comment: >
  
  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.
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.