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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
If you own shit for a living, you’re definitionally no longer working class.
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.
Oh I see now, sorry.
And I’m sorry for coming in hot, my guy - lot of bad-faith actors around here.
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.
Why don’t you sell your flat instead?
You’re an asshole.
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?
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.
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.
The system kinda breaks down when normal people stop being able to afford 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.
All of the above. And petite bourgeois are not “the people”
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.
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 wealthget 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.
I’m aware.
I just didn’t want to go into detail with this particular can of worms.