Radical Graffiti"Sex work is real work, being a landlord isn't"
Seen in Porto, Portugal
Seen in Porto, Portugal
jefg@RadicalGraffiti Being a landlord requires having capital and tying it up in a property or going into debt to buy a property. It requires risking the property value decreasing and losing money. It requires finding tenants and upkeep or hiring a property management company that eats into revenue. If it's free money then why doesn't everyone do it?
Aaron@jefg @RadicalGraffiti Just because it requires debt and risk and expenses doesn't make it virtuous, nor does it make it work. And having some work occasionally mixed in doesn't make the whole thing work. Also, nobody but you said anything about free money.
frigginGlorious ✅@hosford42 @jefg @RadicalGraffiti what would make it virtuous?
I've been trying to figure out a virtuous lifestyle for a minute, ankinda fucked. fucked.
Its a serious question tho!
@frigginglorious @jefg @RadicalGraffiti Anything that isn't parasitic or harmful to your fellow human beings, is a virtuous way to live.
@hosford42 @jefg @RadicalGraffiti
I'm not mad at your definition.
I used to get behind the whole "Landlords are just rent-seekers thing". For the most part its true.
But since I bought a house with my wife, I realized that she is... not inclined to upkeeping of a property.
She is able bodied and potentially capable, but she isn't going to get onto a roof and clean gutters, or set mouse traps to keep the place pest free.
Without me, It'd be unreasonably expensive to contract for everything.
@hosford42 @jefg @RadicalGraffiti
So I'd draw the "Virtuous" line there with landlords. If a landlord personally does upkeeping on a property they own, I'll respect that.
@frigginglorious @jefg @RadicalGraffiti Makes sense. But then what you're really paying for is the ongoing service, not the use of the property. And I don't see why that would be any less expensive than paying a contractor for the service and owning the house yourself.
@hosford42 @frigginglorious @RadicalGraffiti The renter pays for the capital expense too. If the property is paid off, the money used to buy the property that someone is renting could have been put in the market or used to found a company or buy bonds or many other things. The owner expects appreciation on that capital. If the property is financed, the property owner is paying a bank interest for financing and passes that on to the renter.
If it were cheaper to buy, wouldn't the renter buy?
@jefg @frigginglorious @RadicalGraffiti It's not cheaper to buy because there are people buying up properties so they can use them to extract rent out of people.
@hosford42 @frigginglorious @RadicalGraffiti No person or company owns even a moderate % of properties for sale or to rent. There is a property shortage driving up prices. The best way to stick it to the private equity companies and foreign elite parking their money in property while making housing more affordable is to build more of it. Hard to do in many cities but possible with rezoning, landfill in the sea, and better and faster trains from surrounding areas, expanding the commutable area.
"40.7 million or 34.6% of occupied housing units are renter-occupied."
If over 1/3 of available housing is owned by landlords, that's plenty to drive up the price and keep folks from purchasing directly.
Doesn't invalidate your other point, though, that we also need more housing available in the first place.
