This doesn’t apply to a landlord who buys an agricultural field on the edge of the city and then pays out of pocket for all the construction costs and the costs of connecting utilities there. Then that landlord provides housing that literally would not exist without them.
Then the landlord puts the cost to other people who do not get their share of the property
You can live 30 years in that building and pay twice the apartment’s value in rents, and you can still get evicted whenever the landlord gets tired of you
I don’t buy this argument. The farmers I speak to who are close to cities enjoy the increased value of farmland as that allows them to take out very cheap loans with the farmland as collateral. Aspiring farmers don’t want to buy farmland close to cities anyway as it’s risky and expensive. So it benefits existing farmers and doesn’t really damage aspiring farmers. And regarding utility contractors and building materials. Those going to building housing is what we want no? Or do you prefer we stop building housing so that building materials for building data centers and mega mansions is cheaper instead? I’m guessing that’s not what you want.
The farmers I speak to who are close to cities enjoy the increased value of farmland as that allows them to take out very cheap loans with the farmland as collateral.
No farmer has a hard time getting sweet heart loans from the USDA FSA and it’s extremely rare to have to put up your land as collateral. They are the most coddles class in American society.
And regarding utility contractors and building materials. Those going to building housing is what we want no? Or do you prefer we stop building housing so that building materials for building data centers and mega mansions is cheaper instead?
You can still want more housing without wanting more landlords… They could always sell the houses instead of taking people’s money without providing them any long term rights or equity.
No matter what scenario, being a landlord is inherently predatory. You are building equity on the backs of other people’s hard work. Even home loans with “fair” interest rates are predatory in the same way, but at least the person taking the loan is building some equity and have more rights based on that fact.
I work in Swedish agriculture and here putting up land as collateral is very common. Of course it may be different where you live.
You can still want more housing without wanting more landlords… They could always sell the houses
That’s true but some housing always has to exist as rental properties as there will always be some people who can’t pay for a house upfront especially young people who can’t be expected to have saved up for one. I think we both agree that exorbitant rents are bad. But I would argue against the notion that every landlord is bad for society. However if you were to say that maybe only the state or the local city should be allowed to be a landlord I would say that’s totally fair as long as that’s managed in a good way and leads to enough housing getting built. I myself used to live in social housing owned by the municipality for 8 years and thought it was great.
I work in Swedish agriculture and here putting up land as collateral is very common. Of course it may be different where you live.
Ahh, here farmers can get subsidized loans that do not require collateral with only 2-5% interest rates. Farmers have a lot of unearned good will here and get treated better than just about any other industry by both political parties.
That’s true but some housing always has to exist as rental properties as there will always be some people who can’t pay for a house upfront especially young people who can’t be expected to have saved up for one. I think we both agree that exorbitant rents are bad. But I would argue against the notion that every landlord is bad for society.
I would disagree about any landlord being good for society, as they represent the privitization of a service that should be fulfilled by the government. To me that is like saying there are private healthcare insurance companies that are good for society.
Yes, my argument would be that the government should be in control of housing for those who cannot afford private mortgages to own their own housing.
That goes for any housing construction. If we didn’t build any at all, we could get the prices of land, building materials and construction workers WAY down.
That landlord was equally a victim of the system paying inflated prices to develop the property requiring perpetually higher rents.
If the capital required to build the apartments wasn’t heavily levered then they also participated in financial exploitation elsewhere either direct or indirect
I would personally argue that any wealthy individual under capitalism is only able to be wealthy on the basis of exploitation. In my view labor creates value, so no matter how far you have to go back you will always find rampant exploitation of labor when you see a wealthy individual or family.
This is plain to see when you critically think about this idea of development of land into housing for landlords to rent out. The landlord (wealthy individual due to exploitation of labor) buys land, hires people to do labor on it (exploitation), which creates value that’s added to said land.
I would also disagree on the idea that landlords are in any way victims of this system, they are more like the benefactors of it, as the system as a whole is set up to benefit their class and is much easier on them. They pay less taxes in a lot of regions, they don’t have to sell their labor power to eat, they can always get favored treatment with banks and financial institutions, and, at least where I live, they can send lobbyists to local, state, and federal governing bodies to advocate for their interests with money (bribery).
I did state that if the capital required for the development wasn’t levered (borrowed from financial institution) then they obtained their capital through exploitation directly or otherwise.
Your argument about landlords being benefactors is compelling but landlords come in many different scales. From do well tradesmen who possess the skills to develop a property leveraging their own skilled labour and knowledge to offer the rental service to multinational reits that buy up property en masse and are the evil you speak of lol.
The system is flawed. We know capitalism funnels money upward your argument is valid but ignores that some individual / independent landlords are still people who may well be exploited every other step along the way.
You’re right, maybe I should’ve been less argumentative in my comment, my apologies about that.
You make a good point. I’ll cede my argument that every single landlord got the starting capital from the exploitation of others, because there are exceptions in every circumstance.
I do also think that there’s another elephant in the room which is that landlordism in general boils down to holding a basic need hostage and charging more than it’s worth to people who don’t have the entire value at once. In my eyes this is simply being a parasite, and I also get worked up about all of this, so I’m sorry if I came off as argumentative or hostile in my comment.
Our financial system that lets landlords use their highly leveraged assets cash flows as a business plan to purchase more properties and use the same model is the primary problem when all you need to do is show up at the bank and say I’m going to make this many units they’re going to generate this much cash flow which I will use to pay you 😅 bank says okay here’s your huge mortgage.
I agree our capitalist society is corrupt at its core and rots further every day ❤️🩹 we should do much more for the least fortunate among us!
Are you saying that it’s impossible to build housing without paying the people that build the housing with making them landlords? Then why are 99% of the people that work in the construction industry not landlords? How do they get paid?
No it’s not impossible. The state can go in and build houses and rent them out and because it’s the state there doesn’t have to be a profit motive. I used to live in social housing for 8 years and thought it was great. However if there is no social housing construction and private investment is needed to get more housing built then there has to be a profit motive else no one will be motivated to build. However I’m against exorbitant rents. There has to be a balance. No profit at all (+no current social housing program) simply leads to no housing. At least not rental housing. People are of course free to build their own homes but that’s not the solution either as not everyone has the money to do so.
To be fair that also means everyone has to pay for it via taxes, rather than private companies taking on the risk.
Where I come from, most landlords don’t actually make a huge profit on the rents, it’s just a way to pay for the property, the true income lies in the appreciation of said property. Most also only have 1-2 apartments they rent out. And if the market goes to shit, the developers can lose money on new builds.
And if a landlord goes to medical school and performs heart surgery, then that landlord is saving lives. But that is completely unrelated to them being a landlord.
This doesn’t apply to a landlord who buys an agricultural field on the edge of the city and then pays out of pocket for all the construction costs and the costs of connecting utilities there. Then that landlord provides housing that literally would not exist without them.
Then the landlord puts the cost to other people who do not get their share of the property
You can live 30 years in that building and pay twice the apartment’s value in rents, and you can still get evicted whenever the landlord gets tired of you
Technically in the process driving up prices of farmlands at the edge of cities, utility contractors, building materials, etc…
I don’t buy this argument. The farmers I speak to who are close to cities enjoy the increased value of farmland as that allows them to take out very cheap loans with the farmland as collateral. Aspiring farmers don’t want to buy farmland close to cities anyway as it’s risky and expensive. So it benefits existing farmers and doesn’t really damage aspiring farmers. And regarding utility contractors and building materials. Those going to building housing is what we want no? Or do you prefer we stop building housing so that building materials for building data centers and mega mansions is cheaper instead? I’m guessing that’s not what you want.
No farmer has a hard time getting sweet heart loans from the USDA FSA and it’s extremely rare to have to put up your land as collateral. They are the most coddles class in American society.
You can still want more housing without wanting more landlords… They could always sell the houses instead of taking people’s money without providing them any long term rights or equity.
No matter what scenario, being a landlord is inherently predatory. You are building equity on the backs of other people’s hard work. Even home loans with “fair” interest rates are predatory in the same way, but at least the person taking the loan is building some equity and have more rights based on that fact.
I work in Swedish agriculture and here putting up land as collateral is very common. Of course it may be different where you live.
That’s true but some housing always has to exist as rental properties as there will always be some people who can’t pay for a house upfront especially young people who can’t be expected to have saved up for one. I think we both agree that exorbitant rents are bad. But I would argue against the notion that every landlord is bad for society. However if you were to say that maybe only the state or the local city should be allowed to be a landlord I would say that’s totally fair as long as that’s managed in a good way and leads to enough housing getting built. I myself used to live in social housing owned by the municipality for 8 years and thought it was great.
Ahh, here farmers can get subsidized loans that do not require collateral with only 2-5% interest rates. Farmers have a lot of unearned good will here and get treated better than just about any other industry by both political parties.
I would disagree about any landlord being good for society, as they represent the privitization of a service that should be fulfilled by the government. To me that is like saying there are private healthcare insurance companies that are good for society.
Yes, my argument would be that the government should be in control of housing for those who cannot afford private mortgages to own their own housing.
That goes for any housing construction. If we didn’t build any at all, we could get the prices of land, building materials and construction workers WAY down.
That landlord was equally a victim of the system paying inflated prices to develop the property requiring perpetually higher rents.
If the capital required to build the apartments wasn’t heavily levered then they also participated in financial exploitation elsewhere either direct or indirect
I would personally argue that any wealthy individual under capitalism is only able to be wealthy on the basis of exploitation. In my view labor creates value, so no matter how far you have to go back you will always find rampant exploitation of labor when you see a wealthy individual or family.
This is plain to see when you critically think about this idea of development of land into housing for landlords to rent out. The landlord (wealthy individual due to exploitation of labor) buys land, hires people to do labor on it (exploitation), which creates value that’s added to said land.
I would also disagree on the idea that landlords are in any way victims of this system, they are more like the benefactors of it, as the system as a whole is set up to benefit their class and is much easier on them. They pay less taxes in a lot of regions, they don’t have to sell their labor power to eat, they can always get favored treatment with banks and financial institutions, and, at least where I live, they can send lobbyists to local, state, and federal governing bodies to advocate for their interests with money (bribery).
I did state that if the capital required for the development wasn’t levered (borrowed from financial institution) then they obtained their capital through exploitation directly or otherwise.
Your argument about landlords being benefactors is compelling but landlords come in many different scales. From do well tradesmen who possess the skills to develop a property leveraging their own skilled labour and knowledge to offer the rental service to multinational reits that buy up property en masse and are the evil you speak of lol.
The system is flawed. We know capitalism funnels money upward your argument is valid but ignores that some individual / independent landlords are still people who may well be exploited every other step along the way.
You’re right, maybe I should’ve been less argumentative in my comment, my apologies about that.
You make a good point. I’ll cede my argument that every single landlord got the starting capital from the exploitation of others, because there are exceptions in every circumstance.
I do also think that there’s another elephant in the room which is that landlordism in general boils down to holding a basic need hostage and charging more than it’s worth to people who don’t have the entire value at once. In my eyes this is simply being a parasite, and I also get worked up about all of this, so I’m sorry if I came off as argumentative or hostile in my comment.
Our financial system that lets landlords use their highly leveraged assets cash flows as a business plan to purchase more properties and use the same model is the primary problem when all you need to do is show up at the bank and say I’m going to make this many units they’re going to generate this much cash flow which I will use to pay you 😅 bank says okay here’s your huge mortgage.
I agree our capitalist society is corrupt at its core and rots further every day ❤️🩹 we should do much more for the least fortunate among us!
Are you saying that it’s impossible to build housing without paying the people that build the housing with making them landlords? Then why are 99% of the people that work in the construction industry not landlords? How do they get paid?
No it’s not impossible. The state can go in and build houses and rent them out and because it’s the state there doesn’t have to be a profit motive. I used to live in social housing for 8 years and thought it was great. However if there is no social housing construction and private investment is needed to get more housing built then there has to be a profit motive else no one will be motivated to build. However I’m against exorbitant rents. There has to be a balance. No profit at all (+no current social housing program) simply leads to no housing. At least not rental housing. People are of course free to build their own homes but that’s not the solution either as not everyone has the money to do so.
To be fair that also means everyone has to pay for it via taxes, rather than private companies taking on the risk.
Where I come from, most landlords don’t actually make a huge profit on the rents, it’s just a way to pay for the property, the true income lies in the appreciation of said property. Most also only have 1-2 apartments they rent out. And if the market goes to shit, the developers can lose money on new builds.
And if a landlord goes to medical school and performs heart surgery, then that landlord is saving lives. But that is completely unrelated to them being a landlord.