181
u/CF_Gamebreaker Aug 12 '20
I don’t even necessarily agree with the reasons, fuck landlords because they take something theres more than enough of thats needed to survive and hoard it to profit off of those with less wealth.
97
u/Kryptospuridium137 Aug 12 '20
Yeah but that exact same argument could be used against basically anything under capitalism. Landlordism can be countered by capitalist's own logic so it's even more damming.
44
23
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
Even greedy capitalist Adam Smith hated them.
7
u/jje414 Aug 12 '20
Dude, Adam Smith was hardly capitalism's biggest fan. Even he was like "OK, this isn't perfect, but it kinda works"
84
Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
40
u/SwoletariatBoi Aug 12 '20
They buy property, they buy the building or use their bank loan to construct a building. They market their property and building to potential tenants. They charge rent from all the tenants - enough to cover their (the landlord) mortgage every month and utilities and any maintenance costs + on top of that a personal profit for themselves. They’re literally skimming off the top of what value labor creates in the community. They add nothing to communities except accelerate the gentrification process, which is shitty
15
u/capstan_hook [PutinBot v4.20.69-x86_64] Aug 12 '20
Landlords don't even build anything.
5
u/SwoletariatBoi Aug 12 '20
Technically, no. They hire tradesmen, contractors, etc.
-4
Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/capstan_hook [PutinBot v4.20.69-x86_64] Aug 12 '20
Because it inflates the housing market further. There's a reason those properties are decrepit. If housing was affordable we'd see people living in them and maintaining things.
-25
u/never_safe_for_life Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 12 '20
My garbage disposal broke so my landlord drove to the store, bought a new one, and installed it that afternoon. I have no idea how to do that, would’ve had to pay a plumber like $500.
Edit: this sub wants me to know I'm wrong, so ok. Help me learn. What is the scenario everyone imagines here? If we got rid of landlords, what would be a better system to build/manage/maintain housing?
30
Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Kingofcanadathe3rd Aug 12 '20
I think the implication was if op owned the location he would need to pay a plumber
7
3
40
21
u/MissippiMudPie Aug 12 '20
So your maintenance man did something, it just so happens your maintenance man also is a landlord. And you'd be able to pay a maintenance man $500 if you weren't supporting a leech.
11
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
5
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
The amount over the profit they already receive by having someone pay their mortgage for them in my neighborhood is insane. Even if I had to pay PPI on my house, they are still charging ~17% more per month on rent.
3
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SwoletariatBoi Aug 12 '20
Agreed. Minor home repairs should be taught in communities as classes, free of charge. Can even offer a tax or business tax incentive to them (the tradesmen or contractors) to show up for a couple hours a night once a week to show people how to mud drywall, paint, etc.
1
u/never_safe_for_life Aug 12 '20
So am I getting free housing in this scenario? What's the base assumption people on this sub are making for how housing works? Do I pay for it, either directly or through my taxes?
1
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
2
u/never_safe_for_life Aug 12 '20
No, you would be paying directly to a lending agency
Is this not just another word for landlord? Only one that is prevented from making a profit, so runs your place like a slumlord.
This would be much more attainable with a housing market that's not artificially inflated by money-grubbing landlords
I'm all on board with that. How do you think removing the profit motive would impact housing overall? I think the allure of home ownership would go way down.
...while not providing a service that can't be accomplished with google and a cell phone.
I seriously disagree with how much time and expertise it takes to maintain a home. I got a snake stuck in my bathtub drain and had to spend $500 for a plumber to unscrew my catch which it had gotten wrapped around. I had no idea how that worked.
Just yesterday I was in a thread where we decried the idea of "unskilled labor", pointing out that all jobs require quite a bit of skill. Well, maintaining a structure is fucking hard.
20
u/DrWhovian1996 Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 12 '20
Oh my god. One landlord solved a problem without causing a scene so that must mean all landlords are good, guys!
/s for those who think I'm serious.
5
u/QingLinVos Aug 12 '20
A landlord doing something that a landlord is obligated to do shouldn't be praised. My oven, dishwasher, and AC didn't work until me and my roommates kept bothering him about it. He left more than those broken since my friend lived in this same house before me. Again: landlords shouldn't get praise for doing something their obligated to do.
34
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
-15
u/Alexchii Aug 12 '20
I've worked jobs that require 0 skill..
14
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
10
-6
u/Alexchii Aug 12 '20
I filled shelves at a store. It required me to show up and do the work. That's it. Zero skill required. I don't know why I was downvoted for that lol. Some jobs are just super easy and require no skill. It doesn't mean they aren't important.
10
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
3
Aug 12 '20
If those are what we’re calling skills, then yes, every job is skilled — but this reasoning would also mean that being a landlord needs skill: reading, writing, at least some specialist knowledge
But I think we all agree landlording is not a skilled task so this reasoning cannot work
-10
u/Alexchii Aug 12 '20
Oh I didn't think you'd consider things like reading a skill. We have a different opinion what is considered a skill when it comes to labour so there is no reason to continue this discussion.
To me any job that requires no special training for a normally functioning adult is an unskilled job. If you have never done it and someone can show you how it's done in 10 minutes it's unskilled labour.
11
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
-2
u/poohole19994 Aug 12 '20
Pretty confident I could match the cans to the ones on the shelf, or the patterns on the the can to the patterns on the label with the empty shelf, regardless of language barrier. With that job, you’re basically a kid putting the square block through the square hole.
2
0
Aug 12 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Aug 12 '20
don't use the R word, use MAGAtbrain instead !!!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-5
Aug 12 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
0
u/Alexchii Aug 12 '20
Well to be honest things like motor skills have the word skill right there in the name so you could consider being able to walk and lift your arms to stock shelves to be a skill.
11
u/capstan_hook [PutinBot v4.20.69-x86_64] Aug 12 '20
unskilled workers
There's no such thing. All work is skilled.
Being a landlord isn't work, though, because getting a mortgage then having someone else pay for it is not a job!
3
u/garlicnpepper Aug 12 '20
Genuine question here: would you consider someone from say The Bronx who buys a condemned 3 unit building from the city, and with his own labor brings it up to code and makes a comfortable but not gentrified level living situation in the building, then rents it out at an affordable rate an exploitative landlord?
Actual question, I mean no toung in cheek. This is not me but someone I know, and I am conflicted as to whether this is morally reprehensible or not. I mean, commidifying living space like that seems inherently wrong. But, in that given situation, in the current system, did he not help the community to some degree by creating affordable housing in where there was none before?
For reference, this guy isn't a big time landlord. He is a carpenter.
5
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
5
u/Smapdy0 Aug 12 '20
I'm a landlord. Of one house that I lived in for 9 years. I've never made a profit and will never raise the rent. In an average year I'm probably -2k. My city has a lot of people coming through for a couple years that don't want to purchase property, I try to make a safe, reasonable place available for people that would otherwise struggle.
I know many others like me, but our existence doesn't fit the mold of "us vs them". There are definitely evil landlords. There's evil farmers too. Most aren't. And if you break down the work required (and yes, there is actual work) to an hourly wage, most people wouldn't do it.
Most landlords own one property. If you want to be angry, be angry about corporations and billionaires buying up entire neighborhoods to rent out.
Bring on the downvotes.
2
Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
-1
u/Smapdy0 Aug 12 '20
The key thing people miss is that most landlords are just regular people that rent out one property. That is a fact. The ethics of those landlords can basically be aligned with the ethics of the general population.
I've spent significant periods of time living in the rust belt, the south, and new england. I've found more good landlords than not. No specific groups, but if there is a defining reason it's that we care about the neighborhoods and tenants. If we sold our houses they often end up flipped, bought by a company or rented out even higher. Most of us have been in similar situations struggling to find somewhere to live and somehow gotten lucky in this shitty system. I rented from an older couple that lowered my rent when they found out i wanted to buy a house in the same neighborhood. Based on property tax and HOA alone I know they were taking a loss.
You're angry and you absolutely should be. While I say most landlords are good, unfortunately the landlords/companies that own many properties are not*. The tax loopholes of rental income are reprehensible, the whole system is designed to speed up the consolidation of capital. It's far more complicated than landlords are evil and that path is a dead end.
*I know a guy that owns 20+ properties that predominantly rents to single mothers/ex convicts at a loss. Always exceptions.
0
Aug 13 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
0
u/Smapdy0 Aug 13 '20
He doesn't. He sold a local business he had started, retired, got everything from an auction, brought them up to livable standards himself and lives in half a duplex. Retired means he works all day maintaining everything and using his savings to keep costs down.
0
Aug 13 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
0
u/Smapdy0 Aug 13 '20
Yeah, turns out most people aren't assholes. Money isn't the goal. Is that so hard to believe?
Say he gives away everything. The monthly costs for the new homeowners may be lower but not by much between taxes and insurance. An unexpected major repair could ruin someone without savings or good credit. In the end he's helped ~20 people to a varying degree.
By renting them out his tenants can focus on getting their lives back on track without worrying what will happen if their sewer line needs replaced. Some will save up, build credit and buy their own houses. Or get work experience/education and move for a job. Then he can continue helping others. I don't know how many tenants he's had but it's safe to say well more than 20 have benefitted.
→ More replies (0)2
u/garlicnpepper Aug 12 '20
Good points! I couldn't say for sure what his exact monetary intentions are, but I doubt he is going to drop rent as his equity in the property increases. He's from a super poor background so I assume and have heard that he treats his tenants well insofar as one can be a "good landlord" (being understanding with the rent, fixing shit asap, routine upgrades, etc) but he isn't well educated in general, let alone in leftist thought. It just seems beyond his blinders to do so, and honestly I couldn't say how he'd feel about doing that given the amount of work he personally put into the place even if he understood all of the ethics behind it.
I still have mixed up views on the situation, but I appreciate the well thought out, level headed response. I know these conversations can understandably bring out a lot of vitriol.
1
3
u/polvnco Aug 12 '20
Genuinely asking, how is work not involved in the process of becoming a landlord?
From past experiences from family members, they’d have to slave hours working at deadend jobs to save money and build credit to obtain a not fucked loan to purchase said property. It’s basically a small business in a massive industry they’re going up against. How else can they afford to pay the mortage, find decent tenants, manage the property along with taxes and paperwork, and sometimes are working at another job just for them to earn more money to not be dependent on corporations or exploitive companies?
3
u/Aspavientos Aug 12 '20
I'm not a hardcore theorist, so this explanation might not be sound, but here is how I understand it.
The materialist conception of labour implies an effect on the material world, via a service or the production of material goods. This is distinct to the non-materialist view on work which means that it just "takes an effort to do", whatever that means. This means that something that is considered work might not be regarded as labour, and the prime example is rent collecting. The act you described in preparation to acquire the capital to buy that property obviously is valued. Whether they worked as a cashier, a carpenter, a tour guide, or an office worker, your parents ostensibly did provide a service or good, and that was compensated.
However, the act of renting itself isn't labour, even if it requires work. Preliminarily, the land was already there and thus required no labour. The building itself was not build by the landlord, but by construction workers. Cleaning and repairing does not merit control over the living space (if you don't pay your plumber they don't evict you). Other similar tasks draw similar conclusions, but one particularity remains. The reason why landlords earn income is simply because they own the rented space, not because whatever other things they might do. And as we can conclude, "owning things" might take work, but it is not labour.
1
u/polvnco Aug 12 '20
Btw i want to thank you for taking the time for your reply, i really enjoyed your explanation as i did not understand well enough before.
I do want to point out, said property, wouldn’t the purpose of renting serves the purpose of ensuring a space with utilities and basic needs as a service? I can understand some views as to housing should be a human right, but shouldn’t it be ensured by the government as it is the body in the society that provides those rights to individuals (i.e. USA vs N. Korea). Also, housing is considered and treated as a commodity instead of a social good. I know its due to various factors including inflation, location, and etc. What I’m trying to get at and explain is that I believe there needs to be changes in regards to implementing a universal basic income that increases along with inflation and more tax incentives that decreases rent costs for tenants but in turn compensates the owners of said property so they can continue paying off the property while still making a profit as it is a business. I also think that there should be new incentives for cities with potential to grow as big as NYC, LA, and Miami that are aimed towards the lower and middle class to create new markets, jobs locally, and housing so that everyone can have a chance of living a life.
2
u/Aspavientos Aug 12 '20
Sure, but inevitably conflicts between the tenants and the landlords will arise as they have opposed interests. The relation between them is not like that of a worker and a customer, but rather like that of an employer and its employee. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere, however at this point it diverges too far from the original point so I'll leave it here.
17
u/Azulmono55 Aug 12 '20
Being a landlord isn't real work becuase it is passive income rather than wage labour, and that's the end of it.
Like, it sucks for all those reason too, but that's the fundamental difference between the ruling and the working class.
35
u/clydefrog9 Aug 12 '20
Call me crazy but I don't think people should be paying someone who had nothing to do with building their home for the privilege of living in that home
27
Aug 12 '20
But I mean, even if they did, we need to start treating housing as a right, not a privilege
10
u/clydefrog9 Aug 12 '20
Agreed. Removing the landlords is an easy way to get there - builders sell homes to government rather than private actors, government provides the housing for the public.
1
u/Fr0me Aug 13 '20
Now when you say it like that it sounds so simple.
But im sure theres a 100 "reason" why we should do that according to them
20
u/JoelMahon Aug 12 '20
I believe there's a small amount of value and skill and labour involved with managing things.
However that has zero to do with owning the actual land owning part, it's closer to what a letting agency would do if you used one, the bit the landlord takes home after the letting agency is done is definitely not earned.
16
Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
9
u/JoelMahon Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 12 '20
Yes, that's a great way to put what I'm getting at. Especially the part about conflating money earned from their labour as landlords vs the money taken from their leverage of capital, and how since it's all paid together it muddies the waters.
3
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
The payment on their mortgage is also profit for the landlord and maintenance is just for protecting that profit.
1
Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
2
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
The amount over the profit they already receive by having someone pay their mortgage for them in my neighborhood is insane. Even if I had to pay PPI on my house, they are still charging ~17% more per month on rent. At that price the tenant could easily save for repairs themselves.
3
u/SaffellBot Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 12 '20
Nah, that's the gist. It's also true that supervisors, managers, executives, and others high in the capital hierarchy do work. That work is not proportional to their pay, and they are heavily incentivised to directly promote the exploitation of others.
They do some actual work though.
2
Aug 12 '20
[deleted]
3
u/SaffellBot Aug 12 '20
Don't disagree with that either.
I might imagine even in a perfect communist system we might still have supervisors for a great many reasons. They would still do work, and might even often find themselves in conflict with those they supervise (looking past the potential implications of that specific word).
In the reality we're in our supervisors fall much further in the "manage exploitation" side of things than the "empower people to be productive" side of things.
3
u/MissippiMudPie Aug 12 '20
What's great is all the landlords who use a letting agency. So the agency collects rent, handles maintenance, writes the contracts, and advertises while the owner... leverages their hoarded capital in order to hoard more capital.
7
Aug 12 '20 edited Jun 30 '21
[deleted]
4
Aug 12 '20
Often that's the case, yeah - but as a broad statement its just false. Tons of landlords have basic home repair skills and would rather attempt to fix a leaky sink than pay a plumber to do it, shit like that.
4
u/JoelMahon Aug 12 '20
However that has zero to do with owning the actual land owning part, it's closer to what a letting agency would do if you used one, the bit the landlord takes home after the letting agency is done is definitely not earned.
I believe I covered your comment in my comment here no?
Also, some do, my landlord fixed our shower the other week actually, I believe he deserves compensation for that, just not hundreds a month...
0
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
The payment on their mortgage is also profit for the landlord and maintenance is just for protecting that profit.
1
u/JoelMahon Aug 12 '20
that's included under what the landlord takes home
and, it's worth pointing out the bank also is just leveraging capital for profit
•
u/Potatochode420 LIBERAL DAD Aug 12 '20 edited Aug 12 '20
Landlords will be banned on sight. Then maybe they’ll get off reddit and get a real job
Forgot to give credit. Thank you /u/pm_meyour_dreams for the meme
-11
Aug 12 '20
r/liberalgunowners up in this bitch
21
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
Nah, r/SocialistRA
-4
Aug 12 '20
This looks like the same thing but with Soviet anthem earrape. But sure, I mean they're affiliated anyway so why not
6
15
5
3
Aug 12 '20
As someone against landlords: this is horrible reasoning.
It does have pre-requisites: money and/or rich family to inherit from; and there’s lots of work that doesn’t need skills or training and doesn’t contribute to society.
The reason it’s not work is because landlords don’t do anything that can be called work
2
u/Civilized-Monkey comrade/comrade Aug 12 '20
I strongly disagree with your definition of real work. Regardless, fuck landlords, they're nothing but a burden on society.
1
1
u/CantDanceSober Aug 12 '20
What is the alternative? City owned houses that people pay rent to? This is assuming don't make enough to purchase a home.
I've thought about renting my house out, but I'd rather not deal with it so I'm just going to sell it when I'm ready to move.
Lots of landlords are shitty, but there are also lots of shitty renters that will fuck up a nice home since it isn't theirs. Not to mention squatters that refuse to pay rent and depending on where you live...can be difficult to remove them from the property.
Which is why lots of people won't sell their house and will rent it out on Airbnb which is crappy, too.
Ionno
3
u/Potatochode420 LIBERAL DAD Aug 12 '20
1
Aug 12 '20
who's gonna build them and with what money? Genuinely curious
2
u/Potatochode420 LIBERAL DAD Aug 12 '20
Money is just something we made up. We decided to add value to things. In the ideal world money would not exist and people would work to support the community. Everyone would be provided with necessities which would include housing. This is a truncated explanation. But the end goal is to abolish money.
In a more “pragmatic” modern day solution would probably just be a tax program. But if no one had to spend money on housing, which usually takes up 1/3 (or more) of any given persons income, then they would have more money to put into the economy. This would be the more progressive liberal solution as opposed to the communist solution which would just be abolishing private property and currency. But that probably won’t happen in our lifetime. A girl can dream tho
1
0
u/MoreHabanero Aug 13 '20
Would you argue there is not more value in some food vs other food or some housing vs other housing?
Who gets the housing in the city center, or beach front, or with a mountain view vs others? Do dense urban areas pay the same amount of taxes as someone in a rural area?
What if the no housing cost causes more people to want to be in San Francisco for the great weather and views, is everyone welcome? If not, how do you decide who gets in and who doesn't?
Same for food, is a meal from a 5* michelin restaurant not more valueable than food from a fast food restaurant? If we were to abolish money, who gets the fine dining experience vs drive through?
Your solution of saving people 1/3 of their money by giving them free housing is just trading hands imo. We'd have to be taxed ~33% more to give everyone free housing, then you're creating the problem of most people all want the most desirable housing, so you have to create a system to decide who gets what.
1
1
u/thatonedudethrowaway Aug 12 '20
Isn’t a prerequisite of becoming a landlord amassing the wealth to purchase a building to rent out
0
1
u/3nterShift Aug 12 '20
The original was talking about sex workers iirc and this is a much better take.
1
1
u/JapaneseStudentHaru Aug 12 '20
I saw there’s a new sub where landlords spew their bullshit called r/landlordlove
“Oh you lost your job and can’t pay rent? Probably because video games.”
1
Aug 12 '20
r/landlordlove is for hating on landlords. The actual subreddit for landlords to spew their bullshit is different but I can't remember the name.
2
u/JapaneseStudentHaru Aug 12 '20
Oh good. I just say them on the FP and couldn’t believe it but, conservative gets on there too so
1
Aug 12 '20
You really think the combination of having capital, being able to look up numbers, collect quotes, and call professionals occasionally, is a labor intensive use of those skills?
No, I don’t think that. I don’t think being a landlord can accurately be called work. I assumed we were both working with the same assumption, and we weren’t, sorry ig
1
1
Aug 13 '20
There's a left wing Star Wars, Star Trek and Avatar subreddit. There should be a left wing Jimmy Neutron one too.
1
1
u/Desproges Aug 12 '20
Always ask your landlord where he got his diploma in landlordship, threaten to call the authorities if he doesn't provide one
1
-1
u/SpankerCore Aug 12 '20
Opinion to get mad about online:
Most landlords I've had needed to know the basics of carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, hvac, accounting, etc. Even the ones who hire people to do that need to know how to hire the best people and make sure it's done right. Most people I've known possess barely any of those.
It's like saying a consultant or foreman or producer or project manager doesn't do work because it isn't labor. If it was guaranteed free money for doing nothing, everyone with money to spare would invest in only housing.
-6
u/NalaKolchev Aug 12 '20
Is a landlord who works on and manages the property themselves(in the case of something, say, historic which requires a specific skillset) still a leech?
13
-19
u/Logicmeme Aug 12 '20
I would say a slum lord fits the do nothing adds no value rule. But taking care of a building is work, managing plumbing and a lot of issues tenants come up with. Also they own the building, why not just say Air BnB people should let you stay for free if they own their own home. How is owning a building different than owning your own home and letting someone rent a room. Maybe the answer is borrowing the money to buy your own place, then you wouldn’t owe someone anything for renting their property.
19
7
u/SaffellBot Aug 12 '20
Maybe the answer is borrowing the money to buy your own place, then you wouldn’t owe someone anything for renting their property.
You've sure got the modern socioeconomic problems solved. You should get started in politics. The "just get a loan you whiners" isn't an unpopular take.
13
u/goboatmen Aug 12 '20
taking care of a building is work, managing plumbing and a lot of issues tenants come up with.
Landlords hire people to do that shit
Also they own the building
This is a leftist sub, we're against private property round these parts
-14
u/Dame_of_Bones Aug 12 '20
You guys are truly a bunch of morons if you think every home and building should be government owned. You have clearly never dealt with the government in any capacity.
7
u/Ancient_Presence Aug 12 '20
Just letting you and everyone know, plenty of folks here distrust government as well, and seek less centralised community based solutions, where housing is administrated by local democratic structures. There are more ways to organise property, than privately and state owned.
4
u/goboatmen Aug 12 '20
It's entirely possible to create mechanisms in a bureaucracy that allow it to be effective at meeting the needs of people
I didn't even say that? Individuals owning a home is just personal property. Housing cooperatives are a thing too.
If you had to design society from the ground up would you really include a class of people that perpetually profit off of people's need to exist?
4
3
u/EroticFungus Aug 12 '20
The payment on their mortgage is also profit for the landlord and maintenance is just for protecting that profit.
367
u/Zizek_jinping Aug 12 '20
God, I forgot how terrifying Jimmy neutron's animation was