Imagine if landlords decided to strike. The consequences would be....
There'd be noone to...
The land doesn't lord itself you know!
•
They can't strike, it's illegal. The ones that do are called slum lords and they're literally criminals.
Hey we should have that. Maybe if people that own 30 houses will stop buying more as an investment I can buy one.
•
Good ole Dave Paladino never saw justice. Got so bad guys plane had to take care of things itself.
Who's gonna paint over the outlets and cockroaches? Who's gonna wait months for that heater part to get delivered?
Not striking per se, but if you piss them off they could start turning away the majority of applicants so they don't have to deal with society's more desperate. The corporates already do that anyways, though.
Satire is no excuse for landphobia, you're still putting out problematic content that could be taken out of context and weaponized to trigger Persons of Land. Delete this
Chin up, king. At least we can sleep each night knowing we've done a long day of hard and honest work, unlike these lazy leech rentoids.
Preach, brother! I hammered in five crooked nails, slapped primerless paint on a whole door, and only jacked the rent $250 this week. The plebs don't know how good they have it.
With rent spikes that low, you're basically running a charity, and I bet you didn't even hear a peep of gratitude from your ungrateful tenants. Raise those rents even higher bro, at least $100 for each nail you hammered. You deserve it for all that thankless toil.
I can never tell if the comments on these posts are made ironically or if there really is a large percentage of people who think being a landlord is a real job
I feel like landlord can be a real job, if you actually maintain and upgrade the property and charging a reasonable price. That’s different than a landowner who pays some schmuck to manage it for them, pays the manager shit and charges the tenants unreasonable sums simply bc they can.
Unironically like my landlord. He leaves me alone, I leave him alone, and my rent only went up $50 in the 3 years I've been here. He's fixed 1 major issue in that time because I take care of my shit.
Personally, the less interaction I have to have with my liegelord landlord, the better.
But it doesn't stop most of them from being money grabbing assholes. But the real problem is those speculative investment house flippers putting $10000 and a 6-pack into a home and marking it up 50%
And the fucking zoning committees ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
I've been renting my entire adult life and I've required maybe six hours of effort from my landlords in that time. It would take thousands of properties to keep someone honestly employed full time managing them.
Idk people like you or me might not take up a lot of maintenance time but I had property manager previously who was also a landlord who was actually there all the time in a building of around 13 units doing actual work. He only had one other building as far as I know and kept pretty busy. But then, he wasn't a "landlord" in the sense we're discussing. He owned the buildings and maintained them.
There are fewer good landlords than bad ones, but the good ones work hard to maintain their investment and provide homes to families despite it being a liability. These properties are majority purchased on loans, after all.
•
I agree that not all landlords are bad (and not all tenants are good) but I have a hard time believing anyone becomes a landlord to "provide homes to families". It's an investment, a source of income.
A majority of the white collar people I work with brag about how many homes they own and rent because it's the best investment they ever made without having to put much work into it. One of them rents out his deceased mother's house left to him in a will for $9000 a month to a family of like 12 with 4 generations in it and it's only like a 4-5 bedroom house.
He isn't doing it to provide, he's doing it because it's good money. Stocks don't get you that instant cash back like renting does.
God I hope it's a bubble and I hope they all end up destitute trying to sell the houses. I don't even fucking care if I get it worse, I can't compete, and they all have like 3+ houses a piece.
Sure my direct acknowledgement of it is anecdotal but it doesn't change the fact that first time home buyers are way down and people buying property for investing are practically an all time high. In Canada investor buying is a third of all house purchases and at best they will rent for additional profit.
Edit: also what the fuck does that even mean? Literally just added nothing to the conversation and strawmam for what? That's not how people talk and you don't seem smart for saying it.
If you buy 3 homes (and the land beneath it) for roughly 300k USD, which is a very very low estimate, on a 15 year loan and pay more than 4 or 5% interest then you need to make 2,219.06 to 2,372.38 a month for the minimum payment before figuring costs of insurance and costs of maintenance like painting, doors, replacing heat tape on water lines, sometimes replacing entire walls, windows, fixtures, or insulation, pest control, roofing every couple of years. You also have to pay estimated taxes every quarter. If one of your homes sits empty or your renters are late then you are at a deficit. If you evict then you'll end up covering power and water as well. It's not all that profitable on the small scale, absolutely feels like charity if you're charging less than $1400.
But the thing is, if nobody buys those homes, then they aren't on the market for rent. So then where do people live? Luckily, low income housing has become more available across the USA, but it's definitely not the greatest community to raise children.
Ironic humor isn't a thing. If someone says something and then backpedals and says it was ironic, it's a lie and they're just scared of being judged for takes they know are stupid. It could be satire or sarcasm, but considering how landlord meme subreddits are I really doubt it
I think There are some genuine humour/satire cases, but on the whole I agree that ironic humour leaves the door open to actual bad actors. We've got to be able to drop the mask and say that no really landlords have no right to complain
Geldadel (money aristocracy). It didn't even change that much. In the past their excuse was religion now it's "proficiency".
Can we really not leave his "ironic" pro-landlord bullshit on reddit? They don't give a fuck about you, they will never want anything for you other than paying your rent, you'll never be one unless you've already got really good money. "jokingly" jerking them off isn't gonna change any of that
Istg if I see the word rentoid on here regularly I'm chucking my phone in a river
They're taking the piss out of people who defend landlords, why so mad. This is a shitpost community, don't need to be so serious
This post might just be taking the piss at those trying to defend landlords. Or its a genuine effort to take their side, I'm not sure. Anyway, criticism of landlords was bound to bring people to defend them and/or criticise renters in response. Don't fret too much, many of us also despise the accumulation of weath through acquiring real estate.
•
Our landlady is pretty cool. If we want to buy something that can be an addition to the flat (like furniture or appliances or something) she gladly pays for it. So far in two years she paid for our coffee machine, rice cooker, balcony table and chairs, living room rug, and a new bed in my room. Downside of course is that if we move these have to stay, but honestly it's such a good place for about half the market value that we're not planning to do it any time soon. And of course if there's any maintenance required, we just send her a photo and a link with a price to a part that needs replacing or supplies that need to be bought and she pays for it, and I guess she's glad she doesn't have to pay for a technician, we just do it ourselves.
So.
She bought herself those things, and you do the maintenance on your apartment, while she charges what used to be considered an ok rate before the market got captured by algorithmic price fixing and private equity firms.
Yes, unfortunately that does make her "one of the good ones."
1: Renting itself is an important stepping stone in current society 2: Corporations fucking love it when dumbasses fight those only slightly better off than then instead of the corporations/people at the top 3: None of this matters to you because feeling big about yourself is more important than actually talking/listening to those you're engaged with
A more accurate description would be: she bought herself those things knowing she will never use them and most likely going to be amortized when we finally leave and the next "rentoid" comes in, needing replacement anyway. She doesn't raise our rent despite the market and our contract allowing her to do so.
Regarding maintenance think about issues like replacing broken hinges, changing an amortized shower head, replacing sealing rings in our sink drain etc. So far (in 2,5 years) never had any actual big issue which we couldn't fix ourselves, but if that were the case we would call a technician and send her the invoice.
In our country our situation is a little different. Our government introduced a package which was supposed to help families build or buy homes, giving a large sum of money without having to pay it back, and giving the same amount of money again with extremely low interest rates. This has caused housing prices to double in a few years. But it didn't just affect the housing market, it affected everything that you might buy for a new home (building materials themselves, furniture, appliances etc) because one of the conditions of this package is to renovate, build or buy a relatively newly built house/flat. For example the bed she bought was literally the same I had at home, and its price tripled (I reiterate, fucking TRIPLED) over a couple years. Other factors like the pandemic and the war have also affected the market.
Due to being the #1 country with the highest inflation in the EU (yay!) interest rates also skyrocketed, which makes it pretty much impossible to buy a house/flat anymore with the inflated prices. This has caused an insane increase in the number of people who want to rent, there was a time where barely any flats were available on housing websites. The market reflected the increased demand, people started giving out rooms, renovating old homes to allow parts of it to be rented, people with a lot of money started building apartment houses, etc. And of course the prices (after "rentoids" sucked up the market) were going to be higher to reflect the higher demand.
I visited my landlady every week and listened to her tell stories about growing up 90 years ago in the house I live in. I made double portions of dinners and brought half to her. She made me cookies from her mom's recipes. I called her kids when she seemed disoriented and I stayed in the hospital all night with her when they weren't sure she would make it till morning. I stayed with her when they brought her back to her house so she could look at her garden a last time and I held her hand while she passed.
Not all landlords are bad.
There are nice people everywhere. There were nice aristocrats who lived off the favour of the courts, whose wealth was also stolen.
Look, I'm also considering renting my house out for a very low amount to a young family and living in a garage when I'm older, but at least I know I'm taking advantage of a system that gives me unearned advantages for getting in on real estate early.
I don't need anyone to defend me. I have actual privilege.
What would that accomplish?
I just try my best to pay it forward while being aware that my situation is due to luck
My only comment on the landlord stuff is that there are landlords that are good, but they're extremely rare. My landlord from college, whom I now consider to be a friend, and regularly keep up with, became a friend because he was an exceedingly great landlord.
He would regularly visit the property to check in, do the work around the place that needed to be done. Stuff like shoveling snow, cutting the grass, etc. He made sure everything was running correctly and there were no issues; if there was ever a problem he would address it right away and at the very least, give you a rough timeline on when things would be fixed.
You could call him 24/7 and he would drop whatever he was doing and head out to address any issue that needed immediate attention. He was lenient on payments, often foregoing first/last/security payments with little more than the commitment to pay by a certain date, which could be months into the future. We were students and sometimes our financial assistance didn't come in exactly when we needed it, and we had to argue with our financial institution to get our cheques for the semester. He provided everything included in the rent, from heat/power to internet. Rent was reasonable and often under market value for what was provided. He was less concerned about making profit and more concerned with the house paying for itself, and running smoothly.
Before anyone has the chance to comment, this guy is a unicorn. I'm damned lucky to have rented from him. By no means does he represent even a fraction of 1% of landlords. He did everything in his power to ensure we were taken care of and that's why I rented from him the entire time I was in college, and a few of my friends ended up moving into my student house over the course of my college career. I don't expect to ever find another landlord that's anywhere near his quality ever again. I've had the need to rent from others, because he doesn't really have any units that served my needs later in life (and now I have a mortgage, so never again), and the difference is dramatic. Most landlords seems to do everything in their power to avoid taking responsibility, visiting the property, or have anything happen that doesn't either sweep problems under the rug, or make it someone else's problem. They just want their money, and damn everything else.
99.9% of landlords are garbage, and they deserve every ounce of hate towards them. They've worked hard at earning that hate and they get the hate that they have earned. I recognise that my experience with this one landlord does not and should not excuse any of that loathing that others feel about landlords in general and the vast majority are not worth the oxygen that they consume.
My entire point is that it's not 100% of landlords that are shit. It's damn close to 100% but it's not. A very small fraction of a percent are actually good at what they do, and take issues seriously. They get involved in issues without hesitation and resolve problems quickly, without complaint. It is an extremely small number of them. My (now) friend who happens to also be a landlord is one such example. That being said, it's not worth it to maintain an entire industry full of shit for the few that actually do things well and provide something valuable. So I'm still in favor of burning it all down and rebuilding from scratch. Temporary/rental living has a place in society for those who will be living in an area for a small amount of time (college/university is an easy example), but on the whole, ownership should be a painless experience, and it's not. In no small part because of landlords buying up anything they can. Another contributing factor is house flippers, whom I consider to be a scourge to society, since so few of them do anything remotely correct. Many don't do things that will even stand up to moderate use and buying from a flipper often results in having to have most of the work re-done correctly within a few years.
It's a horrid part of society and should be abolished.
•
There are three reasons that "good landlords" seem to be scarce:
-
People tend to be more vocal about bad experiences than good, so we'll definitely hear more about the bad ones
-
Many people decided to become a landlord because it outpaced other "investments" greatly, especially if you're a shitty landlord who doesn't put profit back into maintaining said "investment"
-
Many of the good landlords that did exist and weren't gouging eventually got hit with a bad tenant that cost them a lot of suffering and $$$ while being extremely difficult to evict. Whether it's true or not, I still hear current ones who say they're charging [crazy amount] to pad for the eventual $20k bill when a bad tenant wrecks their place (and these days it's not hard to do $20k+ in damage)
Also per the comic: I've never heard of anyone tipping a landlord, good or bad
It's the ones left with an extra property as a result of inheritance or moving in with a partner that are probably OK to rent from.
Although letting agencies are always there to bring the big landlord misery experience to smalltime landlords.
Anyone buying a third property or more should be charged 100% stamp duty.
-
Make it illegal for any corporation to own residential property.
-
all properties beyond your first property, you pay an additional 10% sales and property taxes per property above 1. This means you pay 110% for your second, 120% for your third, 200% for your 11th, and so on.
Housing crisis solved.
This means you pay 110% for your second, 120% for your third, 200% for your 11th, and so on.
That cost would just be passed on to the renter.
For the first few, but there is a point at which it stops being feasible. "Hi, I'm interested in your one bedroom in Bumfuck, ID, how much is rent?" "Well, I own 17 properties so it's $93,000 a month."
Still think the big corpos would just pass on the costs, and get away with it, by using financial shenanigans.
You'd have to have those too, true, but they seem almost impossible to pass, for tax collection reasons.
I think there's a few more parts.
Lack of housing means that you have to bid more than anyone else in your area was offering, including greedy wannabe landlords who watched an episode of Homes Under the Hammer and think it's easy money. When I bought my house, I tried haggling down. Now they're haggling up. Even if the landlords weren't an issue, you'd still be competing with all the 30-something couples in your area desperate to get their feet on the housing ladder.
Insanely low interest rates has lulled people into the idea that the crazy prices "aren't that much" when paid back over 30-40 years. Rising interest rates would fuck a lot of people over who suddenly find their wages going up by 10%, but their mortgage payments going up by 100%. Plus who wants to still be paying off their house when they're pushing 70? Fuck that noise.
Governments and local government need to step in and provide housing at reasonable rents. The glorious free markets have had housing for too long and fucked it right up.
Is that standard in some countries?
Most of the ones I see in the UK are like 5 years, max.
It is standard in the US. Adjustable rate mortgages are available as well, but they have not been popular since the 2008 crisis.
Yeah, that's understandable.
The US got the brunt of that particular crisis. The UK didn't seem quite as bad, although I did notice you needed a much larger deposit after that. Pre subprime-crisis they were cheerfully handing out 110% mortgages, which in retrospect was fucking mental.
•
Except that rising interest has also fucked up the market for builders who are now producing even less houses
I have a small house I purchased in a neighborhood full of renters. I bought during the low interest pandemic times, too, so my mortgage is less than most people's rent. If I won the lottery tomorrow I would definitely sell my house for a better one (I make about 30% more now than when I bought, and the only reason I won't move now is because of the interest rate). So many people have told me that I need to rent this place out rather than sell it. But I don't have the ability to be the kind of landlord you described and therefore I know I shouldn't be a landlord at all.
So many people have told me that I need to rent this place out rather than sell it. But I don’t have the ability to be the kind of landlord you described and therefore I know I shouldn’t be a landlord at all.
You don't need to be a "unicorn", just be a "good horse".
Treat your renters decently, and take care of issues as they come up.
Don't be your own worse enemy.
Dunno, not all agencies are shit either. I rented an apartment for 2 years through an agency and their fee was stupid high where I live, sure, but they took care of all the issues we had, they called the technicians for reparations and if the technicians said that stuff broke because it was old or it was faulty, the landlord had to pay it. 100% of our issues were like that. When we left, the landlord returned us all the deposit the day before the agency came to check how the house was (it was clean ofc).
Iirc the landlord bought the house as a future investment for his kids, so we had the best renting experience for me at least. I live in a small european city with high prices so the experience will differ wildly from other places, even in other neighbourhoods of my city lmao
I get what you're saying. I rented from a large organization in my former city (they own something like 60 or 70% of the highrise rental buildings in the city), and we had an excellent experience with few exceptions; but our esperience was largely due to our superintendents. They were always prompt, punctual, and attentive to anything that needed attention. That was their job, and bluntly, they did it well.
I've heard stories from other people who have rented from the same company but for different properties who have had dramatically different experiences. The difference came down to who was managing the property, not who owned it. The corporation that owned it just pushed all the responsibility onto the super, and collected their money every month, not giving a shit about anything. We were good tenants and paid promptly every month without fail, so we never had an issue. The super also did me some really big favors while we were in the process of vacating the premise. We got out on time, but barely. I called in a handful of favors to get it done, but it got done. The super was being pressured by the corp who owned the building to get us out before a specific date/time (IIRC, 5PM on the friday before the last day of the month) - however, legally, we technically had posession of the unit until 11:59 PM (23:59) on the last day of the month, because that's what we paid for.
There was some discussion on this and the super got involved, and examined the situation (we were on good terms due to our history and repoire), and knew that the companies expectations of us being out by friday at 5 wasn't going to happen. They basically ran interference to ensure we had whatever time we needed, within the confines of the law, to get the job done, and wrap up as expected. At the end of the day, we were all happy with the outcome (both the landlord and myself and SO).... though, I believe they're no longer the superintendents there, and I'm not sure if that's related or not.
Simply put, they're little more than employees. The company wants what they want, and the corporation that owns the building is a cold unfeeling bastard who can only be diciplined by major legal action (which bluntly, most people who need to rent, can't afford to go against the legal firm that the corporation literally owns).
to give some context, I work I.T. and had occasion to work for their corporate HQ (my employer got some contract work), when the moved to a new building. Through that, I got some serious insight into the company, and they have entire floors set up for legal, property management, and even a fucking bank. This corporation is their own bank, legal team, and everything. it's staggering to think how large they need to be before simply buying a bank and a law firm is cheaper than hiring an independent company to handle that. It's mind boggling.
If they were to go out of business tomorrow, I wouldn't mind though. I attribute 100% of the positives of that experience to the superintendents we had. I would have liked for them to own the building far more than that heartless corporation.
Who tips a landlord? What kind of bs is that?
If anything, landlords should gift steady and good tenants with something nice, a cash gift card or something.
Found the beta male 🙄 (but fr tho, this is just satire, it originated from making fun of those "do this to be a millionaire" type of posts)
Edit: This is comment on a shitpost, I'm not being serious 😐
Alpha males. They are like alpha versions of software: still in development, unstable and unfit for the general public.
You don't understand tipping culture, their bosses don't pay them enough so they need to make a living on tips. Give them the tip or they can't pay rent! /s
Ehh I had one that said it would be nice if I did to help cover the cost of transaction fees and postage of sending me my receipt in the mail.
Well they expect their tenants to subsidize their living completely... I could imagine they would also at least want a tip from them because without the landlord they wouldn't have a place to live....
/S for those in the back who can't swim in sarcasm
Yes, he could have trippled rent prices but he only doubled them because of his kindness and love towards his tenants 🥰
Are there actual cost increases for landlords that justifies them charging so much more on rents now, or is it solely based on "market prices"? I imagine taxes increase, maybe insurance, their own mortgage may fluctuate, and then you have things just breaking down in a house on a regular basis, so imagine they do need to pad the rent a little bit just to cover additional costs, but current prices seem excessive. To me it just seems like price gouging, but I'm not a landlord, so I don't know what goes into it.
The big thing is pricing in an eviction moratorium, it's going to be a while before landlords are ok with thinking the government won't remove their recourse for unpaid rent.
The big thing is that they all use a piece of software to create a cartel. The rent prices in the US are being artificially inflated by companies like Zillow that chart all the "comps" in an area. A "comp" is a completed sale. The thing is that they can buy a property at 120-300% of actual value in the area to create a "comp" that artificially inflates the "value" of all the other properties in the area, thereby allowing their property management division to jack up rents, which since they all share what they are charging jacks up all the other rents in the area.
Break the corporate cartels.
Break the corporate cartels.
I don't believe the current members of Congress would consider that a high priority thing for them to do.
You're going to have to run for congress, win, and then not get corrupted once you're there, to do that.
Some provide actual value by working as a superintendent for the properties they own, most simply hire a management company and pass the costs onto the tenants.
"I ain't giving you shit, I ain't paying the rent 'til I've got hot water and my toilet is fixed. I don't care, you can try to kick me out if you want to. ' Cause I'll be away, gonna be away tomorrow, I'm gonna do it right and find a place, and I will tell my slumlord to get out of my face! I get the world, you get nothing! I ain't giving a shit, I'm not paying the rent, and I will tell my slumlord to get out of my face, you ain't getting a thing from me!"
" Slumlord" - Bomb The Music Industry!
The only thing landlords actually have a claim to be worried about is what's going to happen to them once their tenants are free.
I'm having a hard time understanding your rules here.
So if I own a car, I sleep in that car, I'm not working class anymore?
You don't understand the difference between owning stuff, and owning stuff for a living?
It's "I own a house I live in" vs "I own multiple houses I rent out to derive am income."
Owning things for a living isn't a job - it's rent-seeking.
Plenty of "landlords" are working class who've managed to purchase an apartment / small house / etc. Certainly not "owning shit" for a living
If a significant portion of your income is owning shit, you're definitionally not working class.
You'd be petite bourgeois.
If you're not profiting from hoarding property during a shortage, why are you doing it?
it means they have one foot in the working class and one foot on the other side of the fence. their material interests are only partially aligned with those of other workers, and partially aligned with the interests of people who own for a living. they are in a position to throw another working person out on the street or raise their rent, and to potentially get rewarded for doing so. it's a perverse incentive.
By next year my starter flat will be a rental, my family will finally be in something with a yard but I still have to get up and go to work every morning to pay for the one with the yard and if I'm REALLY lucky the other one wont cost me much per year.
This is why I'm suspicious of these posts, it almost seems like social engineering to make the idea of investing your money in something safe and lucrative (like property) to be socially unacceptable for individuals. When there is always a billionaire or a hedge fund or an investment group who are nameless, faceless and soulless who will dive on any opportunity to take more from us.
Hoarding multiple properties during a shortage should be socially unacceptable, but definitely isn't.
I understand that you're motivated to do this because it's easy money, but I'm not going to lie to you to make you feel any better about that choice. The fact that billionaires and hedge funds exist and are bad doesn't make what you're doing any better - the only difference between you and them is the scale of the rent-seeking you're engaging in.
It's a bad, but lucrative thing to do - if the labour you're doing to secure that profit is occasionally feeling a pang of guilt, I'd say you have it easy.
Then please do not be an arsehole landlord.
It is not the tennant's responsibility to pay the mortgage on your flat. Nor should they return it to you as new.
What you rent it for is the market rate, which hopefully will cover your mortgage+expenses. It may not, that is your problem, not the tennant's.
When the tenndnt moves out there will be changes and even damage. Just like your primary property will have changes and damage.
When the tennant highlights an issue, fix it NOW. They are paying you a lot of money and deserve a lot of service.
•
Owning realestate is one of the few almost guaranteed good investments working class people can make
If you're a landlord you're not working class by any definition.
Bullshit.
I got up at 4:00 this morning and spent 10 hours working for the postal service, my wifes a highschool teacher. We are shopping for a modest family home and plan to keep the starter unit we bought 10 years ago and rent it.
All of a sudden I dont work for my money any more? I'm part of the elite upper crust of society? No, Im just trying to do what nobody in my family line has ever done which is make sure their kids arent starting at broke.
You've also taken that starter home off the market, preventing someone else from being able to own a home and follow your path to ownership of a forever-property.
If it's not unethical at one rental property, when is it? Two? Three? Five?
You’ve also taken that starter home off the market
In Europe, maybe yes this would make sense.
But in the US? Not a chance, there's so much space you're not taking anything from anyone.
No argument, but there does need to be a certain rental market density. Not everyone wants to own, thats why we bought an easy to maintain unit near a university. Air BNB, holiday homes and "property parking" are the ones taking things out of circulation.
Answer me this. Why should I take on the moral burden of the ethics and not a property group that owns literally hundreds of properties? Thats what I'm saying, these "landlord" memes seem to be trying to make me making a good choice as one family unit a despicable act in the eyes of "working people" when the people with real money and real power who have no shame and dont care just sieze the opportunity if I dont.
you're doing less of the same thing the huge property groups are doing, but you're still doing it
Nothing wrong with being a landlord. There is a problem with being a tosser.
The landlord/tennant relationship seems to be different to every other business relationship. The landlord always seem to think they are doing the tennant a service by allowing them care for the house. The reality is that the tennant is exchanging large sums of money for a service.
- Deep cleaning ready for the next tennant is the landlord's problem, not the tennant.
- All maintenance of the infrastructure of the house (walls, water, heating, etc) is the landlord's problem. This includes modernisation. No rental property in 2023 should be without structured cabling and modern electrics for example.
- The tennant is not there to pay the mortgage. The landlord may lose money at times and that is just the cost of doing business.
Fixing houses is already a job. It's called being a repairperson. Some landlords work as repairpeople in addition to being landlords, and that's great, because the repair work is the only part that's actually a job. Plenty of landlords contract it out and only do the job of landlording, which is sitting on your ass.
Don't care if they do it themselves or contract it out. They just need to be make sure it is done.
There's some clarity lacking for sure. I think most people here agree that owning as much real estate as possible being a good investment, is problematic for society and should be done away with. Also that people should vote to get this system changed such that hoarding homes is not a financially good idea. This comic represents the animosity that exists between people that want to take advantage and advance the current system, and the people that hate the current system. That being said, the rules of the game dictate, if you want to make a lot of money, buy homes.
But is the problem families keeping their little starter home as a rental when they buy a larger home later? Or is the problem people who own 10 apartments? Or is the problem "property groups" who own whole apartment buildings, literally hundreds of properties?
I'm instantly suspicious of anything that creates division among the people, especially when the division looks like getting people catching the bus mad at people driving cars from the comfort of the private jet.
Owning realestate [...] creating generational wealth.
There is this popular misconception that real estate "is forever, like diamonds", that its value can only go up... even when it lies in ruins after years of neglect, or gets eaten by termites, burnt in a fire, bombed away... no matter! "The value can only go up!" 🙄
Well, no. Real estate is a perishable product, it takes decades to perish, yet ultimately it does. It requires constant maintenance, aka constantly spending money on it in order to keep its value. It's a shitty generational investment... unless you're into predatory practices that will make your tenants pay for the deprecation, or even better, pay the mortgage for you.
You want a place to live in, it makes sense to buy it. If you buy a place to live off, then you're either scum or a fool.
There is this popular misconception that real estate "is forever, like diamonds", that its value can only go up...
Diamonds aren't even that rare. The only reason they're that expensive is because of marketing and corruption.
Indeed, that's why I chose that comparison. Both diamonds and real estate are expensive because of marketing and corruption.
A landlord and their tenant(s) are at a natural conflict of interest to begin with.
Also, for most tenants, the rising costs for many goods and services associated to housing are bundled into rent, so to them, it's their landlord who's jacking up prices and being frugal with repairs etc.
Next, the term "landlords" encompasses not only uncle Mike who invested his life savings in two apartments to secure his retirement, but also the millionaire who owns a dozen houses and the middle manager who doesn't even own the units they're managing but has to represent a large company.
So landlords make for easy targets of frustration to begin with.
A landlord who is, on top of that, intent on not only covering costs (including their own), but wants to create generational wealth get rich(er) quickly, will have to squeeze their tenants more.
Remember: wealth isn't created. It's extracted.
(Yes, there's money genuinely being generated somewhere in the realms of credits and banking, but my LL isn't being paid by a bank. They're being paid by me.)
To your last point: money being created != Wealth/value creation; it's more like wealth redistribution (if you create a thousand bucks out of thin air, in an economy of a trillion it's small potatoes - but it does add up fast and affects everyone).
There absolutely is value in banking, but it's not nearly enough as much as advertised.