No Landlords on Lemmy I imagine
Edit: *greedy. No greedy landlords on Lemmy
Usually not, I try not to mingle with the…riff raff…who we allow to occupy our homes. And when they forget the manditory tip, whelp out to the streets with you since you can’t manage your finances.
I have a few rentals. Only one of them was purchased as a straight up investment. The others were just the places where I used to live. I also have a job. Theaye posts are honestly pretty childish. I rent my places out more or less at cost, and often take applicants who are seen as too risky by most landlords (I basically guarantee my own rentals, because I don’t really need the cash flow). I see it more as community service than a revenue stream.
That’s why I just think this shit is childish. Almost everyone I rent to is in no position to buy. I guess they’d just be homeless without landlords. I’ve had people who have literally been turned down 50 times, who were living in their car, and broke down crying when I told them I’d rent to them without a co-signer.
Shame they’re in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren’t allowed to own a “few” rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a “few” rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.
There would just be less housing. Construction workers are workers too, and as much as it sucks, they aren’t going to put $50k of their own labor and materials at risk so that a person living paycheck to paycheck can own a home, regardless of how noble that pursuit might be.
I also support radical action to end housing shortages and homelessness, and believe secure housing is a fundamental human right. If the government wanted to buy my properties at cost, using my own tax dollars, and gift them to those in need, I would support that. If they wanted to turn my current home into high density housing, I would support that. I am doing many things on my own, both through advocacy and direct action to address the real moral problem of housing. Unfortunately, I have no interest in being a smug slacktivist, so it often seems like lemmy doesn’t have any interest in my ideas.
Not everyone wants to own and it can even be profitable not to… It’s like if the anti landlord movement wants to force ownership on everyone…
Very thoughtful and agreeable comment. Fuck any greedy landlords and corps for buying up properties and driving up housing costs, but landlords and rentals do need to exist for people who need temporary housing or aren’t in the position to buy.
I wonder why people are in no position to buy, when homes are treated as a source of revenue for corporations and some people. I wonder why people have to jump through hoops to be able to have a roof, if the property are bought as an investment.
Yeah, maybe you aren’t lying and not making a profit out people’s suffering, but even you should see that it’s not the norm, otherwise your benevolence wouldn’t be needed at all. The whole system is cruel, and everyone who participates contributes to it, some more than others.
Thank you for your service.
It’s easy to demonize and dunk on people for being greedy and just removing houses from the market, but as you well have stated, some people are not in a position to buy. So rent becomes the only true and logical solution.
Sure, they could well be down on their luck. But I would also present the case of the immigrant, new to a country (and having moved with a job offer), having no opportunity to sign for a mortgage (no credit history, didn’t gather enough work time in the country to provide payslips). And even if they had a suitcase of money just lying around, it takes a bit of time to decide if you want to settle. The best one can hope for is finding a landlord who’s not an asshat.
And no, other solutions proposed in the comments probably would not help, since, for instance, communal rentals tend to have long waiting lists or require some sort of reputation (like knowing some of the community) before allowing you to move in.
By “at cost” do you mean they’re paying your mortgages and property taxes for you? If so, they could afford to buy if they had a down-payment. They probably don’t have a down-payment because all their money goes to rent :)
I don’t blame people for being capitalist when living in a capitalist system, but it still sucks. You could try something like a non-predatory form of rent-to-own where they gain equity over time (though these arrangements are usually predatory).
It’s super fucked up how people basically are constantly essentially getting taxed more and more for the right to survive. No one should be profiting off basic needs
That being said, the system is fucked up, and if you’re mainly using their rents to pay for equity, you’re playing by the rules while doing more good than harm. It can still be a win-win, and I think it’s ok to feel good about that
Homes shouldn’t be an investment vehicle, but they are - you should seek to help fix the broken rules, but it’s foolish to just ignore them. Most investments have a similar effect somewhere down the line anyways
But the real question is - are you actually a landlord? Technically yes, but in spirit? If you’re not making much of a profit from rent, you’re not what people mean when they say landlord. The upper middle class has been dabbling in rental properties for a while, but that’s not who the term refers to - it’s people who own enough that the rental income is the line item they’re keeping track of.
The starting line is like 20-30 units, and it’s mostly held by investment groups or families that inherited a town… They’re who own most rental properties out there
If you rent out a few places and don’t put much thought into adjusting the rent, you’re not the problem here. You’re not the one we’re talking about when we talk about landlords
Is there a version of this with proper English? It doesn’t help the plight of the labourer to speak so poorly
It’s text on a background. If you can’t manage that on your own and share it instead, maybe try not criticizing others prior to asking for favors or favours since you seem to lean that way on your spelling. The post likely helps more than your whining at the very least. Plus your comments are filled with poor grammar. Not sure why you’re feeling secure in your throwing stones while living in that glass house.
Beyond this, language isn’t moved by what’s in a dictionary. Language changes and evolves on its own into “slang,” slang being memed by people until it becomes a well known and popular term.
I consider myself to write fairly well, but I also know the absolute strength of language that is imperfect in spreading a message. Some of the memes that gain the most traction are the ones that sound the most “street” as opposed to “academia.”
Ignoring this and acting above it is just gatekeeping and elitism.
I had to read it a half dozen times to figure out what it meant. My favorite thought before I realized the use of the double negative was superfluous:
“What’s a no grill?”
I guess the Rolling Stones should have their top hits rescinded for double negatives then? It can’t be a top hit, it has bad grammar!
Should we rewrite “I can’t get no satisfaction” as “I cannot get satisfaction” to remove the double negative and the contraction?
What even is this nonsense. You must be fun at parties.
What doesn’t help the plight of the labourer is being an elitist pedant.
The message is perfectly clear.
There is no “proper” English, there are only various versions of the original. If you really want to nitpick, American English stayed “truer” to the original English because of various reasons while the British version diverged more over the 18th-19th centuries.
Or in a shorter form, adding a ‘u’ to make some words sound more…French…is just silly.
Congratulations, you’ve sufficiently annoyed me enough to log in to my local instances to type this out.
There is no ”one” way to speak and write English — we don’t have an “”“official”“” institute of our language like Spanish or French does (and even if we did, they would not have a monopoly on English). We don’t speak in Received Pronunciation or keep the superfluous ‘u’ next to every ‘o.’
Like every language, English has multiple dialects with their own vocabulary, and even some with their own specific grammar. The sentence in the OP was likely written in one of them - African-American Vernacular English. This dialect codifies double negatives, the habitual be, and words like ‘finna.’ Many of its aspects are already integrated into ‘standard’ American English.
This is part of the process of language in general. Many of the rules in ‘proper form’ come from shorthand, slang, and and crude versions of other languages and forms. Being aware of the rules shifting and changing as people shift and change how they speak will probably get you further than turning your nose up at rules you don’t recognize.
Oh no you logged in, it’s getting real now. 🙄
There’s certainly no “one right way”, but there also a basis of effective communication. This is context specific.
In this case, the meme obviously reached the target audience and the commenter saying it was unintelligible is wrong.
My slumlord individual landlord was much worse than the corporate landlord I have right now. Mileage varies significantly between corporations that run rental companies. I’ve also had rental agencies that were shit.
It’s also how they turn to technology to make it harder to really feel like you’re actually renting. Instead of keys, you have a door with a code, but you don’t control it, so if you’re even five minutes late with rent, they’ll change the code and lock you out. Just like with places like Google, it’s about removing humans and having a lot of this shit automated, despite how dehumanzing the automation is to the people who have to use such services. When you’re being fucked over and can’t even find a human to talk to, it’s dehumanizing.
What’s ruining the real estate market is the fact it’s literally illegal to build enough housing on the vast majority of urban land (same situation in Canada, too). Add in insane parking minimum laws, setback requirements, lot size minimums, etc., and what you get is artificial government-mandated ultra low-density sprawl.
It’s the ultimate form of regulatory capture to protect the “investments” of speculators and homeowners. Typically under the guise of “protecting property values” or “protecting neighborhood character”. Just consider: who benefits most from artificially restricting new competition than the owners of existing housing? Restrict new supply so that you can see the value of what you already possess go to the moon… all at the expense of the rest of society, of course.
If you have 9 homes for every 10 households, price will go up until one of those households is priced out of the market. If we built more and made there be 10 homes for every 9 households, landlords – corporate or not – would be stripped of their market power to raise rent.
The evidence backs this up. Any new housing, even “luxury” or market-rate, improves affordability:
New buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6% relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later, and they increase in-migration from low-income areas. We show that new buildings absorb many high-income households and increase the local housing stock substantially.
And more flexible zoning helps contain rising rents:
But what happens to rents after new homes are built? Studies show that adding new housing supply slows rent growth—both nearby and regionally—by reducing competition among tenants for each available home and thereby lowering displacement pressures. This finding from the four jurisdictions examined supports the argument that updating zoning to allow more housing can improve affordability.
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.)
In addition, we can tax land:
Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as “the perfect tax” and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]
It’s a progressive, essentially impossible to evade tax that incentivizes densification and development while disincentivizing real estate speculation. Oh, and it can’t be passed on tenants, both in theory and in practice.
And even a milquetoast LVT – such as in the Australian Capital Territory – can have positive impacts:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
mine just jacked the rent again, more than doubled now in three years. it had gone up a grand total of one time over the previous 20 years (a whole $20) before he bought the building (pretty cheap, too).
i knew this shit was gonna happen, soon as i saw that notice of the building being sold three years ago to an llc with “investments” in the name. the previous owners were also tenants themselves.
That sucks, I’m sorry to hear that. Some people just have no concern for anything but money.
Outlaw all landlords
would you like to get back all the money you spent on a rental property when you move out?
That doesn’t make any sense. Are you connecting mortgage payments to “getting money back” or something?
In a non private ownership situation the government “owns” the housing and citizens contribute via taxes. (Scaled to their ability/income) No argument on the validity of that approach, just saying someone still “owns” everything, and the money spent isn’t just sitting around, waiting to come back
I would like to sure, but I don’t think that’s reasonable. Why would I get my money back?
If rent was just paying for the costs of utilities, insurance, taxes, general upkeep costs, and the mortgage for my unit I’d have no problem with it. When corporations start sucking up money to line the pockets of investors it becomes a problem.
With an absence of landlords, buying an apartment unit like a condo would be how that works.
But what if I don’t have money for an apartment or don’t want to commit myself to one?
Because life is that simple. No subtlety at all.
