Are landlords inherently unethical?

[travisbickle]

Pre-2008 was crazy, so many tv shows (UK) about having renters fully pay your mortgage and earn a little bit extra. Pretty much viewed as free-money if you could pony up the initial investment. So many people complaining when the bubble finally burst.

Rentier class has always been viewed as parasites even by the old-school free-market thinkers. It's only been the growth of the middle class during the 20th century that's turned it into an aspiration. So there's a lot of arguments about it being an easy way for someone to become a petite beourgois from nothing vs invisible-hand advocates who believe they are skimming money from the true innovators of society.

 

[Paperboywriter]

name one country without landlords and without a problem with homelessness.

 

[saenima]

Click to shrink...

Lmao.

Accurate.

 

[VariantX]

No. Landlords are not inherently unethical. Ive had good ones and lord I've had bad ones. The type that demand you pay them on time then act like they don't exist when something needs repair. Fuck those guys. Those are types who think renting property out to folks is the same as having a vending machine sitting somewhere where they just collect the money after a certain period.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

If you wanted to help people you wouldnt be charging them money to avoid dying of exposure

Click to shrink...

I think you're mixing up 'landlord' and 'charity'.

Do you chastise supermarket owners with the same argument in regards to food? or hotel operators? airBnB hosts? Like it's a business, of course they're not gonna give shit away for free.

 

[Froyo Love]

name one country without landlords and without a problem with homelessness.

Click to shrink...

so the existence of homelessness in countries with landlords proves, what?

 

[Shake Appeal]

Yes.

 

[ethranes]

Yes comrade!, it's time for the redistribution of housing! (to the government, they can be 100% trusted)

 

[Doober]

If you wanted to help people you wouldnt be charging them money to avoid dying of exposure

Click to shrink...

Tell me your thoughts on grocery stores and restaurants.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

No not at all. There are obviously plenty of abuses but it's not inherent to the arrangement.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Of course not.

 

[ascii42]

This is actually something I'd love to see data on but don't know where to look. Particularly would love to see a comparison of unit density/unit value and percentage of units that are rent-able vs buy-able. Would like to see if there is a correlation between unit values/popularity with equity groups monopolizing that property.

Rental property owners would also have a vested interest in limiting supply as it keeps their rental income up. They would always want a supply shortage.

Click to shrink...

I found this list of price-to-rent ratios: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-in-us-cities
High ratios to me indicate an oversupply of rentals compared to buyable property. I'm not sure what an "ideal" ratio would be, though.

 

[Ayato_Kanzaki]

Houses are really expensives. In order to be safe and comply with regulations, their construction recquire specialised know-how in a variety of fields. As a result, it would be irrealist to expect every adult or couple to own a house. Espescially in the first years of your career, when your income can be unstable.
So being able to have a temporary house for a fee is a necessity.

Some of you suggested the governement should pay for it. That's an interesting idea, but that open a whole bucket of worms. How do the governement determine an appropriate location for your home? What if the governement decide to impose you over 2 hours of commute from home to workplace? The size of it? What happens when two people having governement-issued homes start living together? When they get childrens and the house become too small?
In the end, the result would basically be hotels everywhere, and no one would have a home stable enough to be considered their own.

 

[Doomsayer]

hes saying give them free shelter at your own expense

Click to shrink...

Oh, I'm aware, it's just an absurd statement.

A lack of shelter can and does kill people.

You can not say "give me money or you will not have shelter" and then claim you are helping them.

Click to shrink...

You're right. You should let them live there for free. Or, you should give them the title of your property.

 

[ascii42]

A lack of shelter can and does kill people.

You can not say "give me money or you will not have shelter" and then claim you are helping them.

Click to shrink...

If they didn't have money to offer, the landlord wouldn't have the shelter to provide in the first place.

 

[Middleman]

A lack of shelter can and does kill people.

You can not say "give me money or you will not have shelter" and then claim you are helping them.

Click to shrink...

Do you not understand that that shelter would not exist if it weren't for landlords?

 

[Paperboywriter]

so the existence of homelessness in countries with landlords proves, what?

Click to shrink...

well there would be more homelessness for a start without landlords

 

[Pata Hikari]

I think you're mixing up 'landlord' and 'charity'.

Do you chastise supermarket owners with the same argument?

Click to shrink...

Yes exactly. Charity is helping people. Landlords hold people's lives for ransom.

You can not be a "good" Landlord. You can, at most be a polite one who does their best to be "gentle" when biting down and sucking the blood out of people

 

[Pikachu]

I thank this thread for reminding me to pay my rent...

 

[Froyo Love]

well there would be more homelessness for a start without landlords

Click to shrink...

I dunno, I can't think of a single country with landlords that has solved homelessness, so this seems doubtful by your reasoning

 

[FuzzyWuzzy]

This feels like one of the threads that will end up with ERA looking like bizarro world

 

[WascallyWabbit]

Yes exactly. Charity is helping people. Landlords hold people's lives for ransom.

You can not be a "good" Landlord. You can, at most be a polite one who does their best to be "gentle" when biting down and sucking the blood out of people

Click to shrink...

Good lord. TIL my local grocer is holding my life ransom because they have the audacity to charge me for food

 

[Pata Hikari]

Good lord. TIL my local grocer is holding my life ransom because they have the audacity to charge me for food

Click to shrink...

The capitalists who own the Grocery store are in fact doing that yes.

 

[Kurdel]

This feels like one of the threads that will end up with ERA looking like bizarro world

Click to shrink...

I think these threads are great to show that ERA isn't some kind of radical leftist SJW den on the Internet like the alt-right chuds make it out to be.

 

[Middleman]

I dunno, I can't think of a single country with landlords that has solved homelessness, so this seems doubtful by your reasoning

Click to shrink...

How do you think most medium/high density housing gets approval to be built?

Some of you so clearly live in a ridiculous socialist bubble with no idea how things actually work.

 

[finalflame]

I think these threads are great to show that ERA isn't some kind of radical leftist SJW den on the Internet like the alt-right chuds make it out to be.

Click to shrink...

It kind of feels like it's showing exactly that? Being told you're unethical for not letting people live on your property for free is .. something. I can't imagine many other social circles anyone would say that with a straight face.

 

[Doomsayer]

I think these threads are great to show that ERA isn't some kind of radical leftist SJW den on the Internet like the alt-right chuds make it out to be.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, owning property is evil and charging people to live at your property is even worse.

There are some people on this forum with 0 sense of reality.

The capitalists who own the Grocery store are in fact doing that yes.

Click to shrink...

Oh, so you're trolling? Nevermind then.

 

[WascallyWabbit]

Yeah, owning property is evil and charging people to live at your property is even worse.

There are some people on this forum with 0 sense of reality.

Click to shrink...

Did you know selling groceries is also evil, you on like the 5th level of evil for owning property

 

[FuzzyWuzzy]

I think these threads are great to show that ERA isn't some kind of radical leftist SJW den on the Internet like the alt-right chuds make it out to be.

Click to shrink...

I mean I got to agree with finalflame on that. Like this is not a question that would be proposed in most places with a straight face.

 

[Pata Hikari]

It kind of feels like it's showing exactly that? Being told you're unethical for not letting people live on your property for free is .. something. I can't imagine many other social circles anyone would say that with a straight face.

Click to shrink...

You owning a house you're not using is already unethical. Then charging people to use that house is then even more so.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

Yes exactly. Charity is helping people. Landlords hold people's lives for ransom.

You can not be a "good" Landlord. You can, at most be a polite one who does their best to be "gentle" when biting down and sucking the blood out of people

Click to shrink...

Alright well, keep being mad and you might get a free house one day. Have a good one.

You owning a house you're not using is already unethical. Then charging people to use that house is then even more so.

Click to shrink...

So are hotels unethical?

 

[Kurdel]

It kind of feels like it's showing exactly that? Being told you're unethical for not letting people live on your property for free is .. something. I can't imagine many other social circles anyone would say that with a straight face.

Click to shrink...

I have seen this take a lot in leftist circles, people in here shocked at the notion are proving my point.

 

[Pata Hikari]

Did you know selling groceries is also evil, you on like the 5th level of evil for owning property

Click to shrink...

Yes yes capitalism is evil I thought the past decade or so would have shown that to people by now.

 

[Doomsayer]

I have seen this take a lot in leftist circles, people in here shocked at the notion are proving my point.

Click to shrink...

It's just such an absurd notion. There are totally unethical and shitty landlords, no one is disputing that, but to say that being a landlord as a whole is unethical? Absolute nonsense.

What is the solution to the landlord problem? Some people don't want to own because the costs are astronomical if something goes wrong. Some people don't want to own in the state they currently reside in. Some people like the flexibility of renting in one location for a few years and then moving onto the next without having to worry about selling their property.

This whole thread is reductive as fuck.

 

[Einchy]

Owning property is evil and the government should own everything is, like, final boss of Leftism. Fucking Red on top of Mt. Silver type shit.

 

[Deleted member 20630]

I've had nothing but great landlords, luckily enough.

It's silly to put everyone in a vacuum and make blanket statements about professions. Some of them are scummy, and others are not.

Landlords are not inherently unethical but certain landlords certainly are.

Click to shrink...

The issue not individual people. It's systemic. It is irrelevant if you've had good experiences with landlords. Plenty of people have had good experiences with cops, too, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that policing as an institution is rotten.

The purpose of a landlord is to own land you don't use or need in order to extract money from those who do need it. Landlords are often afforded more latitude than tenants and thus have an unequal share of the power dynamic. There's also the issue of gentrification, and the fact that there are far more privately owned VACANT buildings than there are homeless people, and yet we cannot just house the homeless in those vacant properties despite nobody using or needing them.

If you think a society with hundreds of thousands of homeless people is unethical, than landlords are unethical.

 

[Kurdel]

It's just such an absurd notion. There are totally unethical and shitty landlords, no one is disputing that, but to say that being a landlord as a whole is unethical? Absolute nonsense.

Click to shrink...

Like, the critique is deeper than any of your anecdotes and #notalllandlords, this critique goes hand in hand with a critique of capitalism as we know it, and how shelter should be a human right not a priviledge. How most landlords get their properties through inheritance, and that capital is used to further accrue capital on the back of people with less social mobility.

It's a can of worms, but that is the discussion here.

It's not just saying "this way to earn money is bad", landlords are a symptom of our capitalist system.

 

[SurrenderDorothy]

Yes.

 

[louisacommie]

Nationalise housing

 

[Pata Hikari]

It's just such an absurd notion. There are totally unethical and shitty landlords, no one is disputing that, but to say that being a landlord as a whole is unethical? Absolute nonsense.

Click to shrink...

How is it nonsense?

Society has access to more than enough space and resources to provide a home for people and yet we do not. The moral thing to do is to provide this necessity to people. Anybody hording shelter and demanding tribute for its use is inherently unethical.

 

[WascallyWabbit]

Like, the critique is deeper than any of your anecdotes and #notalllandlords, this critique goes hand in hand with a critique of capitalism as we know it, and how shelter should be a human right not a priviledge. How most landlords get their properties through inheritance, and that capital is used to further accrue capital on the back of people with less social mobility.

It's a can of worms, but that is the discussion here.

It's not just saying "this way to earn money is bad", landlords are a symptom of our capitalist system.

Click to shrink...

What's this about? You got a source? Most landlords got their property from inheritance is a given fact?

 

[Froyo Love]

Good lord. TIL my local grocer is holding my life ransom because they have the audacity to charge me for food

Click to shrink...

SNAP is a nationwide U.S. program that gives people money for food because people need to eat food to live. That and the popularity of food charities seem to show really clearly that people in the U.S. think it's evil for someone to starve because they can't afford food. The implication is, yeah grocers will let you starve to death because that's an inherent product of capitalism - and because we know this evil situation will happen, we take collective measures to prevent it. So we don't see grocers as evil, because we prevented the situation where the grocer is telling a starving person to get the fuck out of their store, this is a business not a charity.

Now look at renting shelter. It's more expensive, there's less assistance available, and it's barely less essential than food. So, because we haven't taken collective action to prevent it, we get evil outcomes. A landlord kicks out a tenant who can't afford a rent hike because well, they're a business, not a charity. So, not shockingly, a bunch of people are willing to call that landlord unethical - and advocate for systems where that evil outcome does not happen - and are a little perplexed at why people in this thread act like the landlord is just answering to some inevitable call of the market, instead of treating them like a douchebag. By being a landlord you participate in and encourage their shitty system, the same way that cops do theirs. It's not unfair to call them out.

The people piling on to Pata Hikari have the causality completely reversed. The landlord in this thread said they were helping their tenants out, the OP said they sound like a good person. Pata Hikari rightly pointed out that this form of "helping" was not charity, it was still profiting off them, and it shouldn't be framed as charity. Then people blew up with "LOL, you expect them to run a charity!?!?" Uh, no. That's the point, and the problem.

 

[CherryWoodFuton]

The capitalists who own the Grocery store are in fact doing that yes.

Click to shrink...

Look at this edgelord communist

 

[prophetvx]

Shifting tens to hundreds of thousands of landlords to a model with a single landlord. What could go wrong?

 

[spootime]

How is it nonsense?

Society has access to more than enough space and resources to provide a home for people and yet we do not. The moral thing to do is to provide this necessity to people. Anybody hording shelter and demanding tribute for its use is inherently unethical.

Click to shrink...

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is free government-built housing incompatible with capitalism?

 

[WascallyWabbit]

SNAP is a nationwide U.S. program that gives people money for food because people need to eat food to live. That and the popularity of food charities seem to show really clearly that people in the U.S. think it's evil for someone to starve because they can't afford food. The implication is, yeah grocers will let you starve to death because that's an inherent product of capitalism - and because we know this evil situation will happen, we take collective measures to prevent it. So we don't see grocers as evil, because we prevented the situation where the grocer is telling a starving person to get the fuck out of their store, this is a business not a charity.

Now look at renting shelter. It's more expensive, there's less assistance available, and it's barely less essential than food. So, because we haven't taken collective action to prevent it, we get evil outcomes. A landlord kicks out a tenant who can't afford a rent hike because well, they're a business, not a charity. So, not shockingly, a bunch of people are willing to call that landlord unethical - and advocate for systems where that evil outcome does not happen - and are a little perplexed at why people in this thread act like the landlord is just answering to some inevitable call of the market, instead of treating them like a douchebag. By being a landlord you participate in and encourage their shitty system, the same way that cops do theirs. It's not unfair to call them out.

The people piling on to Pata Hikari have the causality completely reversed. The landlord in this thread said they were helping their tenants out, the OP said they sound like a good person. Pata Hikari rightly pointed out that this form of "helping" was not charity, it was still profiting off them, and it shouldn't be framed as charity. Then people blew up with "LOL, you expect them to run a charity!?!?" Uh, no. That's the point, and the problem.

Click to shrink...

This is a mischaracterization of what happened, the landlord in this thread did not use the term help as if it were to imply he was being charitable. Rather as an example of how it's good business to do so. So it's not fair for pata to call him a blood sucker.

 

[Tuorom]

I've never had a bad landlord. They've all been reasonable and often extremely nice. *shrug*

 

[Dyle]

Is the relationship between loaner and loanee the same as lessor vs lessee?

Click to shrink...

Essentially, both sign a contract where the loaner/landlord assume some kind of financial burden or risk that the loanee/lessor can't afford on their own. The loaner has to charge interest and make some kind of profit in the average deal because a percentage of deals will fall through, just as a landlord has to make some profit because simply owning the property is a risk that costs them money, whether someone lives in it or not. While there are some differences in specific instances, in general the relationship is nearly identical, particularly when we remember that the main form of home ownership is financed through private market mortgages where the loanee profits through charging interest.

 

[Doomsayer]

The people piling on to Pata Hikari have the causality completely reversed. The landlord in this thread said they were helping their tenants out, the OP said they sound like a good person. Pata Hikari rightly pointed out that this form of "helping" was not charity, it was still profiting off them, and it shouldn't be framed as charity. Then people blew up with "LOL, you expect them to run a charity!?!?" Uh, no. That's the point, and the problem.

Click to shrink...

Pretty sure he meant "help" as in take care of things quickly and make sure everything is always in working order. Help as in being available whenever his tenant needs him.

I don't think he was saying "you're lucky to even live here!" type of help.

edit: If the whole argument is being that landlords are bad because of capitalism and bloodthirsty nature of it I can somewhat see the argument being made but the way it is presented in this thread is wrong. I just don't like blanket statements being made in absolutes and not allowing any sort of nuance. It makes discussions (especially on this forum) really exhausting because you just have people yelling over each other about why their stance is correct and the other person is wrong.

 

[Ferrio]

It kind of feels like it's showing exactly that? Being told you're unethical for not letting people live on your property for free is .. something. I can't imagine many other social circles anyone would say that with a straight face.

Click to shrink...

Except it's the minority voice in this thread.