• slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If someone’s grandma goes into assisted living, how does selling their house help anyone who can’t afford a house? Especially given the cost of assisted living. That’s a ridiculous criticism. It’s the people who own a dozen houses, or complexes, who are the problem.

    • Flumsy@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they provide something that is so valuable to you that you give them a good amount of money for it. Thats why.

      You choose to give them money because their house seems to be a huge quality of life improvement, otherwise you could always find a cheaper house.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except there really isn’t a choice. You pay rent or… What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.

        “Just find a cheaper house” isn’t actually an option available to people who you know… Want to have a job. It’s just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn’t engage with the actual issue.

        • Flumsy@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          … and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

          You also dont have a choice not to buy food but that doesnt mean that the farmers shouldnt be payed for it. I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

          • darq@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That isn’t comparable, and you know it.

            The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.

            The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

            I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

            Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.

            It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.

            And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

            … and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

            In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

            So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.

            • Flumsy@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

              Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

              And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

              So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

              … and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

              In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

              You said you dont have a choice, and the question refers to that statement. Those are both your statements (“I dont have a choice” and “they dont deserve my money”). That doesnt mean that I agree with either of them… I still stand by my point.

              Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

              • darq@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

                So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

                So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

                Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

                Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

                That’s not my argument.

                I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.

                The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

                • Flumsy@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say.

                  (?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

                  About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

                  I dont know anything about zoning laws but after looking it up it sounds pretty dumb, we dont have that here where I live (large city in central Europe).

                  • darq@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    (?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

                    Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

                    About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

                    Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

                    It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.

      • jaackf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If anyone was free to buy a house whenever they liked, renting wouldn’t be such a problem. The problem is, renting nowadays is the only solution and therefore those who own properties are free to charge what they like and people either put up with that or be homeless.

        Renting should be a temporary measure, however nowadays people can’t afford to actually buy homes because renting means they don’t have money for deposits.

        Renting isn’t a choice for most people, it’s a means to keep them off the streets. The landlords have the monopoly.

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did they provide me shelter or did they sink their temporarily excess capital into the local single-family home market driving up prices?

        I’m paying a fair bit to live here so it seems I’m providing my own shelter.

      • nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you pay off their mortgage in exchange for not being homeless. All renting should be rent to buy. No renting without equity in exchange.

      • Custoslibera@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The landlords built those homes with the sweat of their brow?

        Once the home is paid off they’ll reduce the rent to only cover the outgoings on the property?

        The speculation on property as an asset class has no effect on pricing people out of the market for ownership?

        • pascal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Once the home is paid off

          HA HA HA! That’s funny!

          I bought a house last year after renting for 20 years since I moved out of my parents’ house.

          My kids will probably still pay for my house.