So apparently buying a house, furnishing it, maintaining it, complying with various codes and regulations, and making the house available for someone to live in for a period of time for a sum of money is “parasitic”. Not sure why, or why the same logic wouldn’t apply to anything of value someone makes available to others for a fee.
You wouldn’t do this if it weren’t profitable. The tenant will end up paying for the furnishings and maintenance many times over in rent, and you will get an appreciating asset that you are gradually paying off the debt for. You’re not getting paid for management, you’re profiting from holding capital in a system designed to benefit those that have capital, and seeking rent for the ownership of that capital.
I wouldn’t hold it against someone in this system we have if they end up buying a property to safeguard their money, but let’s not pretend that landlords are not a parasitic relationship that reduce the amount of housing stock available for people to buy and act as a middle man between a tenant and a property management company.
Why on earth do you think anyone would rent out a house, or pay for all the ancillaries - furnishings, repairs, insurance, legal etc. if they didn’t get a return on their investment, time and effort? Do you also accuse Marriott of being parasites for renting rooms? Or Hertz for renting cars? They do these things because they spent a lot of money to provide something of value that people can utilize for a period of time but they still expect to make money.
Renting is a business. It’s as “parasitic” as any other business were a person pays for something with money and receives something in return. If you are not prepared to rent then don’t. There are other options to having a roof over your head. Buying a house would be one option but there are others.
If you equate rental cars and hotel rooms as the same as shelter used every day I don’t know how you are going to begin to understand the other person’s argument. I hope you can educate yourself about this.
“Buying a house” lol, imagine being so out of touch you think that’s an option for people who can barely handle rent.
It’s a very US-centric view because their states seemingly doesn’t enforce rules and regulations while also not having rent control. Creating a situation where landlords can demand pretty much whatever they want in a housing crisis while also not spending their revenue on actually maintaining the apartments they rent out.
The complaint is fair. For them.
Every landlord I’ve had doesn’t do shit. In principle, sure yeah being a landlord can be a bit of work. In practice? They expect it to be a source of passive income
I’ve had the exact opposite relationship with all but one landlord. The one bad landlord relationship I had I sued and won. But I’ve lived in about 6 or 7 places with amazing landlords that took care of the maintenance and everything else. Hell I fell down in a shower busting a big ass hole in the tub once and the landlord replaced it at his own cost.
Because of nasty landlords happy to evict people or raise rents, Reddit and now Lemmy are full of people saying all landlords are awful morlocks feeding off the pain of everyone. Like everything else nowadays there’s no middle ground in the common arguments either way. Landlords evil, renters saints.
This is a misunderstanding though. People aren’t complaining about individuals who happen to be landlords being nasty. They’re making a systemic complaint about rent-seeking.
A landlord can be a perfectly polite and pleasant person. They’re still engaging in rent-seeking. And that’s the complaint.
