>


Basic human needs should not be considered an investment

Nobody is entitled to take things that others worked to create, and that don't belong to them - even if they claim it is a 'basic human need'.
/u/Big_Ambition4448 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


These people did not build the property

They do sometimes.  There is a cul-de-sac in my town that was built and owned by a contractor who rents the houses out.

they don't maintain it

They almost always have to by law.  I also know landlords who do all of the maintenance themself.  

they merely claim ownership of it and then have their mortgage and life sustained by the labor of others

That could be said about anyone who owns any business.

There's no risk involved in it because housing is a necessity.

There is a ton of risk involved.

Professional Investors, shareholders, executives, stock traders, etc these people are allowed to amass ludicrous amounts of money and throw it wherever they please

My last landlord is an upholsterer by day.

I also don't believe working hard early in life should reward you with the ability to passively collect income from younger generations.

You don't think living off the interest of an investment should be a thing? >


You don't think living off the interest of an investment should be a thing?

At a minimum, it shouldn't be such a strong and integral part of our economy, mainly because it encourages class divisions to the point of tensions bordering on outright hostility.
"The rich keep getting richer" is possible (in part) because we treat passive income as functionally and ethically the same as active income. >

It is the same or better.  Passive income is capital that is invested in the economy. >

passive income from landlording only benefits the landlord, the rest of the economy suffers as a result >

Well it also benefits the renter - if it didn't, they wouldn't rent. >

It's a shocker but turns out people do need shelter to survive. We've constructed a system where an arbitrary line (who started with money and who didn't?) is drawn between those who get passive income forever and those who are squeezed for every spare penny of income available to them. That's not a good system. >

"They merely claim ownership" lol. They didn't just walk into building and call it theirs. They made a purchase, with their own money, which they earned. They bought the property. That makes it rightfully theirs. They own it. 
Renting it out to other people is within their rights, and if people accept that rent contract, how is that a fault on the landlord? It's not the landlord's fault if other people can't afford to own property like the landlord can, because the world isn't fucking fair no matter how much you whine about it. Some people have more money, some have less. Get over it. 
In an economy like this, passive income is the only way people can hope to live lives that aren't paycheck-to-paycheck misery. You're just here to bitch and whine about landlords like lots of others I've seen on Reddit, but you've gone a step further and veiled it in this bizarre anti-stance on passive income. >

I agree when it comes to multi-billion dollar investment firms buying out all the single family homes they can get their hands on. But on an individual level, selling your skills in the market and saving extra to invest into income-generating assets is the key to financial independence. It’s the incentive needed to justify the risk of buying property, stocks, but especially building your own business and not having to rely on working til death, your company keeping you on the books, or the government to provide you with a good standard of living and into old age. And consider the friends and family relying on you for their standard of living. Storms happen, economies go into recession, and revenues can come in slower than needed to stay afloat, so all investments can go to zero at any point, and that’s the risk that justifies the passive income assuming the investments even work out. Without that incentive, societies lose out on all the new business ideas, restaurants, property developments, etc. and all the livelihoods that they sustain since the risk wouldn’t be worth the effort. 
And without investment income, any worker can lose their livelihood within hours since unemployment (at least in the US) is rarely enough to cover living expenses. Societies are a lot stabler the more people have investment incomes they can turn to on top of UE when times get bad. Less turning to crime/selling your soul to make ends meet. 
But right now wealth is so concentrated at the top that it has certainly gotten harder to get the investment snowball rolling for younger people. But it’s also a lot easier to start new businesses as far as marketing and scaling go. >

!delta
The larger issue at hand are the large multi-billion dollar investment firms that are perpetuating this downward spiral into a permanent renters society. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Quesarrito (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


Landlords who buy up and purchase properties and then passively collect the income off the labor of their tenants. These people did not build the property, they don't maintain it, they merely claim ownership of it and then have their mortgage and life sustained by the labor of others. There's no risk involved in it because housing is a necessity.



Landlords have a responsibility to maintain the space their tenants live in. In most states, it's illegal to ignore maintenance/service requests from tenants.


I'm not sure what difference it would make had they built the unit themselves. Most people don't personally build (or even finance the construction of) houses they own. They buy it already built, with the intention of living in it. Landlords buy a property that's already built, with the intention of renting it out.


There's a massive risk involved in renting, that's part of why it's so expensive and the standards for approval can be so high. You need to be making 2.5-3x the rent, have good credit, etc. because even in those cases a lot of tenants will break their lease, come up late on rent, etc. 


This is not me advocating for landlords. I don't like the idea of renting out living spaces, especially when it's nearly as expensive as just buying the property yourself. But I do think the reasons you gave are poor. >


I don't like the idea of renting out living spaces

I see versions of this sentiment a lot on Reddit, but I never see anyone address the other side of the coin.  People who want to rent, whether a house or apartment.   There are countless situations where renting a home may be preferable to buying one.  In a world without landlords or rentable living spaces, are those people just out of luck? >

There's a market for everything, doesn't make it ethical.
Renting out living spaces, in theory, would cost significantly less than owning the space. Right now it doesn't. It's easier to get approved to rent than it is to get approved for a mortgage, which means there's a population of potential home buyers that are renting, not because they prefer it, but because they don't have a choice. 
If you can reform rent in a way that allows potential homebuyers to buy more easily, and lowers the rent for those who simply prefer the experience of renting, I don't think anyone would complain. But it would come at the expense of the landlords, which is why reddit is so against them. >


There's a market for everything, doesn't make it ethical.

Let's say you're a student, or someone who moves frequently. It makes sense for such a person to rent, rather than buy a home, because when you are either done with your degree or need to move again, you simply pack up and go - rather than needing to deal with the hassle of selling your place.
For non-insignificant portions of the population, renting is the logical choice, and it remains so even if the cost of rent is the same as the cost of a mortgage. >

Renting making the most sense for a person's situation isn't the same thing as people wanting to do that thing, especially if a situation encourages exploitative behavior. I mean, I'll give you students. But really, what other substantial group of people would prefer to rent rather than to own a home/apartment and gain equity? People with job insecurity? That's not them wanting to rent. That's them having shit job security causing trickle down poverty.
The next best sizable group that I could guess would prefer to rent would be people renting vacation homes or apartments in places they go to a lot, but this group of people probably owns at least one home.
Can you think of another group? Which group of people are choosing to move a lot rather than just being dealt a shitty hand? And is that group sizable enough to justify shitloads more people being crushed? >


I mean, I'll give you students. But really, what other substantial group of people would prefer to rent rather than to own a home/apartment and gain equity?

Yuppies and recent college graduates that move for work but have not yet laid down roots. >

This is your best example? Recent graduates, i.e. as close to students as you can get, and yuppies, which I assume is some sort of poor person. This is your group of large voluntary renters who justify the current housing market? >


This is your best example? Recent graduates, i.e. as close to students as you can get, and yuppies, which I assume is some sort of poor person. This is your group of large voluntary renters who justify the current housing market?

You seriously could not take the 10 seconds to google a word you did not know to figure out that yuppies are "a young person with a well-paid job and a fashionable lifestyle"?  I said recent graduates followed by yuppies.  The point was that the group that is renting are college students that graduate then move for work, earn a lot of money (becoming yuppies), then eventually place roots somewhere.  Considering the number of college students in the US was ~20 million, that is 5 million new likely renter every year.  Considering that 44 million people rent in the US, a yuppies and recent college grads probably make up a significant portion if not the majority of renters. >


A ten second google search would have also showed you that.

That is not a 10 second google.  Don't be pedantic when you have already proved yourself as silly.
The part you were attempting to quote says:

Only 10.5% of people in the top income quartile, for example, were renters

Do you not recognize that is a very different statement than, most renters are poor?

My original claim: the vast majority of people who rent do so because they have no other option. That's the claim you've been arguing against.

You may have thought you were responding to someone else then.  You made the following quote:

I mean, I'll give you students. But really, what other substantial group of people would prefer to rent rather than to own a home/apartment and gain equity?

My first comment to you was a reply to that statement which said:

Yuppies and recent college graduates that move for work but have not yet laid down roots.

Even if the vast majority of people rent do so because they have not other option (which being poor is not necessarily proof of), that does not change the fact recent college graduates and yuppies are a substantial group of people that would most likely prefer to rent rather than own a home/apartment.  That's all my comment was about.  Unless you somehow think otherwise. >

If people could only buy houses and not rent, where would they live until they were financially ready to buy a house?
People who aren’t ready to own or move frequently need places to live. Landlords meet that need. They provide a place to live and maintenance which people need. 
They put up with various kinds of risk. I know someone who rented out a house to tenants who didn’t pay him and he was stuck paying a mortgage and having to hire a lawyer for months. He lost lots of money. Other people were in huge amounts of debt when the rental market crashed and went bankrupt. 
The problem with the housing market is not landlords but local rules making it illegal to build adequate supply of housing. This drives up the cost of housing and rent. This is a deliberate policy choice to hurt the young and poor and help the older and richer homeowners.  Landlords had nothing to do with the situation.
Investing is a vital activity. Poorly invested capital can cripple an economy, hurting everyone in the economy. People who are good at it make a small fraction of the value those investments provide. >


If people could only buy houses and not rent, where would they live until they were financially ready to buy a house?

This is a good point that OP should address. >


If people could only buy houses and not rent, where would they live until they were financially ready to buy a house?

The rent to own model would apply here. If a tenant stays in a dwelling over a period of 5 years and has paid in rent the equivalent of the value of the property the ownership would be transferred to them. If they leave before paying the full value, ownership is then split between the previous two tenants, and so on and so on.
The new tenant would then pay both owners of the property until the value that they put in is put back, factor in wear and tear and maintenance fees of course etc.
​

They put up with various kinds of risk. I know someone who rented out a house to tenants who didn’t pay him and he was stuck paying a mortgage and having to hire a lawyer for months.

If this was during the pandemic this was an institutional failure by the government to not freeze put a freeze on all housing loans as well. Otherwise there will always be irresponsible people, but that doesn't justify the current system.
​

Poorly invested capital can cripple an economy,

We are in the situation we're in now because our system allows the already wealthy to make consistently bad choices. >

Throughout this entire thread, you have consistently ignored comments that talk about people who want to rent, even for many years.   There are countless scenarios where someone might want to rent a house or apartment and not own it. >

OP is not interested in having their view changed. >


There's no risk involved in it because housing is a necessity.

This is simply not true. The housing market, like many other investment vehicles, can waver with the market. 2008 was not too long ago, countless homeowners found themselves in a situation where they owe more money on their home than it is worth.

The model of social security should be expanded upon so that when you reach a certain age everyone has a decent standard of living into their elder years and you're taken care of.

I mean, I think both political parities are not thrilled with the current social security model. But where both sides agree is that the current system is not sustainable with the amount of boomers approaching retirement. If you want to greatly expand SS, you'll need to propose tax hikes, and this wont be popular. 

These predatory retirement plans are just another scam to scare younger generations into thinking social security won't be around in the future.

Why are we working on the assumption that the government is responsible for your retirement? I would much rather have the ability to retire on my own knowing that my own personal financial decisions will dictate the lifestyle I live in retirement. Don't get me wrong, this is not a proposal to abolish SS, social safety nets are great for a functional society, but the current system for tax advantaged retirement vehicles (ie. 401k) are sound systems for people who want to ensure their own financial futures. >


This is simply not true. The housing market, like many other investment vehicles, can waver with the market. 2008 was not too long ago, countless homeowners found themselves in a situation where they owe more money on their home than it is worth.

2008 is a perfect example of the ultra wealthy turning a necessity into a commodity. It's like the art world where they over inflate the value of something to embezzle money and the rest of us have to deal with the fallout.
​

you'll need to propose tax hikes, and this wont be popular.

I would rather pay towards something more stable that everyone can use and that I have a little bit of control over with my vote. Instead of paying a middle man that may make some bad decisions and have my 20 years of retirement savings go up in flames.
The idea of taxes being bad are the same people who try to sell you on these retirement plans. As the great George Carlin once said "It's a big club and you ain't in it." >


2008 is a perfect example of the ultra wealthy turning a necessity into a commodity. It's like the art world where they over inflate the value of something to embezzle money and the rest of us have to deal with the fallout.

Whatever that means aside, the idea in your OP that purchasing housing is "risk-free" is demonstrably untrue. There isn't just market risk, there's risk of damage from vandalism or natural disaster, there's risk of your investment burning up, etc. >

There is risk of aliens shooting lasers through your walls, the question is how often that happens, and what's the cost of it.
That's the key, you mentioning potential expenses, not actual guaranteed expenses, and not only that, but you're pretending that vandalism and tornados are something landlords have to deal with every two full moons instead of like... maybe once or twice a decade.
Being a landlord is mostly about years of getting money for nothing, followed by repairs that the deposit of the tenant is very likely to cover.
Talking about risks that rarely materialize is a massive cop out. >

Based on previous comments, it seems it could happen often. Also, general reparations are also things that can happen often, and there is risk of all this things happening so often it is unproffitable. >

See, you just did the thing, how often do you have to make repairs in your house? >

actually my house has been in repairs since the start of the pandemic, due to humidity problems in virtually all rooms. As of now, a piece of roof nearly fell on my uncle, so big patches of roof all over his house were removed and are being rebuilt. About a property we have, the building's the common areas are having general repairs very frequently because no mantainance has been done in decades. Also, we had to replace all the floorboards of a recently built apartment, and we hope it doesn't give more problems. Generally speaking, there are constant repairs, even only in my own house. >


they don't maintain it

... this is about as incorrect as it's possible to be. Bad landlords exist, in the same way that bad everything exists. But its the responsibility of landlords to maintain their properties, and usually this is spelled out very clearly in any lease agreement a tenant would sign. 
If we take any moralizing out of the equation, the reality is that living in a modern home involves a certain amount of risk. Every day, there's a risk that something in your home will break and require immediate repair, and given the enormous number of extremely complicated pieces of high-tech machinery exist in an average first world home that we literally cannot live without nowadays, that risk is extremely high. 
If you're renting, you're essentially agreeing to pay a landlord's equity in exchange for outsourcing this risk. If the dishwasher breaks, or the plumbing springs a leak, it's not your problem as a tenant. If you own the home you live in, it is your problem which means you can easily end up with a five-figure repair job that you didn't plan for. 
This is one of the reasons renting is often a better deal than owning, depending on your life circumstances. It can really be worth it to trade some equity for additional flexibility and less immediate risk. >


If a roof needs repairing do the majority of landlords do that themselves or do they hire someone else with the money you've given them over the years?

I mean, no, not always. Speaking as someone who has been a landlord in the past, I can tell you that if you can fix it yourself and expect to do a reasonably good job, you should, as it's worth it to save the money. But most major things you need a professional, who really knows what they're doing. Given how complicated keeping a modern home running is, it's unrealistic to expect that any one person will be able to maintain expert level skill at every aspect of it. 

There is no balance to this equation, machinery breaking may happen once every few years, that is not enough to justify the exploitation.

You have every right to think this, but I just don't agree. There's a lot in a house that can go wrong, and when one element of it starts to go, usually the rest aren't far behind. If you own a property--even one you just live in yourself--you need to be prepared to make a $5,000 repair at least once a year. That can more than wipe out your profit margin if you're a landlord. 

You sound like a timeshare salesman or a Blackrock representative trying to scam some poor young adults.

Maybe so. But two questions: first, why do you think this? And second, if you're here posting on CMV, why are you interacting so aggressively with me, when I don't think I've done or said anything that justifies such a strong response? It doesn't strike me as a good faith engagement, honestly, and borders on "being rude or hostile to other users." >

I agree with all your points. It's pretty obvious to spot someone who's never owned a home talking about zero risk. It's a ton of fucking work and stress. I mostly DIY and it's still expensive af >

I learned early on that DIY-ing things could often be more expensive than just hiring someone in the first place. My peace of mind knowing that something was done right and well is worth whatever a professional wants to charge me. >

What’s your solution here exactly? 
I agree that inequality is a big problem. But I’m not sure it makes sense to focus on passive income as a problem. If I want to buy a home or start a business, I need a loan. Who is going to give me money? A bank that will charge interest, right? That’s passive income for the bank — but it’s a win-win situation. 
And sure, most landlords don’t personally build houses or apartment buildings with their bare hands. But why should that matter? Let’s say a doctor earns a bunch of money by performing brain surgeries. She shouldn’t be allowed to buy a home and rent it out because she didn’t build the home herself?
I rent my apartment. But I still get passive income from CDs and index funds. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with that. >

The alternative is co-operative and social housing. In co-op housing, the units are owned by a co-op and the co-op is owned by those who live there. It's like a condo strata but you don't require capital to buy in. Everyone acts as their own, collective landlord. In some areas, the state builds and rents a large fraction of the rental stock for no or limited profits - in a direction fashion rather than financing co-ops.
These options need to be a decent fraction of the overall rental market because they are much cheaper in the long run than for-profit landlords. If these options make up around a quarter or more of the rental housing stock - it forces landlords to compete with a cost-effective public option for housing. >


you don't require capital to buy in.

This doesn't make sense. Building the housing requires capital, where is that going to come from?

... because they are much cheaper in the long run than for-profit landlords.

I see no reason for that to be true. >

You are suffering under some weird premises that someone indoctrinated you with. 
The tenant is paying the people who built the home for their work. That is all. It doesn't matter how long ago that is, and it doesn't matter how many intermediary owners there have been.

Let's suppose that person A builds a home solely with their own sweat. Everything, all the way from raw materials. They mine ore, smelt it, and draw wire. They turn sand into glass to make windows.  They cut down trees and cut them into blanks, beams, panels, shingles and so on (wait. back up and make the axes and saws and other tools.) Somehow  they make plastic for wall plugs. Sure, it's ludicrous, but let's say they do it all themselves. Twelve to fifteen man years, more or less. It takes a long time to build those parts from scratch.
Person B works for money, buys all the parts, and builds his home, doing the rest of the work himself. Exact same floor plan and construction techniques, except he buys wood and materials from Home Depot. The final house is identical (maybe painted a different color). Because it's more efficient than building the parts himself, it's only six man years of work. 
Person C-F each work for money, and go together to build four houses, but each specialize in a small part of the work.  Framer, electrician, roofer, finish carpenter, plumber. They get their houses built for about three man years each. The houses are all identical. 
Person G and H work for money, and hire every part of the construction done by that team C-F. In fact, person G's work as a barber and H's work as a seamstress are what provided the cash that team C-F used to buy the parts to build THEIR homes in the last section. G's and H's homes are identical to C-F, and took the same three man years each to build. 
Up until this point, everyone has had to put in all the money and effort UP FRONT before they had any place to live. Person A took fifteen years, B took six, and it took over four years for team C-F to build the other six homes. That wasn't comfortable for anyone. 
Person I borrows money from her parents to hire C-F.  The house is identical, and she pays her parents back over time. She works as a barista, rather than a skilled tradesman, so obviously, it takes her FAR longer than three years, but she gets to live in the house while she does it. And it's her parents' prior work that funded it. 
Person J borrows money from a bank. Same deal as I, she just doesn't have to have rich or frugal parents. She just has to have built a career good enough that the bank believes it will be paid. That can take a few years, when she's living somewhere else. 
All the houses are identical. Every one of them. The last two took a year and a half for team C-F to complete. 
Morally, all the houses are identical. They each belong to one owner, who has personally provided the work that created the value that established the home. (Is providing, in cases I and J.)

Now YOU come along, and want to live in one of those identical houses. Coincidentally, C and D fell in love and moved in together, so house D is available. Person D is not selling it, because C snores and things might not work out. 
Also, by the way, there are a dozen people like you who also want to live in that house that someone else put there. 
You have no savings, and have done NOTHING to build any of those homes. You have no skin in the game, and no moral claim on any of those homes. You also don't earn enough to pay back the sweat equity C and D have in any reasonable amount of time. And D doesn't want to sell anyway, because C's cat doesn't like her. (And also snores.)
What is the "fair" way to determine how much someone needs to pay to live there, and which person gets the privilege of living in the home?  
The most important realization you need to get here is that NONE of the prospective renters have any special moral standing with regard to house D. They are identical, and without any moral claim at all on the home. 
The home doesn't exist without the efforts of the owners, and if C and D break up, there won't be a place for the randomly selected tenant to live. 

There's a reason why I put in all those details. It's because your mindset is to think of landlords as some abstract, valueless, blood sucking parasites, and tenants as poor deserving honorable people -- because landlords in your view aren't people -- who have moral standing to live somewhere. 
You have that abstraction backwards. When my wife and I got married, we rented out her condo, and we NEVER broke even on it. The tenant painted it weird colors without asking, didn't maintain it, threw weird excuses for not paying on time, and eventually had to be evicted and the property reconditioned and sold at a loss. 
We had to pay the mortgage and the condo fees and utilities regardless of whether we got paid. 
THERE IS RISK.  It is only ignorance that allows you to believe that there is no risk for a landlord. It is only ignorance and bigotry that allows you to claim that landlords don't maintain the properties. You've never had to clean up and repair a property after a bad tenant. 

So D agrees to rent out House D to you for some amount of money that you can afford. It's morally irrelevant how much that is. You get to agree on it.  
You are only getting the temporary right to use their sweat equity for a length of time. That's it. 
In theory, that should cost you less than ownership, all things being equal. However, owners treat property FAR better than renters do. There's extra wear and tear, and also the renter has almost NOTHING at stake. So it may be that rent is slightly higher than J's mortgage. It's almost certain, in fact.
Now, here's where your indoctrination is going to start twitching.
Morally, it's none of your business who the landlord is or how they got the ownership of the house. 
It's not yours, you're just renting it. Whether they built it from scratch, co-opped it, saved up personally, had their parents buy it, borrowed, won cash in the lottery, or sold drugs to school kids, YOUR moral status is the same. You're a renter. 
It's not your house. You have no special moral standing based upon how they earned their money. That's none of your business at all. 
Subject to the rental contract and laws, you get to leave if you want. Similarly, they get to stop renting to you if they want. The contract is it, and has no clauses regarding their source of funds.  
SOMEONE paid to create the home. SOMEONE is paying to maintain it, insure it, pay taxes on it, do bookkeeping, and so on. That's work. 
You don't have any special standing to decide what kind of work is "real" work and what kind isn't, and who "deserves" the right to live in some else's property. 
If you don't have the ability to learn how to save, to learn how to deploy resources, to make more than you spend and keep the rest, and so on, then you really have no knowledge to evaluate how much work anything is, how hard it is to build wealth, or how much moral standing a landlord might have. 
So.... think it through. >

The same can be said of many other industries that provide "essential" items to survival.  I don't consider either of these to be "passive".  I am a landlord and I do work.  I work at the properties, I take calls for getting things fixed, I handle the finances for everything, I advertise when there are vacancies...there's actual work that gets done.  It's not different than any other business that provides an essential service.  Let's take supermarkets, no one considers them "passive" income choices or says we need less of them.  Heck, we, as a society, as for more of them...but what are they...really?  The only "value" they provide is location.  What they provide is an essential life need but the real value comes from where they are located.  Isn't that the exact same thing as a rental property?  Let's look at what you wrote and switch "landlord" to "supermarket".  I added the italicized sentence for clarification in case readers don't know how the supermarket business works.  
~~Landlords who~~ Supermarkets buy up and purchase properties and then passively collect the income off the labor of their ~~tenants~~ vendors. Supermarkets charge consumers to buy the products, charge vendors to place their products on the shelves at ideal spots, and have some vendors who come in and stock the shelves and place displays within the store for their own products.  These people did not build the property, they don't maintain it, they merely claim ownership of it and then have their mortgage and life sustained by the labor of others. There's no risk involved in it because ~~housing~~ food is a necessity.  
Sure supermarkets hire to fill in around the free labor and delivery of the items but so do landlords.  Landlords will hire for whatever services are needed for maintenance, grounds keeping, etc.  Supermarkets will hire for whatever shelf stocking or floor cleaning that is needed.  
What exactly is a supermarket then?  A collection of items essential to live that are conveniently located in the place that the people want them.  
What are rental properties?  Essential items that are conveniently located in the place that people want them.  
The rest of your post fits as well.  However I would totally like to address the items you point out about landlords because it fits in real well with the other things points you try and make.  
Most landlords, up until just before the pandemic, were your neighbors.  In the US housing is the biggest wealth builder we know.  Whether that is your own house or a rented property, a house is the easiest and most common way to build wealth.  Up to the pandemic, the bulk of rental housing in the US was owned by small time landlords.  It used to be that more than 50% of the rentals in the US were from from individual investors.  However, that is changing.  Institutional investors learned that they can manipulate the housing market much like the stock market and get to make money while doing it.  Blackstone is preparing for a $50 billion dollar real estate investment.  
From 2017 to 2021, after the pandemic started, local landlords decreased by 14% to just 41%.  To be clear - individual owners are usually your neighbors, friends, and family.  They are the average joe with a job just looking for a side hustle.  They're small business owners who are usually either in the same area or close to their properties.  These people generally own 3 properties.  At this level of investment banks generally banks require 25% deposit on rentals and 6 months of reserves in the bank per property.  So when a small time landlord loses their property, they have lost a lot.  What happens then?  The groups like Blackstone swoop in.  The money moves out of the local middle class to an offshore corporate tax haven and into the pockets of C suite executives.  The pandemic has sped up the decline of middle class America and there are tons of people cheering it on with the old "good for you you greedy landlord" to their neighbors, friends, and family...all without fully understanding what it is they are cheering on.  Corporate America is attacking the middle class by corporatizing one of the easiest side hustle there was.  All it took was being able to save and keep good credit.  Now we live in a US where corporate landlords own more rental housing than the private landlord. 
The general public just keeps going with the trope "LaNdL0RdZ R bAd" without understanding that they are killing the middle class with it and enriching the top 1%.  Personally I think, unless the endpoint is a truly socialized society, that we're taking away one of the last true wealth building opportunities that has a low barrier to entry. Generally the housing stock that small landlords had would get turned over and returned back to the market eventually.  Either a death and the remaining family wanted to split the inheritance as cash and not be in business together, selling the rental to pay for the kids college, or just as a wealth builder to have a retirement fund. The decline of small businesses in America with everyone using the corporatized apps as a side hustle landlords are bad and don't get that they are taking away from themselves and their kids.  The corporate landlords won't be turning that housing stock back to the market.  IT will be sold to other corporate entities in a portfolio.  
Put the ire where it should be, corporatized ownership of housing...or anything.  Work for tough and strong monopoly and anti-trust laws.  Move the laws to favor the small business owner, no mater if that is smaller grocery stores, hardware store, landlords, or whatever.  Keep the money local to your community and call the local place to use their delivery services, not the app.  However, people need a bogeyman to rally around and "landlord" fits the bill, even if it ends up hurting all of us who are not the 1% in the long run. >


Professional Investors, shareholders, executives, stock traders, etc these people are allowed to amass ludicrous amounts of money and throw it wherever they please, they get to decide if a bad idea gets executed or if a good idea will gut buried.

You have no idea what these "jobs" are and entail, meaning your view is based on jealousy.
The same goes about landlords. They do maintain their properties, otherwise the value of said properties goes lower and they cant find a tenant.
The reason people get paid back on investment is "risk". There is some involved in every investment.
Your issue is you are looking at succesful investors / executives / whatever ,and  not seeing everyone of them that failed.
Of course, if you remove said risk, or only look at people who suceeded, you wont see it.
I suggest you start there. >


You clearly have no idea what these "jobs" are and entail, meaning your view is based on jealousy.

I have a real job, where I provide real value. I'm not jealous that a CEO can run a company into the ground and run away with $300 Million I'm mad that we as a society let these people get away with it.
If you're not one of the CEOs you have no reason to support them, I urge you to have some class solidarity. >


If you're not one of the CEOs you have no reason to support them, I urge you to have some class solidarity.

How about no ? If you are so short sighted you cant understand what a CEO does and why he gets paid, this is your problem. I sure as hell wont support someone like that. >

you are using arguments that were previously used to defend feudal lords, just because someone is sitting at the top doesn't mean that if they disappear the farmers can't do their job all of a sudden. >

It does not matter how this argument was used in the past as long as it is a good argument you know ?
Just because you cant be bothered to look for something real to support your convictions does not mean you are right.
This has been often debated here, and the conclusion is always the same. If you wont bother looking for an answer, why should I waste my time with you ? >

that's the thing, it was not a good argument then, and it is not a good argument now. >

That is not for you to decide.
These persons are paid that kind of money because someone else is also willing to pay nearly that kind of money to get them working for them.
Your lord comparison is completely stupid, as lords were not employed. >


Landlords who buy up and purchase properties and then passively collect the income off the labor of their tenants. These people did not build the property, they don't maintain it, they merely claim ownership of it and then have their mortgage and life sustained by the labor of others

But they paid the people who build the property. Or the people that paid the people that bought the property. Or the people that paid the people that paid the people that brought the property. Or so on. Part of how that property got built in the first place is because the buyer knew that they could sell it to someone else later. 

There's no risk involved in it because housing is a necessity.

The value of the house can go down. Or remain flat when more productive assets continue to produce income. Or the amount of rent you can charge can decline because you're facing more competition for renters or there's less demand for housing in in area. 

Professional Investors, shareholders, executives, stock traders, etc these people are allowed to amass ludicrous amounts of money and throw it wherever they please, they get to decide if a bad idea gets executed or if a good idea will gut buried. 

And if they invest in bad ideas, they don't keep their wealth for long. There's a very strong incentive to only lend one's money towards ventures that are or will become profitable. 
Do you propose a better way to separate good ideas for ventures from bad ones?

This myth of the self-made billionaire / millionaire is created in a board room to have the masses accept their place as the laborer's who actually create the wealth while they toy around with it.

And how much value does the laborer create without the business around them and the capital investment therein?

These predatory retirement plans are just another scam to scare younger generations into thinking social security won't be around in the future.

Back in the era of pension plans, you had to work for a single employer for decades in order to get your pension. Get fired or being laid off means starting all over again. With a 401(k) or IRA, you manage the investments yourself and keep the share of what you have put aside from a particular job. Which one is more predatory again? >


The endless pursuit of passive income is harmful to society.

This is a huge generalization. Your post really only talks about property owners (who do not actively manage their property). You also did not mention how this is harmful to society, you touched upon how it could be unfair, but did not explain how that is 'harmful to society'.
So please do explain your view more on these two points, again:
1) How do you reach the general claim that 'all pursuit of passive income is harmful to society'.
2) How is 'passive income that benefits from others' harmful to society. >


How do you reach the general claim that 'all pursuit of passive income is harmful to society'.  
How is 'passive income that benefits from others' harmful to society.

Profit / Income always starts with labor, its generated by someone. It could be a factory worker, a scientist, a programmer, etc.
If you're an investor who's already invested in lets say the oil industry, and you're collecting money that the oil workers are generating passively you will most likely have an interest in ensuring that money continues to flow to you. You've never worked in an oil field or even driven your own car before because your family always made sure you had a driver.
Then a bunch of scientists around the world start to say that carbon emissions are going to start killing us, but you're rich so you decide that your flow of money is more important and you can overcome economic hardships, so you lobby or greenwash endeavors to course correct the path we're going down.
Can you see where I'm going with this? The oil worker can be trained to transition to new industries, but the investor has sunk all the money they stole into oil and they have no skills all they're good at is siphoning off money. >

I dont think you understand where I am getting at. Your claim is a universal sentence, that "ALL passive income is harmful", you cannot use an existential sentence to prove your claim. 
For example:
if I were to claim that 'ALL dogs are cute', I cannot use the sentence(s) that 'look at Bobby's dog, it is so cute', 'ah look at Katie's dog too, they are also so cute!!'. This is 'hasty generalization' fallacy.
​
Second you still havent explained the concept of harm. The example of investors doesnt even make that much sense since industries WANT investors so they have capital for growth. >

You have explained why it could be seen as easy money but what is the harm it causes? Why is somebody making lots of money causing harm? >

I'd like to use the pharmaceutical industry for this example.
Since many pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded they have an incentive to generate profit for their investors right?
What's more profitable, to cure an illness once and be done with it? Or treat millions of people of their symptoms for decades?
The scientists who created insulin sold the patent for what? a dollar? Now the price of Insulin is marked up something like 300% the cost it takes to make it and people need it to live. Many people have died from rationing their insulin all so a few people can extract income from those who actually contribute to society. >


What's more profitable, to cure an illness once and be done with it? Or treat millions of people of their symptoms for decades?

In the short term, it's more profitable to treat the symptoms.  In the long term... well, what's the profitability of being "THE COMPANY THAT CURED CANCER"?? You can easily play off that reputation to make way more money in the future. >

So where is the company that cured diabetes and made insulin cost less than water ?
Because i think your over selling the value of reputation even more so when you compare it to the "value" holding an entire medical sector over the barrel and basically saying "pay this or die" >


So where is the company that cured diabetes

Working on the cure. It hasn't been found yet.

the "value" holding an entire medical sector over the barrel and basically saying "pay this or die"

Except... competition.  Anyone can make insulin.  If you wanted to, and had the money to, you could start selling insulin. You would just need to respect specific patents and such.  But the stuff itself- insulin- can be made and sold by anyone.  So... why haven't you 'made insulin cost less than water'?  Why don't you spend Billions to produce something... then give it away free, if it's such a good idea? >

What happened to "the value of reputation" if we are now on "well why don't you do it if you are so smart"
Also those "specific patents" are a series of incremental improvements and production modifications that basically cover the last 90 years of industrial medical production saying "oh anyone can do it" is disingenuous if you have any idea how it works and shows you to be stabbing in the dark otherwise.
So anyone (and by which i mean anyone with a modern production biochem facility and staff to run it) can make insulin but it will be from 90 years ago with very inefficient processes that result in a worse end product with more side effects. >

this sounds like a noncommittal endorsement of communism. You do know you could always just come out and say you're against capitalism and literally nobody would be shocked to hear this from a redditor. >

I think he is against capitalism but either doesn’t know it or is trying to bait people into thinking they way they do. The funny part is they just don’t understand how the world works. >

This post reeks of jealousy and socialism. I’ll accept my downvotes proudly. >

Here is what I hear from your statement:

I don't believe I should have to spend a majority of my (life) time working, nor do I believe I should do anything special to prepare for my future. I do believe that society should take care of me when I'm older despite this (but not the current older generation...).  

Which is a valid belief system.  I don't agree with this view, but I do believe it's valid.
​


Landlording is not simply purchasing a property and walk away.  That can happen (but you're likely to fail as landlord).. but on large scale there is a business that requires running which include employing people, advertising, maintenance of the property, etc.  The larger the complex the larger the issues that must be resolved.  For small scale landlords, what they are getting paid for is managing (and taking on) risk. This seems to be greatly under-estimated on reddit. When everything works perfectly the risk (well the result of the risk) is small. But as a small-scale landlord (2 buildings / 6 apartments) I've been in situations where I'm ripping out closest on July 4 because there was leak in the apartment upstairs, having Thanksgiving dinner (m&ms and chocolate milk) because an oil tank gave out, and ripping up floors because the a tenant hid his cat which was peeing on the floor for a year - and the only way to git rid of the cat-pea in floors is to replace them.  Additionally, as a (small scale) landlord you are personally responsible for the mortgage.  If you can find a  rental property that has positive cashflow - jump on it.  Without putting a large sum of money down, the best you are likely to do is break even -  but you're still responsible for 3 (in the case of a multi-family home) heating system, 3 water heaters, 3 plumbing systems, snow removal and general upkeep of the property.  And if you can't rent out your property, you still have to pay the mortgage  (unless you own the property out-right) , taxes and insurance.  What you are taking on as landlord is risk, and as such you get rewarded for that (in the long term).  If you feel this is easy money and relatively unfair, rather than complaining about it why not become a landlord?  


I'm not sure what you're saying here... That you don't think younger people should support older people (i.e. social security) or you don't think people should have the ability to save for retirement - while also older people should be taken care of "by the government".  You'll have to clarify what exactly you're pissed off about here.  Part of saving for retirement is precisely so that you're NOT a burden to the younger generation.  If you feel that this notion of getting interest for lending money (essentially what you're doing with any investment) is somehow taking money from "the younger generation" you have a very idealistic and simplistic view of what money actually is and what it takes to start and operate a company.    


If you feel there is a "better way" I would challenge you to implement it rather than just complaining about it. But that would run counter to your "I don't want to work hard" premise. >

I’m a landlord. Bought a house for 800,000$. Majority the rent goes to property tax, insurance, and mortgage.  What is left needs to be saved for unpredictable repairs, which are rare but very costly. There is also the risk of people who live in the house damaging it due to unprofessional handling of equipment or malice. The little that is left is to pay for the hassle of me dealing with all that crap. The value if the house is not necessarily from the rental income. But from potential selling if the house in the future with the hope that house prices will rise. This is a very large risk to put all your life savings in it. >

Your last paragraph contradicts itself. You day working hard in younger years shouldn't result in passive income, then say that social security should be expanded in later years, which is itself passive income. >

It doesn't contradict. Social Security is public infrastructure to take care of the elderly. I can vote for representatives who will take care of that system, I can't vote for board members who may decide to invest it into some dumb project and then lose it all.
There comes a point where you've given your time and labor to your country and your country should take care of you in your last years. >

Yes, but that's just passive income from another source. Social security is still just consuming resources that others have produced, the same way passive income is. >


they don't maintain it

Are you implying that the building maintains itself or that the maintenance is free? I am asking because I can assure you that neither thing is true. >

If a roof needs repairing, how often do you see a landlord installing the shingles themselves?
The extent to which they maintain it is to route your money to a maintenance crew. A landlord could purchase a house across the country and have never set foot in it.
Forgive me but I don't consider that enough work to be considered vital to society. >

Well shit, I’ve been a mason for 15 years n now I run the company. I build schools, hospitals, universities, a shit load of govt buildings every year and most of ‘em w/ these hands. 
I don’t reckon you will ever do enough work for me to consider you vital to society. But this is just one guy’s worthless opinion. >


These people did not build the property, 

Developers did, and developers need someone to buy the house they made to be able to do their job. If they didn't buy it, it would never get made. >

More often than not a bank is paying the upfront cost to the developer, then the landlord who took out the loan will have that investment paid off using the labor of their tenants.
What I don't like is that after the property has been paid off the ownership of it remains with the landlord and they can continue to extract the wealth from the tenant for as long as they please.
If the tenant were to pay the equivalent of the value of the dwelling over time in rent, the ownership of that property should transfer to the tenant. If the tenant moves out, ownership of the property should be split between the landlord and the tenant and the new person pays both until the property is paid in full. >

You are describing a mortgage, which exists. Lots of people do it, the terms are even more generous that what you are describing. The average stay in a rented house is all of three years. No where near enough to justify a mortgage. >


I also don't believe working hard early in life should reward you with the ability to passively collect income from younger generations.

This is exactly the same as saying "I think people should choose to consume all their earnings rather than save it and put it at risk to help expand production". 
People who save & invest are helping to expand the ability of workers to produce more and are only getting a small cut of that increased production. This is a good thing. >

Being a landlord isn't passive income in the majority of cases. Even if you're not the one responding to tenant complaints, doing screenings, making repairs...someone is. There's very few people who just buy rental properties and are actually hands off and those how do either don't make much or have huge economies of scale. 
Look landlords get shit on a lot but they serve a very important purpose. If you were to give houses to every working adult in the US, within 10 years many would either need a massive infusion of cash for repairs or other house related expenses or be forced to abandon their homes. 
While I think rents have gotten crazy, landlords are a great hedge against future uncertainty. It's far easier to walk away from a 1 year apartment lease because you have to move for a job than it is a mortgage. Arguably the consequences of eviction are less severe than foreclosure. Lastly, I live in the US and the vast majority of people can't pay a $500 emergency bill, how are they going to pay if a tree falls on their roof?
Professional investors are different breed and fall into different buckets. There's a huge difference between the person who shorts companies and the person who invests in early stage companies. There's a huge difference between a pension plan buying shares of a company and  PE firm buying a company with debt, taking on or more debt for improvements and then selling it. Some of those actors are bad for the system as a whole while others the market liquidity that allows the standard of living we have in western society vs other countries. 
​

I also don't believe working hard early in life should reward you with the ability to passively collect income from younger generations. 

I'm not really following here, can you explain further? >

Pretty self explanatory: he hates people like me. I worked hard and got promotions/salary raises through my 20s. Also helped my wife become a successful real estate agent. We were able to use the money made off hard work to buy 6 houses through my 20s and early 30s. We're still working hard and plan is to use money made from jobs and our ice cream shop business to pay off all the mortages and if plans go right by 40 I'll be making over $200k a year passively from the houses without any mortgages and can retire if I want. >

Yeah, I hate people like you too. Nothing personal. What you do is morally equivalent to the dipshits who bought out all the cleaning supplies at the start of the pandemic just to sell back at a massively increased price. Your market relies on scarcity and desperation. You people so badly want to see housing as a commodity. >

That's fine....it's funny because when I started buying up houses I had no clue there were people who hated landlords or wanted to change the system/abolish renting etc. After joining reddit I realized there are actually a ton of people with that view. O well. It does help me sleep better at night knowing that I own high end luxury rentals and not slum ones. All my tenants make six figures several make over $200k or even over $300k a year and have perfect credit. They easily could buy a house if they wanted but they choose to rent for whatever reason. Most were from out of state and signed a year lease, I'm guessing they only intended to stay a year but because I haven't raised any of their rents they just keep renting for years on end >

With any luck, life at a certain point should really only be passive income for everyone. Technology should reach a point where a lot of the jobs that currently require a human to perform will be done by robots or computers. And then hopefully we’ll be a society where work isn’t required and we, as a society, can live lives where we choose to work or not and society won’t crumble. Universal income should be our end goal instead of rats on a wheel. Sure, it sucks now because government regulation has allowed people to abuse the system, but someday with the right mix of tech and politics we should all be able to own what need >

I'm not going to discuss the other issues because I don't have a large amount of knowledge in them.

Landlords who buy up and purchase properties and then passively collect the income off the labor of their tenants. These people did not build the property, they don't maintain it, they merely claim ownership of it and then have their mortgage and life sustained by the labor of others. There's no risk involved in it because housing is a necessity.

My family owns several rentals. The last few weeks I've been helping my dad fix two of our rentals. We had issues with hard water deposits messing up the dishwasher, a bathroom fan failing, and right now I'm huddled under 5 blankets because our renter's heater went out so we gave them ours until the replacement parts arrive so we can fix the rental heater.
Growing up I would spend time throughout the year helping my dad maintain the rentals. This meant fixing things as they break, replacing things as they get old. A renter burned down part of the house and we had to rebuild it one summer (insurance didn't cover it because the renter was illegally cooking meth in the house and we didn't know because the State bans rental inspections). That's an unexpected $30,000 expense. There have been other cases where damages exceeded all the money we earned in rent several times over.
I helped install cabinets last year before a new renter came in. They recently moved out and after they left we learned that they severely damaged the finish on all of the cabinets with some sort of stickers and it's going to cost thousands to fix it. >

Landlords are important for social mobility because it allows people from lower earning brackets to move to areas where there is work without having to build/buy their own house. You live in a society where a large amount of the housing has already been built because of this, so you take it for granted, but it would be working as intended if not for large institutional investment, and worse foreign investment. Foreign investment drives up prices to absurd levels which causes a feedback loop that ends up screwing over the people who live in the area because they can't compete with the sheer difference in wealth.
That isn't what it is like to work in business at that level. You've probably not experienced it yourself, and that's okay. People tend to find it comforting to think that everyone who works as directors or upper management are useless and a waste of money, but the sad reality is that often they are actually the hardest parts of a business. (As a tangent, should businesses be allowed to get large enough to form multi-national corporations? No, it's bad for the overall health of society and social mobility, but unfortunately with the existence of rival foreign economic foreign powers, most countries can't sacrifice productivity in exchange for their people's happiness because the inevitable result is losing to a totalitarian country like China. Sounds dramatic but unfortunately if the world loses balance, that is exactly what will happen). Investors will put money into almost anything with a positive npv which means all that a good idea has to do is demonstrate that it is needed (i.e it will be something people actually want to pay for at overall cost + markup which is usually 3-10%) this leads to more ideas being tried and subsequently new technology and ideas emerging.
The reason it is hard to become a self-made millionaire is not because most of the millionaires got there by nepotism. While this is unpopular to say, it is actually more or less down to good luck whether you are able to become a millionaire or not. It is actually very easy to become a millionaire if you have both an idea and the right timing. It doesn't even need to be a good idea. Having the wrong timing though and you will never make it. The reason for this is that risk is highly rewarded and punished. If you save up money and then invest it into a venture, you might make lots of money and become a success, or you might run out of money and go bankrupt. Since people who inherent money are able to start businesses with less personal risk, and are able to try more ideas, they have a higher chance of getting lucky and becoming successful themselves, vs a normal person who saves money themselves who will have fewer chances to start their own business and so less chances to strike gold. The idea of a self-made millionaire is absolutely not a Myth, it is just less likely for someone who doesn't have financial backing to be successful. 

I also don't believe working hard early in life should reward you with the ability to passively collect income from younger generations.

While it is very obviously not perfect, you are not collecting it from younger generations. You have put money into an idea that would not exist otherwise. You are actively improving the economy and providing a greater amount of opportunities for future generations. In terms of property, you are maintaining that property so that it continues to exist where otherwise there might be no demand for it, and maintaining the value so where people have bought a similar property, they can then sell and move to a different area to live/work rather than getting trapped there due to a loss in value and no longer being able to pay off the mortgage from the residual value.

The model of social security should be expanded upon so that when you reach a certain age everyone has a decent standard of living into their elder years and you're taken care of.

Unfortunately, absolutely not. The way we currently structure our society is completely unsustainable because it relies on a large working body of young workers to support the older generation, but developed economies do not usually have expanding populations, and planning for more people is absolutely terrible for the environment. While it is an extremely complicated topic, unfortunately your suggestion is not possible. There needs to be something other than social security to ensure pensioners are looked after, because expanding on the current system just means an extraordinarily unfair tax burden crushing future generations when it isn't their fault they weren't born into a large cohort.  There are some potential futuristic solutions, such as making all AI run business publicly owned where the entitlement to dividends is given to people pension age, for example, but the best we have now is publicly funded pension pots complemented by social security and private pensions schemes, which is also completely unsustainable. Unfortunately, society is currently running headfirst towards a brick wall.
There are exceptions and nuance to everything that I have said, but there isn't time to go into more detail. I hope you can accept these arguments in good faith even if you don't agree. >


These people did not build the property, they don't maintain it, they merely claim ownership of it

Where are you that there aren't any laws protecting tenants from poorly maintained properties? >

There is a huge stretch between 'poorly maintained' and legally unhabitable, but I'm pretty sure OP meant they don't personally maintain it and just relay your complaints to a home insurance when it gets too annoying. >

Being able to buy a house and rent it out is one of the best ways people can bring themselves up in class, as you only need a down payment and in a good market can pay it off in rent, building equity for yourself. I have met so many people who worked their ass off in low paying jobs to buy a rental, for people in the lower-lower middle class, buying a house is a major landmark towards success. Having a problem with this is having a problem with prosperity >

Buying a house and renting it out, as a means of moving from a lower financial class to a higher one, is done at the expense of the people you're renting from. It's literally using their hard work as a stepping stool to get yourself into a higher social position. >

Well said. >

This is not well thought out OP. Landlords have to maintain the property, pay mortgage (if there is one), insure it, update it, take care of seasonal maintenance, and risk bad tenants. 
My landlord inherited the house I rent. It has an apartment on the second floor as well. The money goes to cover the nursing facility for her mother. She isn’t getting rich off of it. And she takes care of the property. When the basement was seriously flooded and insurance didn’t cover it (extremely rare weather) she was the one that was out $7,000 for repairs. 
To your second paragraph I am confused on your outrage. You know most people that do those jobs are not millionaires. Some are but most are not. And those careers require a great deal of work. What is it to you if they get paid more than you? The execs I work under make a salary which does not affect my salary. 
In order to accomplish the social security you describe would be the older generation (boomers) would be living off the labor of younger generations since they are a large portion of the population and our contributions would increase. >


This is not well thought out OP. Landlords have to maintain the property, pay mortgage (if there is one), insure it, update it, take care of seasonal maintenance, and risk bad tenants.

Likewise? Landlords don't do maintenance, they route the money you paid to a maintenance crew. How many landlords do you know that actually repair a roof when its time to?
​

My landlord inherited the house I rent.

So you think Inherited wealth is earned? Thats a whole other ball game, I also mostly refer to professional landlords and mega corporations that price gouge.
​

What is it to you if they get paid more than you? 

Its not that they get paid more, but the top 1% live like Egyptian Pharaohs and going to space is their quirky hobby. It's unacceptable.
​

In order to accomplish the social security you describe would be the older generation (boomers) would be living off the labor of younger generations since they are a large portion of the population and our contributions would increase.

Public infrastructure where everyone benefits from it, its stable, and no 30 year old kid can arbitrarily decide to make bad investments in it is a far better idea. Boomers got to benefit from Social Security and now we have politicians hell bent on making it go away or cutting it off. >

If you start living somewhere and the furnace breaks, you’re out thousands of dollars. If you’re renting the place, the landlord covers it and you don’t have to worry. If you own the place, you’re now out thousands of dollars (if you even have it on hand). Your argument makes no sense because you’re assuming that renters can afford all the things landlords pay for when they need to be paid for. >

So I would recommend you expand your view to, capitalism is harmful to society, as what you are describing is simply the "vast extraction of value to the owners of capital". 
While I generally agree with your view, I think this is similar to a democratic political system. It's horrible but it's the best we have. If you were to remove the above without an alternative system, the economy would suffer and many people would die. 
Any proposal regarding an improved system? >

This is just commie bait of a complete lack of understanding of how being a landlord works. I hear you on big companies buying up land, but lots of landlords invest tons of their time and money procuring one or two properties to literally break even renting them out, mostly to people who can’t get alone or want to live somewhere temporarily. I own a house and my neighbors down the road own two. I’m 26 and my neighbor is on his 30s. He’s an immigrant who bought his first home, a starter home, very modest who rents it out now, Likely barely breaking even on the mortgage payment and the insurance required. He’ll do this as an investment until he sells it at a profit. He earned. It’s his decision what he does with it, is it not? I intend to live in my camper for awhile, should I not be able to rent out my house because then I’m “denying it” to someone else? I mean, just talking this through like 1 or 2 points down completely dissolves this “landlord bad” argument. You ever owned a house? >


Landlords who buy up and purchase properties and then passively collect the income off the labor of their tenants. These people did not build the property, they don't maintain it, they merely claim ownership of it and then have their mortgage and life sustained by the labor of others. There's no risk involved in it because housing is a necessity.

Are you too  young to remember the great housing price crash of 2008? Do furnaces never go out and need to be replaced, roofs leak and need to be replaced? Do tenants never trash the place and refuse to pay rent for months until an eviction can finally be effected? I know a small time landlord. He works next to me in the office because he's not making any passive income off them (instead the building equity is his retirement).
The grocery store owner is sustained by the labor of others paying for groceries? Is that somehow harmful to society too?

Professional Investors, shareholders, executives, stock traders, etc these people are allowed to amass ludicrous amounts of money and throw it wherever they please

Professional investors are why new pharmaceuticals are discovered, new manufacturing plants built, new products put into production.  If I have  good idea it means nothing if I don't have my own money to build my own plant to manufacture it and there's no investor willing to front the money.

The model of social security should be expanded upon so that when you reach a certain age everyone has a decent standard of living into their elder years and you're taken care of.

Leaving besides the fact that whether a  social safety net is good is an entirely different conversation than if  investment income is good, If you want a social safety net, we need money to pay for it. Which means investors making money so we can tax it; investors building manufacturing plants and housing to grow the economy. Eventually you're going to run out of money if you both hand it out and discourage it's growth and creation. >

It certainly is a risk: see 2008 financial crisis in which LL’s went underwater on a large portion of mortgages.  Also see 2023 crisis coming to a neighborhood near you. >

So a bunch of the ultra-wealthy have turned housing into a commodity by over inflating the value of properties? Sounds a lot like the fine art world where they can embezzle money.
The ones who are taking the bigger risk are you and I who allow this system to continue. >

This is a non sequitur — as the person above stated, there is clearly risk in owning properties which goes against what you said in the OP. You should award a delta here, since you’re no longer disputing that there’s no risk. >

You have complaints about landlords, so why don't you just buy your own home?
If your reason is they are too expensive, then shouldn't you be grateful that someone spent the money to build a home that you can afford? Then shouldn't one of your goals be to save for your own home so you don't have to give money to the landlord?
Or do you like that if something breaks, it's not your responsibility? Some people appreciate that and are willing to pay for that service. 
I'm not going to argue that some people are greedy and rent has gone too high. But that's the way it is in every industry. Passive income is a goal for everyone. The more passive income I can generate, the more time I have to do stuff I want. Isn't that what we all want? >

"be grateful I'm letting you give me your money peasant"
if a feudal lord in the middle ages takes what I farm cause I have no other choice, he isn't being nice, he is a leech taking advantage of the situation. >


Professional Investors, shareholders, executives, stock traders, etc these people are allowed to amass ludicrous amounts of money and throw it wherever they please, they get to decide if a bad idea gets executed or if a good idea will gut buried.

As someone actually employed in the asset management space, you more or less described why we get paid. It isn't "passive" income in any way. Our work lives can be hell at times.
It's our job to analyze the market, conduct due diligence, study companies, and bring together other smart people to ultimately determine "what ideas get executed". 
Different roles do this at different granularities. A stock trader can simply influence whether a company becomes more or less valuable, unless they're massive in scale. A private equity PM can literally choose whether or not a small company lives or dies. A CEO has to make risky decisions on what lives and dies to ensure that their company doesn't die.
We aren't always right and our jobs are always kinda risky since we're basically professional gamblers, but we are generally paid based on our ability to deliver. To mirror that, a lot of us aren't paid large "salaries", but instead a fraction of what we bring in. So if a private equity manager might only be paid $100k a year, but if they bring in $10 million on a good bet because they did the legwork, then they might earn an additional $1 million for that successful bet. That's why Wall Street pays such high bonuses. >

Passive income is called rent seeking and it should be abolished. >

A feudal lord would have to pay for something they bought? The horror! >


A feudal lord would have to pay for something they bought? The horror!

Tell me you don't understand business ownership without actually saying you don't understand business ownership. >

Basic human needs should not be considered an investment