Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RANDY_MAR5H t1_jbo8uhq wrote

Reply to comment by _wombo4combo in New York landlord becomes legal guardian of 93-year-old Holocaust survivor: 'She had no one else' by Imguran

Lol

What is inherently unethical about owning property and providing that property to rent?

3

ladotelli46 t1_jbogx2e wrote

That some landlords don’t provide anything of value except a human right that is commodified, and live off of other people’s value i.e. parasite

34

a49fsd t1_jboykgp wrote

renting allows me to move every 2-3 years. I hate being tied down to a place.

3

OSRS_Rising t1_jbompub wrote

Farmers don’t provide anything of value except a human right (food) that is commodified.

−1

ladotelli46 t1_jbopj92 wrote

They make the food. Landlords don’t make land, don’t make houses. They lord.

12

OSRS_Rising t1_jboq7tn wrote

So it’s not wrong to sell a human right, we can agree on that.

I’d argue my landlord allows me to live more stress-free than I would if I were home owning. My fridge broke last month, I called him, and had a new one in two days. This is an expense I would have had trouble affording had I been on the hook for it.

I haven’t mowed a lawn in years because he and his son mow mine, and I haven’t had to worry about replacing a lawnmower or spending thousands getting it fixed every year like my parents…

Tl;dr I do not want to own a home and for me, landlords provide a necessary service

1

ZellZoy t1_jbosqtv wrote

You ever play monopoly? You ever play monopoly where one player starts out owning 3/4 of the board? Kinda hard to win in that game isn't it?

3

refreshertowel t1_jbowsq8 wrote

Lol, you obviously know that fridge repairmen exist right? And gardeners? They don't exist solely through your landlord. You would pay a lot less just to hire them when things break / need mowing than you do in rent.

You are paying for the privilege of someone else living off your money, while also occasionally having to use your money to pay someone else to do something else to the property you live at.

If the landlords weren't making more money from you than they were spending on services, they would kick you out my friend.

2

OSRS_Rising t1_jboxbxw wrote

My fridge needed replaced. This was an unexpected, four-figure purchase I didn’t have to make.

I’m not opposed to my landlord making a profit off me, every service does that. When I get my car fixed, I’m aware they are making a significant profit off of the interaction.

I’d question my landlord’s sanity if he wasn’t making money lol

5

refreshertowel t1_jboytcq wrote

I "own" my own house. It's not the greatest house and has needed many repairs throughout the years I've been living here. The amount of money I have saved by not paying rent over that time is literally mindboggling. You are caught in a trap you do not realise. Unless you are a millionaire renting a condo and using it as a tax writeoff or some other absurd situation, you are literally being fucked in the arse by your landlord, no matter how much you try to justify it.

If your time is so valuable that a phone call and repair costs for any item in your house is worth less to you than the time taken to do it then you should own your house already. If your time is not that valuable, then your decade/lifetime rent costs will outpace any possible repairs/maintanence by huge amounts.

1

OSRS_Rising t1_jbp1mh7 wrote

I pay around 25% if my income a year for housing and some back-of-the-napkin math says I’ll have paid what the average home in my state costs after 25-ish years.

But I don’t want a home or land. I’m paying for a product I actually want and it feels classist to assume that there’s only one “right” way of living life—owning a home.

2

refreshertowel t1_jbp4j2i wrote

I don't think anyone should own land, and I've lived under a bridge at one point, so no, I don't think I'm being classist. What I am being is anti-landlord. There is no contribution they make that makes it worth anyone's while to justify their existence.

In my ideal world, you would not have to worry about owning a home or land either, but for entirely different reasons than a landlord makes it worth your while not to.

2

Sunira t1_jbpj3no wrote

Yeah I agree with you that it's classist. Also homeowners love to say renting costs more but then you're free of any real estate market ups and downs, can leave whenever you feel like it, and homeowners spend the first 10 years giving most of their mortgage money to a bank via interest that doesn't go towards their loan amount. Also did everyone suddenly forget 2008-2014 where tons of the country were underwater in their homevalue vs mortgage and were literally trapped in their house or having to sell at a HUGE loss? A renter can just pack up and go when the economy or opportunity moves in a different direction. As a homeowner you also have to cover insurance and still pay for major expenses. Sure maybe a fridge might cost 1500, but a roof is like 15k on the low end, windows are like 750 each to replace .. did your AC unit go out? THOUSANDS. And it all adds up. Property taxes on top --etc. I say this as a homeowner that LOVES their home and is willing to have the cost -- but its delusional to think that someone paying $1500 in rent is somehow way worse off than someone with a $1200 mortgage. That's some horse blinders for real estate right there.

2

prontoon t1_jbtcxf6 wrote

Good luck trying to convince anyone on reddit that landlord = evil hitler human. Reddit is full of renters who are seething at their landlords, your view is completely correct, just won't stick to someone who is echoing the "reddit opinion"

2

pzivan t1_jbr8tou wrote

In a sense, hotels and Airbnb are the same

1

EeyoresM8 t1_jboiodu wrote

Literally all of society is about living off of other people's value, that's the whole point of society, so you don't have to provide every service for yourself

−7

refreshertowel t1_jbomsrh wrote

Yes, society needs people contributing from all sides, but only capitalism lets non-contributors own the contributions of others.

24

Butt_Bucket t1_jbop2vy wrote

Yeah, capitalism can be pretty great like that. I'm glad I get to own things, and that I can leave them for my next of kin when I die. Sure is nice.

−16

refreshertowel t1_jboqyjf wrote

Huh, I didn't realise noone ever owned anything until capitalism came around in the the early 19th century. The more you know 🌈

14

ZellZoy t1_jbot0sk wrote

People often confuse capitalism and mercantilism which is honestly fair, the lines are kinda blurry. It doesn't help that anything left of hunting the homeless down for food is branded as communism wiping out all of the systems in between

12

refreshertowel t1_jbovpv9 wrote

Indeed, it's bizarre to me how wholeheartedly capitalism has infected every mode of thought in the modern world.

Go back less than a hundred years and there's a vast swathe of people pointing out that wages are another form of slavery...

6

Butt_Bucket t1_jbos8yz wrote

People did own things before capitalism came around. Hell, I would even go as far as to say that the entire concept of owning things created by other people massively predates capitalism too. Shit, its almost like your argument that "only capitalism lets non-contributors own the contributions of others" is completely wrong.

−3

refreshertowel t1_jbov5qe wrote

Yeah, this is true, I was being mildly facetious when I said only capitalism allows such a thing. Many, many systems of production extortion have existed throughout the ages. Have you heard of the concept of Kings and the kinda shit that went down while they were the hot new thing?!

Regardless, "owning" land is an absurd concept and should be done away with. At best it's a method used by people in power to prevent others from extricating themselves from the said power. At best.

3

Butt_Bucket t1_jbox630 wrote

If it's such an absurd concept to you, then you don't have to own land. It's not compulsory.

>At best it's a method used by people in power to prevent others from extricating themselves from the said power. At best.

What about the countless millions of people who only own the land they live on? Do you believe they're oppressing everybody else by not sharing it?

If you really feel that strongly about it, I'm sure you must already live in a commune open to any destitute people who need a place. And if you don't, then maybe its time to start freely sharing your living space with strangers. Even better if you own land. Be the change you want to see in the world.

−2

redditQuoteBot t1_jboypya wrote

Hi Butt_Bucket,

It looks like your comment closely matches the famous quote:

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

I'm a bot and this action was automatic Project source.

2

refreshertowel t1_jbozpox wrote

My entire garden is either local flora to help our native bees and other insects live or produce and that produce is freely shared with any people around me. My neighbours are entirely free to enter my yard whenever they want and to take any crops that interest them. Any neighbourhood kids have free reign over my yard, and there's often little football matches playing out in my front yard (as long as they don't damage the garden, as that is a communal resource).

While I'm forced to participate in this gross facade we have built as a society in order not to live in squalor, I'm very happy to share "my" land with those around me.

1

Butt_Bucket t1_jbp1pzp wrote

"My entire garden"

"My yard"

While I'm glad to hear that you're a generous person, it seems as if you still have a pretty strong concept of what belongs to you. You still value being the person who gets to decide how your land is used and shared. You can own something and still be generous with it.

I don't believe for a second that you would be happy if you suddenly lost all protections of ownership associated with your land, and had to cede it completely to wider society without any individual authority over what becomes of it. I'm not creating a dramatic hypothetical here. This is the exact scenario you invoke when you say that owning land is an absurd concept that should be done away with.

0

refreshertowel t1_jbp3xh8 wrote

Everyone who rents submits to a similar situation you describe, lol. Want to put up a painting on a wall? Needs owners permission. Want to remove a plant or add a new one to the garden? Needs owners permission. The only "ownership" that is allowed under land owners is that which they grant.

If that is some horrible dystopian nightmare, welcome to the modern world my friend.

The difference between myself and those other land owners is that I don't believe any of us should be able to profit from people living on land. I'm happy as long as I have something to shelter myself from the rain and something soft to lie on. I've lived in conditions without either.

2

Butt_Bucket t1_jbp61nt wrote

>Everyone who rents submits to a similar situation you describe, lol. Want to put up a painting on a wall? Needs owners permission. Want to remove a plant or add a new one to the garden? Needs owners permission. The only "ownership" that is allowed under land owners is that which they grant.
>
>If that is some horrible dystopian nightmare, welcome to the modern world my friend

Renters don't own the land they live on, so they don't have ownership rights. I'm not sure why you think I'd have a problem with that. They do have occupancy rights and I think that's important too.

​

>The difference between myself and those other land owners is that I don't believe any of us should be able to profit from people living on land.

Cool, but what you said was "owning land is an absurd concept that should be done away with". Profiting from land ownership is a step further, and being against that is a much less radical position that I probably would be more inclined to believe that you actually hold.

Do you actually want to abolish land ownership entirely or just renting land/property for money?

−1

refreshertowel t1_jbp9mya wrote

Land ownership entirely. Forgive my slip of the tongue when I said "my", and let me replace it with "the". The essential being of the land remains the same regardless of what word I use to refer to it. You are neglecting the fact that it is impossible to live in the modern world, bar living in forced squalor, without some semblance of land ownership when you try to play the fact that I participate in the system against my views.

This is a common misunderstanding of people pro-establishment when talking to people anti-establishment: "Well, how can you be against X when you participate in X!" It's because the system is set up so there is no sensible way of living without X. It doesn't mean that a world without X is impossible.

The earth is the earth. It doesn't belong to any specific person, government or nation. An insect "owns" as much of the earth as you or I do.

I believe that national borders enable extreme exploitation of the working class. I believe that land ownership, especially (but not exclusively) when paired with multiple property owners, enables an extraction of wealth towards the ruling class (whether it be through property taxes or rent) from the worker, with no benefit to the overall society beyond some figures in a banking account growing an extra digit or two.

There have been many, many times in the hundreds of thousands of years throughout human history that long periods of harmony have existed without a concept of land ownership and the idea that land being owned is somehow essential to society or life is very incorrect. It's just not compatible with capitalism and all that entails.

2

MrSurfington t1_jbor3mq wrote

Landlords do not provide value, they don't do anything at all except own your house and take your income. They don't "provide a service". I shouldn't be out of a home because the housing economy says rent should be high. Housing, like water and health care, is a human right cuz without it you will die.

8

redditikonto t1_jboyrut wrote

Providing a house, taking care of it, and carrying the risks involved is a service.

5

monkeygoneape t1_jboy2xq wrote

Not sure what landlords are like in the states, but up here in Canada they're also responsible for maintenance and all the expenses around that

5

KitsyBlue t1_jbqgbz2 wrote

I'd gladly put the 900$ a month I pay towards upkeep if I could say goodbye to a landlord.

That's why I'm trying to get out of renting. Oh, wait though. It's a shame that the housing market is getting fucked price wise because rental companies and investors are buying up all the fucking supply, driving costs to unsustainable levels so they can go another day producing nothing of value to society.

Can't imagine why people have a negative opinion of them. They're like SNES mini scalpers, except I can live without an SNES mini. They contribute as much to society as one, too.

2

bombbrigade t1_jbp3d0q wrote

They are in the US too. Tennant rights far exceed the landlords in nearly all states

−2

monkeygoneape t1_jbp3kx3 wrote

So the previous post was just a guy being pissy because he has to pay bills?

−2

refreshertowel t1_jbpaa85 wrote

Yes, of course. The landlords are constantly losing money and it's bizarre that the shitty tenants would complain when they have such an amazing deal.

−1

EeyoresM8 t1_jbp3hxa wrote

They don't own your house, they let you live in their house. The right to housing is different to the right to own your own house.

0

GaryCXJk t1_jboai1e wrote

I mean landlords ask for rent, and Rent is also a musical. Another musical is The Producers, which tells about a fictional musical, which is about...

14

dildoswaggins71069 t1_jbojdgd wrote

It’s no fair cuz I can’t afford my human rights!! Landlards r slavery

/s

−6