Here’s a tip poor people; just have money!
All i had to do was just buy 4 houses? Damn. I’m rich!
Mooching off of others to fund your life style and giving nothing back in return
opens envelope
What’s something considered classy if you’re rich, but trashy if you’re poor?
I remember looking up just the air b&b’s in the Portland metro and there were over 4,000……
A large majority of the rest were being rented.
The wealthy are buying it all with no regulation.
There should be one home per family in the suburbs. One vacation place and your house. No one needs 10 properties, get rich another way you greedy terrible fucks.
Rich people outbid regular folks for real resources (homes), taking away any chance at intergenerational wealth building. the only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Gary Stevenson has some worthwhile insights on what we can do and how to convince working class people that the rich must be stopped or else your kids and grandkids will all be homeless renters.
inequality is sharply risinh all around the world. and it’s getting worse. this is arguably the most important issue of our time.
the only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Because the only way to escape an exploitative system is to become an exploiter…
I realise they don’t care, and are disingenuous about their suggestions… But these people think the solution for people not being able to afford shit is “get a, better job” or in this case specifically, “become landlord”…
How do you expect society to function if every, single, person, is a landlord? Who’s building the houses, cleaning after tenants stay, growing, harvesting, preparing food… Electricity?
Like, it just blows my mind that people espouse dumb shit like this and get a pass from most people
Someone that used to hang out on the Discord server I’m part of justified it because “the world is divided between winners and losers. For there to be winners there have to be losers.”
He was a real privileged asshole who worked in accounting for the US military. Loved how his paycheck was bigger than most soldiers, even some officers. Bitched for nearly a whole month about how the Obama administration was giving “free handouts” when the US pulled out of Afghanistan and gave all the veterans a care package.
I argued with him a lot. Nobody liked him. This is the kind of person the people from OP’s meme are.
Well this is gross. Its extremely had to buy ONE property, to exist in, if you dont have Bank of Mom and Dad to rely on.
I know people like this. They truly believe like they are doing society a favor by buying up houses and renting them out. The disconnect from reality is wild.
It’s a little better than corporate real estate vultures though. If you think about it, these small landlords and renters are more alike than the people at Blackrock buying up all this shit.
Just because they aren’t faceless doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad. In case of corporations, at the very least, anyone up to CEO could claim they were doing what their boss/investors told them/expected them to do, they have the mirage of fabricated innocence. The guilt is also spread more thinly, with many, often low paid employees contributing a small portion towards the greater legal crime.
Small landlords have none of those delusions available, though from my personal, anecdotal experience, higher management in large corporations also often personally own real estate and rent it. I’m working in IT, but I have no reason to think it would be in any different elsewhere. I was led to understand it was “normal” and “smart”. So I’d say it’s the same kind of people that make decisions on top of the real estate corporations, and the petite landlords. And yeah, I’m excluding from that, obviously, renting a flat you’ve gotten as inheritance from your grandma or something, though I have more fundamental issues with the inheritance thing itself.
Nah, corporate landlords at least tend to have minimum standards and contractors on call.
These type of small time landlords are the ones that tell you that a working refrigerator is a luxury, and water damage due to a cracked pipe in the wall is the tenant’s responsibility.
How does the second tenant pay their mortgage? One apartment’s rent should not be enough to cover the mortgage of four (or five - including the one they live in). My guess is that they only payed all the mortgages for these four properties and this is about the mortgage of the apartment they live in.
The cheat code to a stress-free life is to own lots of real estate to being with.
Oh, some rents are getting crazy and the buildings were purchased 10-20 years ago so the mortgage isn’t that high. It’s all a scam.
Of course they mean their own personal mortgage. The mortgage of the property they rent out is already covered by the tenant.
Housing prices are pretty high in cities. But you can buy your own piece of land in a more rural setting and build a small cottage yourself, maybe a 2 bdrm, 1 bath home. I believe this is possible for less than $100k at the right location. Start with a used cheap RV or mobile home if you have to.
Trump deported all of the construction workers
I don’t support those deportations. But why not do it yourself?
I mean why not?
How is this legal.
How is it legal that people buy property and rent to those who want to rent instead of buy? My question to you is why wouldn’t it be legal?
In principle it’s fine and it fulfills a market need… not everyone wants to buy. But in practice, under-regulation in a market where many people want to buy but can’t exacerbates wealth inequality by reducing the available housing and driving up home costs. This in turn drives up rental costs. It’s a nasty cycle.
Absolutely, a problem that is improved by increasing housing supply (thus lowering costs). We need more government investment in building homes and to remove barriers that prevent or slow homes from being built. Simply outlawing rentals, as OP suggests, would do the opposite, it would take out a huge chunk of people who are building homes, drastically lowering supply and exploding housing prices.
There are definitely alternatives, where there is more tax incentive to own one home that you live in, and increasing penalties for holding more properties, especially for a long period of time and especially if they are in areas of high housing demand.
OP isn’t directly suggesting making rentals illegal; in fact it’s a bit vague what specific practice they’re blaming. My best guess is that they generally don’t feel laws should allow/incentivize owning so many housing properties, especially if one is not personally doing anything to earn money from them.
A responsible landlord is “doing” arrangements for property maintenance and handling all tax and other legal requirements, and my hard feelings are towards slumlords who let dwellings become unsafe, or property flippers who kick all the renters out and build new dwellings to sell to more wealthy buyers.
But also, isn’t the hate for landlords equally applicable to banks and other financial institutions that hold mortgages? They really are earning money by no other responsibility than having the capital available at the start.
The solution is for the state to guarantee that everyone must have a place to live. Shelter is a human necessity, it should not be conditional.
Are you envisioning the government being a major landlord, like in Singapore? It seems to work really well for that country, but Americans seem uncomfortable with the idea of government housing.
Pretty much been covered by others already.
those who want to rent instead of buy?
Who actually wants to spend 1/3 of their paycheck on something every month and not own it?
1/3 income these days is if you’re lucky
It dawned on my that my wife and I pay 30k a year to live in our house. I made 65k last year, the most I’ve ever made and the amount I told myself in Highschool that if I could get a job making that I’d be set. Feels like I’m still bussing tables at fucking Texas Roadhouse.
For context, im in tech and she’s in the arts. Combined we’re at about 110k a year. Wild that that feels like just scraping by.
Biggest plusses people argue in favor is not having to maintain the property yourself and being able to move much more easily. If you are one of the people who would prefer to buy, I highly recommend you do so. Maintaining your own stuff is quite nice, as it lets you keep it up to the quality you desire.
Lmao this guy thinks landlords maintain the property.
Great, you can move more easily to another overpriced unmaintained property. You will own nothing and you will be happy about it.
My exact thoughts. Never had anything in my apartments maintained by the landlord, always had to maintain everything myself at my own expense. And despite maintaining it for them, they still keep our deposits when we try to leave.
Keep our deposits, jack up rent despite doing nothing for us, and when they sell to a new landlord you have rich freaks coming into your home while you’re eating your lunch in your kitchen to stare at you and inspect the place to decide if they want to purchase you or not.
Never had anything in my apartments maintained by the landlord, always had to maintain everything myself at my own expense.
When is the last time you bought a furnace, a water heater, or a new roof for a property you rent? Ever?
It isn’t that the owner isn’t maintaining it, it is that they aren’t maintaining it do the standard you would prefer. And that absolutely is an issue. And it is one of the primary benefits of no longer paying a landlord and instead buying a property and maintaining it to your own standards. You will almost certainly end up with a maintenance standard you like as you will be the one dictating and implementing it.
A basic standard includes a ceiling that isn’t caving in, a foundation that isn’t sinking causing the windows to pull the wall above them apart, but either way the landlord won’t address it and I’d never have the money to correctly address it myself. In those instances it feels less like my personal standard isn’t being met but rather the basics and fundamentals aren’t being maintained.
I would love to own though. If I were ever in a position to own and afford maintenance I would feel safer.
I apologize by the way if I write in a confusing way, or have a hard time communicating my point, I have trouble with that. Owning is preferable in my opinion, property and privacy are power and a form of independence I long for.
In a word, corruption.
In two words, legal corruption.
In three words, blatant legal corruption.
In four words, United States political system.
Meh.
-
This isn’t an America problem. People do this in every country
-
This is capitalism not corruption
For everyone here’s a fun thought experience. You have a room with 100 people. In that room is 100$. 1 person (Elon Musk let’s say) holds 95$. 4 people (let’s say various CEO class people) hold $1 each. The remaining 95 people share the remaining 1$.
And yet here we are all fighting because some of our deluded asses think we are going to be one of those 5 people one day.
Meh.
- This isn’t an America problem. People do this in every country
It’s WORSE in the US than in most other countries, including all other wealthy countries, though. Differences in scale matter
- This is capitalism not corruption
Taken to the extremes it will inevitably reach if not sufficiently restrained, capitalism IS corruption with fancy packaging. It’s right in the name: it’s an ism (belief system) where accruing capital is the most important of ALL things.
In every Western country other than the US, accepting large sums of money and other perks from rich people who want favors is the DEFINITION of corruption, whether or not there’s a specifically stated quid pro quo.
It may be worse in the USA but capitalism absolutely is the reason it happens.
Its definitely not capitalism. Our system survives by creating economic slaves, for instance the mortgage acts as a gatekeeper in the fiat system, by locking up economic value and an inelastic good in a form that can only be unlocked by completing the payment obligations. Housing rises in price to max out the metaphorical bucket of whatever interest rates allow for debt accumulation, and property ownership is controlled by one’s ability to secure debt. This ensures that the financial system has a steady stream of obligations that help sustain the flow of currency, which helps drive aggregate demand.
The goal is to create a 2% inflation, as calculated by an index that excludes housing appreciation and investments, you require ever growing money supply. Money supply is grown via debt accumulation, this then funnels down into foods and services, excluding substitutions and hedonic adjustments, reversing technological deflation, deriving a 2% inflation to a dynamic basket of goods. Housing works well for this because housing is finite and demand in inelastic; prices can rise faster than fundamentals, and it is therefore a liquidity sponge that is a necessary liability to take.
-
It’s the same here in the UK, unfortunately. Is that neoliberalism? Or just a rehashed kind of feudalism? I don’t know, I’m mostly a gardener.
Yeah, it’s pretty much a defining aspect of Neoliberalism. Just like turning the corruption up to 11 in both severity and blatancy is a hallmark of the economics of fascism.
Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables track #4
They act like everyone could do this.
If everyone did this, the system would fail, because the profit here is scooped off the top with no actual production or service.
The product/service is the use of the property for the specified time.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
And if everyone did this when they were able to, rents across the board would be dirt cheap.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
Well, one has to do with recreation, and the other has to do with basic necessities of humans.
It would also require everyone to own 4+ houses which isn’t exactly feasible
It would require a lot of housing density for everyone to own four dwellings (and would kill rent demand well and good), but I wouldn’t call it infeasible. For everyone to have a quarter acre lawn and a 2,000 square foot house that shares no walls with neighbors? With those additional requirements having everyone own four is infeasible, sure, but a belief that’s the only dwelling worth owning is how we have throttled our housing supply in the first place.
If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
This is like saying that if everyone had a small business it would destroy the economy. If you think a rental damages the economy, you have no idea what the economy is, or how it works.
Businesses buy and sell off each other and also create value. But sticking with the “if everyone did this” every one would run a one person business. Not efficient but would work. On the other hand if everyone is renting out houses, they can at most be renting out one (ignoring foe now second houses/holiday apts). Then everyone would be housed and paying each other in a circle. So, no, everyone doing what the post suggests can not work. All but the first house would be empty.
Then it should be illegal to have no children, because if everyone had no children, we would literally go extinct.
That’s just the first thing that came to mind, huh? Tell me you wasnt to control women’s bodies without telling me.
It’s funny that one probably-landlord downvoted this. You know who you are, scum-sucking leech.
It’s kind of a false dilemma to say everyone should do it or nobody should do it. There are a lot of things that would destroy the economy or even the world if everyone did it. I think there is a healthy amount of small family owned rental properties like the one in the meme.
It’s a simplistic statement, but it’s not meant to be that broad, it’s meant to be taken for this type of practice.
If everyone lived off leeching off someone else or from being middlemen, without producing anything, there would only be money moved with no products, labor, or services.
It’s not meant to be applied to something like “what if everyone’s business was just opening a pub?”. The economy would be destroyed without diversification and many kinds of businesses. But being a landlord isn’t anything like that. Particularly those that won’t freaking repair anything wrong with the house, just take their checks and the tenant is on their own.
Hey bro sorry, I need to pay my rent a week late.
That’s true for teachers, too.
If it is a lifestyle that would destroy the economy if everyone had it, then that’s another story.
If everyone went to work every day for 8+ hours for the direct benefit of the members of their community, the economy and the community would both be incredibly healthy.
If everyone purchased the tools that other people need to live and work and decided to rent those out instead of doing their own labor, the economy and community would fail.
This should be incredibly obvious.
Landlords don’t contribute to society
Of course they do. Imagine that all of the landlords decide to start removing rental properties from the market if their tenants move out. What do you think that does to housing availability over the next 10 years?
Buy a home, don’t contribute to landlord’s profits.
Yeah, and buy it all cash so you don’t contribute to the banks profits. About as feasible for most, honestly.
Quite the opposite in fact.
Yeah they contribute a lot of pain and suffering
