people. And any harm you do to people is going to be extremely distributed across the population. Like, if you went around to everyone in your city and whistled an annoyingly saccharine tune next to them while they walked to work on a Monday morning, maybe the total negative utils would add up to a single human life of slavery - but I still think distributed harm is far more justifiable.
It’s a gradient of more or less unethical things. You could also use the slavery analogy to less and less unethical investments, to reach the conclusion that you shouldn’t invest in anything that you have even the most miniscule ethical issues with.
It isn’t hypocritical, but I’d question why I would invest in something that I would want to lose value from a moral standpoint.
This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:
The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.
Nah fuck that.
Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?
OP: constructive addition to thread You: nah
The price to buy housing is influenced by how many people want to buy. People who want to live there are competing with landlords who want to rent out the housing. So it drives up the buying price.
A landlord buying for a higher price will likely try to charge a higher rent as to recoup the investment.
More potential landlords means higher rent prices. Every single landlord is increasing the problem.
This is the same logic that fossil fuel companies do to shift blame from themselves onto consumers.
This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.
That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.
Yes, there are plenty of other investment opportunities, the fact that you chose the one that profits off of housing insecurity shows you don’t care enough about it to forgo a little bit of extra money.
Like other people have mentioned you would also have to be advocating against your own interest. Yes you can do that but your passion will at least be dulled by your innate desire for profit. You’d have more passion and will for the cause if you didn’t own investment properties, even more if you are renting and are a victim of housing commodification.
Another point is that you’d be adding to the demand of houses and thus raising the price. You could argue it’s a drop in the ocean, but that sort of attitude leads to a million drops in the ocean and rising sea levels. You would also probably be buying it on a mortgage that’s larger then the house was previously on so the floor for rent , the break even point, would be higher.
Eg. If you bought the property for $400,000 on a mortgage for say $2,000 a month from someone who only had a $200,000 mortgage on it for $1,000 a month you’ve now upped the rent floor $1,000.
You can not blame people for using a system that is legal. Just because you believe something is immoral doesn’t make it wrong.
Only if you’re advising on how to close all the bullshit loopholes you’ve exploited preventing them from being used further.
Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
What other things would you invest in?
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
It would be hypocritical to tell others not to own investment properties while you do.
Nah. It’s bad. Landowners are parasites. Do and contribute nothing. They are incentivized to peddle in misery.
Housing should not be a commodity. It is a human right.
What does that have to do with my comment? Again, the question is not whether it’s bad. It is bad, but it’s totally besides the point. Housing was just an example anyway.
OP is asking if it’s hypocritical to argue against a bad thing being commonplace, while doing the bad thing yourself. Another example could be campaigning for stricter car emission laws while owning a car that wouldn’t meet them.
Should you shoot the innocents because everyone else is doing it?
No. You’re either aligned with your values or a hypocrite.
I agree. And I think that not in all of such situations you would be misaligned with your values.
For example you may argue for making cars illegal, while you yourself own a car. You are not being a hypocrite, you are hoping that if cars were illegal, society would become more bike-friendly which is your ultimate goal, enabling you to stop needing a car.
Key point being that you are not telling others not to own car, or not to buy investment properties while you yourself do. That would be hypocritical. Arguing for these things being illegal is not hypocritical, because it would affect you all the same.
Your feelings don’t change the world.
If you use a car. You are okay using cars.
Whatever you say to yourself to justify it is meaningless.
It is normalized hypocrisy.
You are still missing the point, judging by the “to justify it”, since I never said anything is trying to justify anything. I just recognize the difference between “bad” and “hypocritical”. You can do a bad thing and not be a hypocrite, you can do a good thing and be a hypocrite.
Correct. Which doesn’t conflict with my point at all. The person in that example is okay using cars. Where they are legal. And wants to make them legal in less places. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Lol. “Nothing wrong with owning slaves as long as you feel bad about it and what it to be illegal.”
Ok American. I’m out.
Of course it would be wrong. And not hypocritical.
But I guess a Trump voter like you would never understand the difference.
If you make even a penny of profit, then yes. Housing should never be something someone does to make money. Shelter is a basic human need for survival.
Should buying and selling homes be completely removed as a private institution then? What about land ownership entirely?
edit: when land ownership is controlled by a position of authority who decides who gets to live where and move where, congratulations, we’re back in monarchy. We can do this smarter without holding completely delusional values.
Yes. Anything that gives people monetary incentive over basic needs should be removed. Keep that shit to things that don’t matter.
While I get the concept, it’s kind of as realistic as Star Trek. We have a long, long way to go before people will voluntarily want to live in a system where your government owns the land, starting with developing a government that can be trusted and a society that doesn’t feel insecure about where they live or what safety nets they have. I don’t see that happening in the next several thousand years.
If you don’t make profit then either you’re losing money or straddling the line between profit and losing money, neither of which is sustainable. Then someone else will come in and try.
Yes, that is like being a pacifist but investing in weapon manufacturers. It is easy money and it is attractive, but it is wrong and by making money off of it you become part of it.
“If you want peace, prepare for war” is literally a 2500 year-old sentiment. If you were a mugger, whom would you rob, a guy who walks around saying how he has no means to defend himself, or a guy who is armed to the teeth?
Okay Smartypants, I’m talking about the USA, not some peaceful country that only defends itself.
No country just defends itself. Look at history. Not the worlds fault USA tries to catch up with EU history with speedrun tactics ( we are currently in dark middle ages - Jerusalem, Crusading, Plague ( soon ) and fall of education )
I dont think this set of facts has ever aligned in the history of…forever
You can work within a legal framework while arguing for changing that framework to no longer benefit yourself.
As long as you are honest; you are good.
I have investment properties because of a variety of reasons, I need them for my retirement or I’ll end up a homeless
I don’t think that having a few properties is a problem anyway, I have a problem with the guy owning tens of thousands of properties
Not much of a difference if you’re a landlord. I don’t entirely disagree, but Lemmy hates landlords even if you’re a good one.
I know Lemmy is gonna bring out the pitchforks, but honestly, if we had UBI, socialized universal healthcare, free college, well funded retirement system, childcare, fair wages, then people would never need to do things like leasing out property. Its not your fault, its a systemic issue.
Was it hypocritical of RATM to spread anti-establishment messages via a major record label? No, of course not. Systemic change being somehow at odds with doing what you can within the existing system has always been a false dichotomy propagated by those who benefit from division.
I work in residential construction, but I make sure to tell colleagues that we are all parasites on the backs of other parasites.
I’m doing my part!
I feel like it kind of is. There are surely other investment possibilities. Why choose the one you’re against?
Because (historically speaking) its arguably the safest and highest yield form of investment that the working class can make. That being said obviously theres a tipping point in regards to the amount of income you’re generating at which it becomes predatory.
Funding a nice retirement? Ok. Making it so only one parent has to work? Fine. Jacking up the rent to cover the insurance on the new Lambo? Fuck you.
The line you’re trying to draw is very arbitrary, so it still feels a bit hypocritical.
You are assuming they were against it at the time they bought it, if they even bought it and not for example inherited it.
I believe in a baseline level of food, shelter, healthcare, and education being provided to all regardless of means. Plus things like parks, infrastructure, physical safety and security, etc.
But just because I believe that everyone should have enough to eat doesn’t mean that I don’t believe there is a qualitative difference between that baseline level of sustenance and all sorts of enjoyment I can get from food above that level. A person has a right to food, but that doesn’t change the fact I might be able to farm for profit. Or go up the value/luxury chain and run an ice cream parlor, or produce expensive meals, or buy and sell expensive food ingredients. I want schools to provide universal free lunch but I also know that there will always be a market for other types of food, including by for-profit producers (from farmers/ranchers to grocers to butchers to restaurateurs).
The existence of public parks shouldn’t threaten the existence of profitable private spaces like theme parks, wedding venues, other private spaces.
So where do real estate investors sit in all this? I’m all for developers turning a profit in creating new housing. And don’t mind if profit incentives provide liquidity so that people can freely buy and sell homes based on their own needs.
I don’t personally invest in real estate because I think it’s a bad category of investment, but I don’t think those who do are necessarily ideologically opposed to universal affordable housing. It’s so far removed from the problems in affordable housing that you can’t solve the problems simply by eliminating the profit.
Solid prompt question OP. I see 116 votes and 116 comments, that’s a legit conversation stater.
Thanks 😄
I’m stoked by the engagement; I initially found the question following some article posted on bluesky. Replying there resulted in crickets. I thought to ask here on a hunch, and it’s been wonderful to read all the responses.
Back in the day people would claim that what was good about reddit was that it was a community. Well it’s not that anymore.
This is pretty good though!
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to do something and at the same time want a world where it’s no longer a thing.
If you argue against capitalism, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also shop for groceries at a store?
If you argue that we should live in a moneyless utopia and yet you charge money for your services, is it hypocritical?
If you argue for climate change action and yet you drive a car, is it hypocritical?
Of course, owning investment properties contributes to the problem and there is no excuse for that, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to see the problem and want to stop it.
I feel like you are not considering that your examples are necessary to be able to participate in todays society, unless you want to live in a 100% self sustaining homestead. Owning investment properties is not necessary for that.
IMO it largely depends on how the properties are being handled. If it’s just like any other property, and is being handled solely for profit’s sake, I think it is hypocritical to argue for affordable housing for everyone, as it just adds to the problem while you really didn’t need to. If the properties are handled in a way that actually improves the situation, makes no or only little profit, and thus provides affordable housing, it is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, as it is actively working towards the ideological goal you have.
It being unnecessary is what it makes it bad, but it doesn’t make it hypocritical.
It would be hypocritical to own investment properties while telling other people not to.
It wouldn’t be hypocritical to campaign for making it illegal to have them (which would affect you all the same).
In both scenarios your are contributing to the problem, but you aren’t a hypocrite in both.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
Can you morally take part in capitalism?
No.
Can you morally take part in (moral) market economies? Sure.
So then it’s just about where to draw the line.
Not really, believing there should be affordable housing for everyone doesn’t mean all housing should be affordable to anyone.
I believe there should be different levels of density of housing and pricing in different areas, and that the state should subsidise some percent of rent based on income, possibly up to 100% up to a certain cost, if you haven’t had evictions on record; but I also own different properties I rent at market rate because it’s commensurate to the cost of living in the area, and a lower rent would not make living there any more affordable, and would open me up to possible tenant disputes if someone who can’t afford to live there were to move in.
If the cost of living went down in the area I would also adjust accordingly, as I don’t believe in fleecing people and it’s also generally beneficial to be in line with market value to maximise client volume.
Affordability isn’t a “rent is too high” issue only. It’s a “there is no place I can afford to live in that makes sense for the places I need to reach” issue too.
Cost of living is a huge factor, I have friends who work in the service industry who almost had to move completely out of the city due to the 22-23 price hike, despite local laws preventing rent from following inflation.
It’s only hypocritical if you believe no housing should be market controlled, which is a non-serious opinion, to be frank.