comment: >
context: /u/ICuriosityCatI (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 >
  
  
  Competent and decent land managers maintain their properties and ensure their tenants are safe- and, if there is a safety issue, work quickly to address it. It's not like they just buy up the land, do nothing, and get rich. They have to put in time and money to make their property a place people actually want to live and if they own, say, an apartment building that's not easy or cheap.
  
  I think you're conflating 2 different jobs here, perhaps because your uncle combines them. 
  Think of your large corporate landlord. Those investors do not manage anything themselves, they have hired people for that. So, what seems like 1 job is actually 2 jobs.    
  
  The position of landlord, where you extract rent from properties purely by virtue of owning it.    
  The position of land manager/custodian/whatever, where you extract rent for properties for services rendered.    
  
  Now, when those 2 positions are done by the same people, it's easy to think that all rent is done for services rendered, but that's not the way other people look at this issue. 
  They see Custodianship as a minor part of the rent, and the majority of the rent as pure profitseeking for no services rendered. >
  
  
  I think you're conflating 2 different jobs here, perhaps because your uncle combines them. 
  
  I'm using land manager and landlord interchangeably. I don't like the term landlord as much. But maybe they're not interchangeable. 
  
  Think of your large corporate landlord. Those investors do not manage anything themselves, they have hired people for that. So, what seems like 1 job is actually 2 jobs. 
  The position of landlord, where you extract rent from properties purely by virtue of owning it.
  The position of land manager/custodian/whatever, where you extract rent for properties for services rendered.
  
  I agree, corporate landlords are something else entirely. >
  
  
  I agree, corporate landlords are something else entirely.
  
  Well, that's the point. Others disagree and think that the tiny landlord is just  a corporate landlord in miniature, with a side job as custodian. >
  
  After you factor in mortgage and maintains fr costs, it would be naive in assuming a single properties rent is the main income for an individual landlord. It’s more of an investment with monthly returns. >
  
  An investment in denying other people the oppertunity to buy homes. >
  
  A land manager is an already existing term for a real job (or range of jobs), so you shouldn't appropriate it to try to describe landlords. Using it is especially misleading here because the whole criticism of landlords is that they aren't property managers, or at least aren't compensated like property managers. Leftists do not oppose workers who maintain residences, upkeep properties, manage logistics, and ensure tenants are safe: these workers are often called property managers, supers, or (rarely) land managers. What leftists do tend to oppose are landlords, people who make money off ownership of property, not their own labor. Note that the same person could be a landlord and also a property manager: in this case, leftists would oppose them as a landlord but not as a worker. If the landlord happened to make no more than what a typical salaried property manager would make in the same area, making them compensated fairly for their own labor in managing the properties, then their behavior wouldn't even be that objectionable. It's only when the value extracted by the landlord exceeds the value of their labor that the relation becomes exploitative from a typical leftist perspective. But as this is the case for pretty much all landlords, leftists typically criticize landlords broadly.
  tl;dr: there is little difference between "just buy up the land, do nothing, and get rich" and "buy up the land, do some work with far less value than the money you are making, and get rich." >
  
  Leftists don’t want anyone to buy property they are not using. It keeps housing costs down. There would be zero rentals I suppose. >
  
  Landlords are people with money who chose to use their money to make money off people without money. It’s as simple as that. Being a landlord is not a job or a vocation. They drive up property prices making it even harder for people to get on the housing ladder and instead be stuck in the rental sector. They are parasites on society. >
  
  First off, while all land managers had some amount of money to buy the land, many are not wealthy by any stretch and if they don't get rent payments will struggle to pay their own rents. My uncle, for instance, was not wealthy. 
  I disagree that "being a landlord is not a job" if a job is "work that somebody does to earn money." If they own an apartment building they have to perform constant upkeep and maintenance (if they're competent and care about their tenants' well being.) I'm not sure what you're basing this idea that it's "not a job" on- nevermind the idea that they are "parasites on society." >
  
  
  I disagree that "being a landlord is not a job" if a job is "work that somebody does to earn money." If they own an apartment building they have to perform constant upkeep and maintenance (if they're competent and care about their tenants' well being.) I'm not sure what you're basing this idea that it's "not a job" on- nevermind the idea that they are "parasites on society."
  
  I think this really is the key.
  You see own and maintain as a single concept.
  Others see it as 2 seperate parts. 
  Doing maintenance is work and not parasitism, but maintenance certainly isn't 100% of  the rent (if it were, then nobody would bother buying houses because you wouldn't gain anything. Everything you make up in not having to pay rent, you lose in having to pay maintenance).
  Doing owning however is rent seeking, which is defined as "the act of growing one's existing wealth without creating new wealth ". A landlord who demands rent is not adding any new wealth to the economy. They're not charging for the creation of housing (someone else build the house they are renting, they merely bought it), they are merely charging for access to a piece of stuff they already own. No new stuff is created. >
  
  
  someone else build the house they are renting, they merely bought it
  
  Because I'm sure the people who built the house did so entirely out of generosity, and none of them got paid for the job whatsoever. >
  
  The people who built the house did get paid. The construction company did that, not the landlord. They performed labor. They created something. The landlord did not. >
  
  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.
  
  Adam Smith
  
  Landlords are by nature, exploitative. They are instruments for leeching off the labor of the poor; made so by the inescapability of the profit-maximization imperative for deriving monetary rewards even at the cost of losing humanity. 
  A landlord must suppress their instinct for kindness, if they ever had any, in order to manage the savagery of extracting the greatest pound of flesh from the renter. If that involves kicking a single mother with an infant to the curb on a winter night, it is their fiduciary responsibility to do so. 
  Profit before people. >
  
  Okay but then why should we have to pay anymore than the cost of food, rent & energy at a restaurant? Shouldn’t the rest be provided out of the kindness of the owners and employees hearts? >
  
  
  Whether they just don't care to fix the issues or are outright cruel, these landlords deserve scorn and scrutiny. I have no sympathy for them. And if the left was only criticizing these corrupt landlords I wouldn't take any issue with it.  
  Competent and decent land managers maintain their properties and ensure their tenants are safe- and, if there is a safety issue, work quickly to address it.
  
  There is an obvious third option here.
  Let's say that I own 20 properties, so I hire someone to actually manage the properties for a wage, and I fuck off to somewhere tropical to enjoy the rest of the profit from my properties.
  That's not neglectful, but still everything that is postitive about actual land management is done separately from the owner, and the landlord represents everything that is negative about it: pure profit-seeking just for being rich in the firtst place.
  The problem with yor idealized idea of a useful land manager, is that it's still just someone doing all that negative profit-seeking, and on top of that, does the useful labor by jumping in to do a waged manager's tasks.
  People don't have a problem with the managierial role part, but with the ownership and rent-seeking part.
  Let's say that I own 100 properties, and I actually need 5 people to handle them, including an overseeing manager in charge. I could hire five people and fuck off, or I could hire 4 people and stay on as the lead manager. But either way, I am ultimately some guy benefiting from being rich, the choice of whether or not I jump in to play the role of one of my own employees, is of little consequence to that. >
  
  Being a landlord is inherently negative to others as you're taking up more than you need at the expense of others. To have it as your main source of income you're gonna have to charge rent above when it costs you for mortgage and taxes. What this does is it funnels money out of people who didn't have the upfront cash for a down payment for a loan to someone who was already well off enough to afford a loan if not afford the building outright. Its extracting money from poor people and keeping them poor by charging more than what the living space would be on the market. It also keeps the market price of living spaces artificially high because landlords, wanting to keep their properties valuable for making money, will keep places empty exclusively to artificially reduce supply whilst having an every increasing demand. I would also argue it hurts the economy as it is funnelling money from the poor, who would otherwise spend it on things like food, clothes, or some source of entertainment thereby stimulating the economy, to the pockets of a richer person who will likely leave it sit in a bank account which locks it off from the economy.
  As someone who has always been on the renter side there are no good landlords, only ones who don't actively fuck you over more than they have to.  Also landlord is the proper term as it's just a continuation of the noble land ownership of the past. Its just been opened up to anyone with enough money. >
  
  
  I would also argue it hurts the economy as it is funnelling money from the poor, who would otherwise spend it on things like food, clothes, or some source of entertainment thereby stimulating the economy, to the pockets of a richer person who will likely leave it sit in a bank account which locks it off from the economy.
  
  "Richer" persons don't leave it to sit in a bank and lose value from inflation; they re-invest their profits into things like property which they can then rent out and increase their wealth.
  Maybe if the "poor" person invested more of their money into some property instead of spending it on unnecessary entertainment they could then not be as "poor" as they are, and if they kept re-investing the profits, maybe then they'd become one of those "richer" people? >
  
  
  Maybe if the "poor" person invested more of their money into some property instead of spending it on unnecessary entertainment they could then not be as "poor" as they are, and if they kept re-investing the profits, maybe then they'd become one of those "richer" people?
  
  What's the minimum amount of entertainment you'd consider necessary. Say someone lived in a totally blank room, save for a bed, toilet and someonewhere to cook. Would you criticise them for putting a poster on one of the walls? >
  
  Nothing against entertainment as a whole, but if you consistently put it ahead of investing in your future then you have no grounds to complain about your financial status. >
  
  That doesn't answer the question of what the minimum amount of entertainment you think someone should live off is. If for example someone is living paycheck to pay check, would you say they can't conplain about that fact if they're seeing a movie every month? >
  
  There's no answer as to what the minimum is. My point isn't about amount it's about prioritization. If that person is living paycheck to paycheck and they choose to spend the only profit they have on watching a movie every month, then no I don't think they have grounds to complain about their financial status when that money could be used to better their situation. Now if they choose to do so and do not complain, then that's their life to live, but don't blame the "richer" for keeping them poor. >
  
  
  but don't blame the "richer" for keeping them poor.
  
  So who pays them wages that mean they have to live paycheck to paycheck? >
  
  No one is forcing them to work for whoever is paying those wages. That's just what their skillset earns them with that employer. Want higher wages? Maybe instead of watching a movie every month, save that money and put it towards furthering your education, increasing your skillset and opening up yourself to more job opportunities? >
  
  
  No one is forcing them to work for whoever is paying those wages.
  
  To check, do you think it's acceptable that people doing those jobs are paid so little they can't reasonably save without giving up any leasure expenses? 
  Becuase if your answer to them wanting better conditions is to tell them to do different jobs, then you'd either have to be happy with everyone leaving those jobs for better jobs or happy with some people being in those jobs. >
  
  So... What is the counter argument exactly? Good landlords do what they are supposed to, so that doesn't make the concept itself harmful? >
  
  Somebody needs to own and maintain the land. If somebody wants to invest their hard earned money into a property and maintain and fix said property so others can live in comfort, I see no harm in that. >
  
  What do you think the "far left" argument for criticizing the entire concept is? 
  Housing shouldn't be done for profit, and you shouldn't be forced to pay someone that owns something purely for the sake of making others pay for the temporary use. It is morally a bad thing, regardless of if you are a saint of a landlord >
  
  The far left argument is the one that you're making right now. Housing shouldn't be for profit. But that sounds dangerously close to communism, government distributing housing and land and nobody owning it. The morality of it is subjective. What exactly makes you think it's immoral? >
  
  
  That sounds dangerously close to communism
  
  You're so close. And? 
  
  What exactly makes you think it's immoral? 
  
  Without housing, people are at higher risk of dying. Lots of people can't afford rent, even from "the good ones". When that happens, the landlord has the power to kick them out, making their death much more likely >
  
  
  You're so close. And? 
  
  Communism has never been shown to work in practice. There is not a single wealthy communist country. 
  
  Without housing, people are at higher risk of dying. Lots of people can't afford rent, even from "the good ones". When that happens, the landlord has the power to kick them out, making their death much more likely
  
  I would think a decent landlord would give their tenants a bit of leniency if they were laid off or couldn't afford rent for a month. But is the landlord really to blame for kicking them out if they consistently can't pay their rent? If they dealt with personal challenges that made it difficult to get rent money, the government should step in and pay the landlord and if they don't that's on the government, but if they just couldn't be bothered to get a job and pay that's completely different. Either way, I fail to see how the landlord is responsible. Why isn't the government responsible? >
  
  
  There is not a single wealthy communist country
  
  There is a massive entirely seperate conversation we can have about this. Like how the US has in the past forcefully taken out democratically elected leftist heads of state
  
  But is the landlord really to blame for kicking them out 
  
  Yes. The landlord didn't have to become a landlord
  The landlord is responsible because they chose to be extortionate >
  
  
  There is a massive entirely seperate conversation we can have about this. Like how the US has in the past forcefully taken out democratically elected leftist heads of state
  
  I agree, the US has interfered in the past, but that doesn't make what I said untrue- there is no evidence that communism works. You can't say it would have worked without US interference. 
  
  Yes. The landlord didn't have to become a landlord
  The landlord is responsible because they chose to be extortionate
  
  Why isn't the government responsible? And I reject the premise that landlords are "extortianates" >
  
  The landlord is responsible for his own actions. They choose to kick people out if they can't pay rent anymore. They choose to raise rent too. They choose to own housing for the sole purpose of forcing people to pay. They make people pay them under the threat of kicking them out. That is basically the textbook definition of extortion >
  
  
  The landlord is responsible for his own actions. They choose to kick people out if they can't pay rent anymore. They choose to raise rent too. 
  
  But it's not the landlord's fault the tenant can't pay rent. 
  
  They choose to own housing for the sole purpose of forcing people to pay
  
  Is it possible they're just interested in owning a property and giving tenants a great experience? 
  
  They make people pay them under the threat of kicking them out. That is basically the textbook definition of extortion
  
  People choose to pay. How is that extortion? >
  
  
  some very toxic landlords [...] act like kings and put money over people. 
  
  That's a interesting figure of speech, because the same justifications could still be said about literal feudal kings and lords. 
  Some feudal lords took care of their serfs and lands, protecting them and keeping them prosperous, while some others were purely pestilential. 
  But at the end of the day, the "good ones" were still lords. They were still owning other people's fate as a matter of personal privilege, greatly profiting from it. 
  It would make no sense to say that good feudal kings were not actual lords, just "land managers". A lord is a lord. If you are at his mercy, then any value you get from them sometimes acting good, is still just an example of them exerting power over you. >
  
  It's actually a really good distinction to differentiate between landlords and land managers it's pretty common for big landlords to hire land managers to do all the work we traditionally associate with landlords. >
  
  Just wanted to say “yikes” lmaooo >
  
  Land is limited resource. Hoarding it and demanding rent is akin to demanding money for breathing air. Landlords are not adding any value more than a janitor and they should only earn what a janitor does and no more. >
  
  Why are you entitled to someone else's property? >
  
  Why is landlord entitled to someone else's money? >
  
  Because that person agreed to pay it in return for using property >
  
  What other options did they have? Live on a streets and be homeless? >
  
  Looking at the housing market in basically everywhere, there isn't just a single house to rent, and zero other options >
  
  But that's just shifting the question. What is your option if you don't want to rent from anyone and can't afford to buy (because landlords have pushed the prices up)?
  Why does this new landlord is entitled to your money? Why is any landlord entitled to other people's money? >
  
  Your option is to figure something out. >
  
  What would you figure out? What is your answer or solution? Because I can't think any other options than to pay rent to someone. >
  
  My biggest issus is they treat housing as an asset. Something that will apreciate and can then be discarded once they apreciate enough. Displacing the renters and jacking up the "market price" of all other houses in the area. Further more that increases the rents for every one else.
  Now I know the realestate agents are a much bigger part of the problem but they couldnt suck every penny out of the less fortunate if there werent useful idiots like land lords who fall for their bs. >
  
  How are real estate agents worse than landlords? They only fuck you once right? >
  
  REAs set the "market" convince owners to up rents because they make more more money, convince them to sell higher to increase their commission. They are the fuel of the fire that is the current housing crisis. >
  
  A landlord is called landlord because he doesn't just manage the land, he owns it. Managers act in the interest of someone else (the owner). The term you'd like to use is wrong and falsely gives the impression of income though work, rather than rent-seeking behaviour.
  
  Competent and decent land managers maintain their properties and ensure their tenants are safe- and, if there is a safety issue, work quickly to address it.
  
  There's no need to have an individual owner to get this done. The residents will have no problem to pool their money for those services, to have a worker doing this, an actual land manager. This is not an argument for a third party that soaks up extra profit. >
  
  The issue isn't neglect. Plenty of people neglect their own home.
  The issue is ownership. A landlord collects money from people while also preventing someone from owning that home.
  I think it's important to start with the origin of the term. Landlord is left over from the medieval feudal economic system. The lord owned the land and the serfs or peasants produced things for the lord I'm exchange for living on tbe land, protection, etc. This payment of goods was called rent. I'm general, historians say that it was a brutal system that provided no opportunity for wealth development.
  Its just kind of weird that the choices for housing are pay a mortgage which goes to you owning the house or....pay rent (often more than a mortgage) that goes to a rich person paying off that house.
  Also. I'm not sure if your uncle owns those properties but I assume he is small time compared to property management firms. The largest property management firm manages over 415000 homes. Do you think that maybe driving up the price of homes a little? >
  
  Mom and Pop landlords who saved over a generation buy or build properties are not the same as multi-billion dollar firms like Blackrock and is disingenuous to compare the two as "rich owners preventing the poor from owning land". The properties are available to everyone, just because most cannot afford them doesn't mean they are prevented from owning. 
  Yes there has been a new wave of real estate flippers and investors who've driven prices up with induced demand, but these properties were also likely not to be bought by poor or unhoused people. The problem has been the unchecked rise in prices leading to an affordability crises. Unless you want large swathes of government housing (owned and operated by the government) to provide for all the unhoused, there's not really an alternative to market pressures. Additionally, such free housing wouldn't be single family homes. The rich have always had an easier time and greater access to more desirable locations and properties. That isn't going to change simply by forcing property owners to sell their homes to the government. You either have to force landlords to sell homes at a loss or build new affordable housing and either one still doesn't resolve the wealth inequality. 
  The solution is in more housing, specially true affordable housing, but that's not what is being built. Everywhere I see new luxury apartments or new mid/high rises, so supply on homes remains low. It is not financially viable to build a single family home for 100-150K which is arguably an affordable starter home. Now a starter condominium is double that. Most renters rent because they cannot afford the down payment or taxes or maintenance not because all the available properties are scooped up by greedy landlords. >
  
  I think too often people leave out the payments the "owner" is making. If I own 4 apartments, and pay rent on each for $1000, plus have to spend 100 per apart per month on maintenance, why wouldn't your rent be above 1100? During Covid this became apparent to bee because everone I talked to thought that the government should just keep postponing rent. Okay, then your "landlord" cant afford to keep up with his payments, he stops repairing things and uses the repair money to stay afloat, then he gets complaimts about upkeep, and goes upside down, and gets bought out by a corporate company that maybe raises the rent and tries to boot everyone. Ive seen so many people try to impose prices on other industries without thinking AT ALL about the wealthier persons costs. 
  I used to be a commercial painter, paint was 40 bucks a gallon. I reused my brush and rollers, and people would try to haggle my boss down below my 15 an hour plus the paint. We would explain it to them and show them reciepts, and they would just look at us like, "But I don't like that price I want it lower." I think people love to hate other people as soon as they see a high price tag, and its even easier to hate the guy who owns your apartment or house and you never see them, and try to get all the other people paying rent to hate them too.
  I think people today feel like criticising = helping someone >
  
  I have no way of buying an apartment because I don’t have the upfront cash. However, though rent, I will end up buying several apartments for my landlord. How is that fair? >
  
  I got a landlord named Carl, he is so sweet. He charges me twelve hundred dollars a month to lay down and go to sleep. All my other neighbors think they're so lucky not to be put out on the street, but I think Carl's a creep.
  Carl has a son named Luke, but his last name isn't Skywalker. Luke is a drunk, after two or three beers turns into a real trash talker. And after ten or twenty years more of paying for this old roof and a floor I will have paid off Luke's own house, and I will still be poor.
  So I think I'm gonna take my sign on down to the freeway off ramp and try and raise me a down payment on a place where me and my babies can camp. So if you see me on your way to work just remember I'm not a conman or a jerk, I'm not trying to buy crack rocks, I just want to live on planet Earth.
  My sign says: I will work for diapers. I will work for food. I will work for medical Insurance. I will work for damn near anything, damned if I don't damned if I do. But you god damn son of a bitch greedy landlord bastard I won't work for you. >
  
  What's this from? Sorry for the ignorance >
  
  Because a lot are slumlords that do the bare minimum but expect outrageous prices for a house or apartment built in the 1920s that has never seen a reno or thought of one. Not all but seen a decent amount.