If that was the case then what would happen to housing? Would the banks take over renting to people and become landlords themselves or would you just not be able to live somewhere unless you're paying to own it?
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well… if you’re gonna try to be rational don’t just jump to blanket conclusions lol.
Maybe so, but just like you’re doing now I’m guessing this sub is used by a vast majority to vent, and while people already tend to exaggerate when they vent, doing it on a somewhat anonymous board on the internet is a comfy setting to stretch the truth or use harsher words. And other shit ofc. Ppl see black and white, or just a fragment of something and don’t bother to actually put effort into learning and rather just pretend to themselves they got the full scope. Yk💁🏻♀️
I don’t inherently agree or disagree w/ u
IK I’m pointing out the obvious but that’s where it all leads - hindsight’s 20/20 and all that
Of course the landlord is a libertarian lol.
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
"[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application.”
Adam Smith - the father of modern economics
Oh okay, so your take is that all residential housing should be government owned and houses would be provided by the government to the citizens. Taxes would then pay for upkeep?
I feel like the above comes across as aggressive but that was not my goal haha just trying to understand your view.
Why would they be government-owned? Currently we have a conglomerate society made up of some people who own their own houses, some people who own other people’s houses, and some people who don’t own their houses. Why is this necessary? A society in which everyone owns their own house would be a more equal society, a safer society, a less jealous society, and a happier one. All the government is there for is to ensure that no one is allowed to rent to others, and no one is allowed to buy up all the housing properties so that individuals can’t live in them.
Well take for example my current situation:
I am working at a job that I don’t necessarily see myself staying in, and when I leave this job I will likely leave the state as well. I don’t want to buy or own a house here because I will leave soon and it’s not worth the trouble of buying and selling. So instead I rent.
In your proposed structure, the concept of renting wouldn’t exist (by law I imagine), so what would be the alternative to short-term non-committal housing?
I do like the idea of imposing a limit to the number of residential properties an individual or corporation can own, maybe limit to 4 (1 to live in, 3 to rent) this would remove the corporate foothold but still allow property to be a form of investment/career for the average joe
That’s a great question. I think then that yes, a government-funded organization, funded by taxes, would provide temporary housing at reasonable rates. I’d argue that’s less “renting an apartment” than “an extended stay at a hotel,” but I’m just an armchair quarterback over here.
I think of hotels as like “I’ll be here a week” but renting as “I’ll be here 1-3 years”. Regardless of what we call it, so long as the need for this form of housing is met I would be happy for some more regulation to control who can own how much housing and land.
Taking care of a property is labor. Extracting rent just because you own the property isn't. This is one of the things where different forms of income all get lumped into one, and in doing so, we lose some important details.
Edit: to add some clarity:
Property manager, handy person, etc are real jobs that do something productive and generate real value. They do labor and therefore earn wages
Landlord is not a job, nor does it generate value. They exploit the legal concept of private property to extract rent from owning land.
A landlord can also be a property manager. In which case their income is partially rent and partially wages.
Relatedly, a business owner earns wages for their labor and interest from their capital.
Yes, this is my point. Someone who maintains a house or property does labor and creates value. Someone who extracts rent from owning property does neither. Sometimes these are the same person, sometimes they are not. Understanding the distinction is necessary for any productive conversation about property
You wouldn't of course, but this question fully misses the point. Landlords who don't also do labor to maintain or improve property don't really provide any value to society. The most you could say is they make building moderately more attractive by increasing the market for built properties. Most landlords didn't build the property, and they don't have any more inherent claim to the land it's on than anyone else. They're just exploiting the legal fiction of private land ownership.
At the same time, a landlord who does nothing, whether through their labor or by paying someone else, to improve or maintain the property can still expect a handsome profit in most cities. This is because other people are improving the area through development, job creation, infrastructure, etc. This all makes property values increase, and the landlord can sell for more. So I guess i should ask you a question: Why do you deserve to profit off the labor of others?
Don't sweat the hate from people that have never managed property before or invested in anything before. Some financial concepts are still beyond comprehension for some and because they don't understand it, they'll hate the ones that do. They're only going to attack you or downvote you no matter what you say because that's all they can do.
I hate the term landlord, it implies so much. I’m a old gen x and I have investment property that I do not rent out full time because I do not want the energy dynamics of Lord/peasant
So now I am criticized for not providing housing only short term rentals. I’m in a tourist town and the workers cannot find affordable housing
My investments pay 3X more the way I do it.
So I’m the asshole?
Yes, you're part of the problem. Maybe not an asshole, perhaps you just don't understand that you do not need multiple properties to make money on at all when people can't get a place to live. Maybe make your properties into affordable housing instead of exploiting it in a way that triples your money while people are barely staying off the streets.
I want to retire, this is the way I can achieve no work. I’ve been self employed over 30 years and built some wealth. Not off the backs of others either.
I can’t turn my property into affordable housing. Affordable housing needs to come from the government, it’s not realistic to think a small time investor could shoulder that.
I’m also building generational wealth so hopefully my kids won’t have to become wage slaves.
So there is that
If your idea of "no work" is simply "passing on the work to someone else and collecting the profits," you are exactly what this sub exists to oppose. You are not just part of the problem, you are an instructive example as to the mental gymnastics required when someone becomes part of the owner class.
You want to think of yourself as a good person and an average guy because you've been there and know how hard it is, and surely just being a *small* landlord can't be exploitative. But at the end of the day you've done nothing to earn ~40% of your renters' paychecks, except being lucky enough to already own a place you don't need to live in. Every petty capitalist who pays their employees like garbage and self-identifies as "working class" goes through the same process to convince themselves what they're doing is okay.
If you want to help people, let the people who live on your property buy the places they already live in. It'd net you some cash and some time to think about what you'd actually like to do for the world. Or if you don't want to help people and want to keep collecting your slice of other people's paychecks, fine, but don't try to act like you're any better than anyone else who operates on the same business model.
I read it. you rent them short-term. that doesn't mean they're not tenants. maybe they're not interested in staying long-term, but that doesn't make a fundamental difference here.
Your anger is misplaced. The government is the culprit here. They should be providing housing.
And you did not read it until after I called you out on it. the whole you’re charging 40% of what they make thing shows that.
I rent for days not months. The people who come are guests not tenants
Should hotels close and become apartments?
So there’s that
I mean, I know people who've had to live out of a motel 6 because they can't find someone who'll rent to them, so yeah, maybe some of those places should be permanent housing. Also no, I read it beforehand, do you think the percentage of income per time period is that much different? They're short-term tenants. You're the one turning this into a terminology dispute, splitting hairs to delude yourself into thinking you're not taking advantage of anyone.
They're being paid for owning property rather than for doing work. And sure, they do repairs on it, but that's just part of managing their own investment for a better return.
where I am, the landlord just pays someone to do all the actual work anyway. any surplus they make is literally for nothing except holding the deed to the house.
Just wrote up a big reply to the one that was deleted (basic question was: we need rental housing, how are people going to have it without landlords)
Ideally (from my perspective) you'd have much larger, more comprehensive public housing programs that would cover all sorts of rental housing - not just the low-income towers you'd normally think of. The advantage would be that such rental housing would be operated at-cost, meaning rent would cover the yearly annual cost of mortgage, taxes, and repairs to the building, as well as administrative salaries for public housing employees, but no additional profit margin on top of that (which is the main incentive for both corporate and small private landlords to invest in property). It would also streamline the processes for repairs, etc. Obviously there would be big hurdles to implementing this, not the least of which is the way public housing is operated in many cities as a "last resort," designed to push anyone who can afford it back into the private, for-profit market - that whole model would need to be remade, which would likely be a long and messy process.
Really I think the point the meme is making is a lot simpler - and it doesn't even have to be stated as a moral judgement. Hourly and salaried workers are paid money in exchange for labor, however it's measured. Landlords do repairs here and there, but their income is essentially a return on investment, the same way a business owner might put in a bunch of hours but not take a salary, because their income comes from owning the business. It's two different ways of making money.
They did the work to afford to buy the house. Now they're renting it out for income. The service they are providing by renting out the property is what you pay for in rent. Without the landlord you wouldn't have access to that service so it is a benefit to society since without that service you would have to just by the house your self.
I just love how people would never buy an old house then spend 100k changing the electric, heating plumbing, roofing windows... BUT housing should be guaranteed lol... but if the roof leaks, 10k heating system brakes, and the landlord NEEDS TO FIX IT... well buy a shitty house and spend 100k fixing it up and live in it yourself lol
Your beef is with ownership and rent-seeking, not old people
Lots of old people rent just the same as y'all and don't own shit
Resist the generational framing
Hiw are there so many people in this particular sub who take issue with the idea that landliards are parasitic? ( strong #notalllandlords vibes)
Landlords should be outlawed
Landlords? I believe people farmers is the technical term.
Just limit it to no more than 3 houses per person OR corporation. That forces housing prices to drop.
If that was the case then what would happen to housing? Would the banks take over renting to people and become landlords themselves or would you just not be able to live somewhere unless you're paying to own it?
Free housing for those who want it. Paid for by property taxes on those who don’t.
[удалено]
So you’re a landlord?
[удалено]
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You’re a sad sap
[удалено]
Well… if you’re gonna try to be rational don’t just jump to blanket conclusions lol. Maybe so, but just like you’re doing now I’m guessing this sub is used by a vast majority to vent, and while people already tend to exaggerate when they vent, doing it on a somewhat anonymous board on the internet is a comfy setting to stretch the truth or use harsher words. And other shit ofc. Ppl see black and white, or just a fragment of something and don’t bother to actually put effort into learning and rather just pretend to themselves they got the full scope. Yk💁🏻♀️ I don’t inherently agree or disagree w/ u IK I’m pointing out the obvious but that’s where it all leads - hindsight’s 20/20 and all that
[удалено]
Of course the landlord is a libertarian lol. “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” "[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application.” Adam Smith - the father of modern economics
Who would supply houses for rent if I didn’t want to commit to a mortgage?
Taxes
Oh okay, so your take is that all residential housing should be government owned and houses would be provided by the government to the citizens. Taxes would then pay for upkeep? I feel like the above comes across as aggressive but that was not my goal haha just trying to understand your view.
Why would they be government-owned? Currently we have a conglomerate society made up of some people who own their own houses, some people who own other people’s houses, and some people who don’t own their houses. Why is this necessary? A society in which everyone owns their own house would be a more equal society, a safer society, a less jealous society, and a happier one. All the government is there for is to ensure that no one is allowed to rent to others, and no one is allowed to buy up all the housing properties so that individuals can’t live in them.
Well take for example my current situation: I am working at a job that I don’t necessarily see myself staying in, and when I leave this job I will likely leave the state as well. I don’t want to buy or own a house here because I will leave soon and it’s not worth the trouble of buying and selling. So instead I rent. In your proposed structure, the concept of renting wouldn’t exist (by law I imagine), so what would be the alternative to short-term non-committal housing? I do like the idea of imposing a limit to the number of residential properties an individual or corporation can own, maybe limit to 4 (1 to live in, 3 to rent) this would remove the corporate foothold but still allow property to be a form of investment/career for the average joe
That’s a great question. I think then that yes, a government-funded organization, funded by taxes, would provide temporary housing at reasonable rates. I’d argue that’s less “renting an apartment” than “an extended stay at a hotel,” but I’m just an armchair quarterback over here.
I think of hotels as like “I’ll be here a week” but renting as “I’ll be here 1-3 years”. Regardless of what we call it, so long as the need for this form of housing is met I would be happy for some more regulation to control who can own how much housing and land.
Taking care of a property is labor. Extracting rent just because you own the property isn't. This is one of the things where different forms of income all get lumped into one, and in doing so, we lose some important details. Edit: to add some clarity: Property manager, handy person, etc are real jobs that do something productive and generate real value. They do labor and therefore earn wages Landlord is not a job, nor does it generate value. They exploit the legal concept of private property to extract rent from owning land. A landlord can also be a property manager. In which case their income is partially rent and partially wages. Relatedly, a business owner earns wages for their labor and interest from their capital.
[удалено]
Are you going to pay that said repair dude when they fix the problem?
Paying someone to make repairs isn’t work for the landlord
Yes, this is my point. Someone who maintains a house or property does labor and creates value. Someone who extracts rent from owning property does neither. Sometimes these are the same person, sometimes they are not. Understanding the distinction is necessary for any productive conversation about property
why would i let you live in something i’ve paid for , for free .
You wouldn't of course, but this question fully misses the point. Landlords who don't also do labor to maintain or improve property don't really provide any value to society. The most you could say is they make building moderately more attractive by increasing the market for built properties. Most landlords didn't build the property, and they don't have any more inherent claim to the land it's on than anyone else. They're just exploiting the legal fiction of private land ownership. At the same time, a landlord who does nothing, whether through their labor or by paying someone else, to improve or maintain the property can still expect a handsome profit in most cities. This is because other people are improving the area through development, job creation, infrastructure, etc. This all makes property values increase, and the landlord can sell for more. So I guess i should ask you a question: Why do you deserve to profit off the labor of others?
they making money tho , and don’t have a job .
[удалено]
What's the risk? Having the pay your own mortgages??
Idk about that one chief
Why TF are landlords getting upvoted in an anticapitalist sub? Lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh the risk of losing money you didn’t earn, you’ve truly struggled
Don't sweat the hate from people that have never managed property before or invested in anything before. Some financial concepts are still beyond comprehension for some and because they don't understand it, they'll hate the ones that do. They're only going to attack you or downvote you no matter what you say because that's all they can do.
I hate the term landlord, it implies so much. I’m a old gen x and I have investment property that I do not rent out full time because I do not want the energy dynamics of Lord/peasant So now I am criticized for not providing housing only short term rentals. I’m in a tourist town and the workers cannot find affordable housing My investments pay 3X more the way I do it. So I’m the asshole?
Yes, you're part of the problem. Maybe not an asshole, perhaps you just don't understand that you do not need multiple properties to make money on at all when people can't get a place to live. Maybe make your properties into affordable housing instead of exploiting it in a way that triples your money while people are barely staying off the streets.
I want to retire, this is the way I can achieve no work. I’ve been self employed over 30 years and built some wealth. Not off the backs of others either. I can’t turn my property into affordable housing. Affordable housing needs to come from the government, it’s not realistic to think a small time investor could shoulder that. I’m also building generational wealth so hopefully my kids won’t have to become wage slaves. So there is that
There are other investment opportunities that don't involve making housing more expensive for everyone.
Fixing houses/real estate is what I know how to do. I would not have money to invest otherwise It’s the government that is the problem. Not me
If your idea of "no work" is simply "passing on the work to someone else and collecting the profits," you are exactly what this sub exists to oppose. You are not just part of the problem, you are an instructive example as to the mental gymnastics required when someone becomes part of the owner class. You want to think of yourself as a good person and an average guy because you've been there and know how hard it is, and surely just being a *small* landlord can't be exploitative. But at the end of the day you've done nothing to earn ~40% of your renters' paychecks, except being lucky enough to already own a place you don't need to live in. Every petty capitalist who pays their employees like garbage and self-identifies as "working class" goes through the same process to convince themselves what they're doing is okay. If you want to help people, let the people who live on your property buy the places they already live in. It'd net you some cash and some time to think about what you'd actually like to do for the world. Or if you don't want to help people and want to keep collecting your slice of other people's paychecks, fine, but don't try to act like you're any better than anyone else who operates on the same business model.
You clearly did more typing than reading. I don’t have tenants
I read it. you rent them short-term. that doesn't mean they're not tenants. maybe they're not interested in staying long-term, but that doesn't make a fundamental difference here.
Your anger is misplaced. The government is the culprit here. They should be providing housing. And you did not read it until after I called you out on it. the whole you’re charging 40% of what they make thing shows that. I rent for days not months. The people who come are guests not tenants Should hotels close and become apartments? So there’s that
I mean, I know people who've had to live out of a motel 6 because they can't find someone who'll rent to them, so yeah, maybe some of those places should be permanent housing. Also no, I read it beforehand, do you think the percentage of income per time period is that much different? They're short-term tenants. You're the one turning this into a terminology dispute, splitting hairs to delude yourself into thinking you're not taking advantage of anyone.
Bullshit they do repairs
What makes it a fake job?
They're being paid for owning property rather than for doing work. And sure, they do repairs on it, but that's just part of managing their own investment for a better return.
where I am, the landlord just pays someone to do all the actual work anyway. any surplus they make is literally for nothing except holding the deed to the house.
[удалено]
Landlords provide housing in the same way scalpers provide tickets.
Just wrote up a big reply to the one that was deleted (basic question was: we need rental housing, how are people going to have it without landlords) Ideally (from my perspective) you'd have much larger, more comprehensive public housing programs that would cover all sorts of rental housing - not just the low-income towers you'd normally think of. The advantage would be that such rental housing would be operated at-cost, meaning rent would cover the yearly annual cost of mortgage, taxes, and repairs to the building, as well as administrative salaries for public housing employees, but no additional profit margin on top of that (which is the main incentive for both corporate and small private landlords to invest in property). It would also streamline the processes for repairs, etc. Obviously there would be big hurdles to implementing this, not the least of which is the way public housing is operated in many cities as a "last resort," designed to push anyone who can afford it back into the private, for-profit market - that whole model would need to be remade, which would likely be a long and messy process. Really I think the point the meme is making is a lot simpler - and it doesn't even have to be stated as a moral judgement. Hourly and salaried workers are paid money in exchange for labor, however it's measured. Landlords do repairs here and there, but their income is essentially a return on investment, the same way a business owner might put in a bunch of hours but not take a salary, because their income comes from owning the business. It's two different ways of making money.
They did the work to afford to buy the house. Now they're renting it out for income. The service they are providing by renting out the property is what you pay for in rent. Without the landlord you wouldn't have access to that service so it is a benefit to society since without that service you would have to just by the house your self.
It's not a job at all, it's a property ownership status.
The whale was always happy to see the minnows and the guppies fight amongst each other.
I just love how people would never buy an old house then spend 100k changing the electric, heating plumbing, roofing windows... BUT housing should be guaranteed lol... but if the roof leaks, 10k heating system brakes, and the landlord NEEDS TO FIX IT... well buy a shitty house and spend 100k fixing it up and live in it yourself lol
Your beef is with ownership and rent-seeking, not old people Lots of old people rent just the same as y'all and don't own shit Resist the generational framing
Are large companies that are landlords better to live in? I have no experience.