Rent isn’t theft. It’s payment for a service. Whether or not that service is of value to you is a different story, but not everyone is interested in owning.
There are benefits to renting. You don’t have to be financially responsible for repairs, you don’t have to do maintenance or pay someone to do it for you, you have much less financial risk, and you can relocate much easier.
And not all landlords are rich people. I do agree that corporate ownership of residential property shouldn’t be allowed, though.
What service does the land speculator provide to the tenant? The landlord doesn’t develop the property, that’s the builder. The landlord doesn’t maintain the property, that’s done by contractors. The landlord doesn’t secure the property, that’s done by the state. The landlord often doesn’t even finance the property, as the property is inevitably mortgaged and underwritten by banks one step removed from the title holder.
Quite literally, the only thing landlords do is collect the check and transfer portions of it onward. They are, at best, payment processors. And even this job is routinely outsourced to a third party.
There are benefits to renting.
There are lower institutional barriers to renting than to owning, largely resulting from the artificial shortage of public land and public housing. Rents are the consequence of real estate monopolization and public malinvestment. Once the landlords themselves vanish, the “benefits” of renting vanish with them.
And not all landlords are rich people.
There’s an old joke Donald Trump likes to tell, back in the 90s when he was underwater on his personal holdings. He’s driving through Lower Manhattan in a limo with his daughter and he points out the window to a homeless man. Then he quips, “I’m $800M poorer than that man”. To which his daughter replies, “If that’s true why are we in a limo while he’s out on the street?”
What service does the land speculator landlord provide to the tenant?
You think providing exclusive access to a house for the renter to live in is not something that has value?
Soon I will probably become a landlord, not because I want to but because it makes financial sense. My partner and I are pooling money to buy a place together so we can live together, she will sell her apartment and I will rent out my old apartment, which I bought with my own money and worked 20 years for to pay off. Are you suggesting I should just have to give the fruit of my 20 years of labor away to someone for free?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it
My salary? I am a wage slave just like everybody else.
Anyway, you didn’t address the main questions:
Do you think providing exclusive access to a house for the renter to live in is something that has no value?
This house didn’t just happen to fall in my lap. I put 250k of my own money in over the course of 30 years (10 years to save for the down payment + 20 years of mortage payments). Money that I worked for, doing a job. It’s literally the fruit of my labor. By what ungodly reasoning should I have to give that to you or anyone else for free?
It seems you are the one here who is not making any effort to be understanding.
The key thing that the landlord handles is risk.
If the roof is very expensive to fix, that is not the contractor’s problem. If the property does not generate revenue, that is not the bank’s problem. If the property is not worth the cost to build, that is not the builder’s problem. If the property is unsafe to live in, that is not the renter’s problem.
The landlord’s financial risk in the property (should) provide an incentive to maintain and make use of that property.
I’m not saying there aren’t other system of distribution people to homes, and I’m not saying that the capitalist system in the US is the best system to do it. I’m just pointing out that a core principle of capitalism is risk, and that is what the landlord provides, a single point buffer of risk for the other parties involved.
This is completely ignorant of the fact that landlords can get insurance for those things and often dont have to pay anything at all. And when they do have to pay themselves, they will pay the minimum amount possible to maximize their profits often resulting in degrading housing that people living in suffer the consequences for.
Housing is a human right. Capitalism commits violence against the people by denying them shelter. It’s a crime against humanity. Landlords exist only to profit off of this system. By your own exact definition all homeowners are the same point of risk mitigation, and therefore all renters would also be the same point of risk mitigation. Landlords have inserted themselves as a middle man to steal the labor of the working class. They profit off of the venture. Thats the whole point of them doing it.
This is completely ignorant of the fact that landlords can get insurance for those things and often dont have to pay anything at all.
You’ve got this upside-down. The existence of the insurance industry in a capitalist system is proof that risk is a thing that can be bought, sold, traded, banked and spent. If there was no financial cost to risk, then there would be no market for insurance to mitigate that risk.
The landlord gives up some income in order to mitigate risk, and most of the time, only some of that risk. I have yet to see or hear of an insurance policy that would basically cut a check for 100% of an insured item’s value unconditionally. If it did exist, it would probably be more expensive than the object itself.
As opposed to the tenants just getting rid of the landlord, buying their own insurance, and covering costs collectively. Thereby entirely eliminating the landlord and they can keep their wages to themselves.
This is completely ignorant of the fact that landlords can get insurance for those things and often dont have to pay anything at all
They still have to pay insurance to get insurance. And I’m not sure you can get insurance against the roof getting old (not in my area anyway). When the roof is too old and needs replacing, you do it out of pocket/bank loan. Complete roof replacement are not so often (depending on material), so you can (and should) as a home owner save up to this.
Sure, but half the income of your tenants that you steal from them every month supplies you with more than enough extra money to make such a thing a minor expenditure in the long run.
There are a few fundamental things a landlord provides:
Avoiding cost of transitioning a property. Government, insurers, and lawyers make transitioning ownership of a house expensive. That by itself erases about a year of typical ‘equity’ gains. If you have to mortgage, then net loss is likely over the first couple of years. If you know you will leave in say 4 years or less, this has value.
Ease of leaving. If you own, you can’t just immediately cash in and move out with the proceeds. If you have to move, you get stuck having to pay for two residences until you can manage to offload.
Potentially access to rent a home when no one will loan you money. On top of being only there for college, when I started renting I had no history, so no bank would have loaned me money anyway, certainly not at a reasonable rate. Sometimes landlords will have as strict a credit requirement as banks, but it’s at least more likely to find a willing landlord than a bank willing to risk the loan.
This comes together for renting making a whole lot of sense for people on a remote work assignment, college students, and seasonal occupants who need a residence for a few months or a couple of years. Also for people who have just moved out on their own and need a residence while they get some credit history under their belt, hopefully being in a situation like university where the need is short term as well.
Landlords don’t do this. You’re describing the rental management agencies/staff, which do not actually own the property.
Ease of leaving.
Landlords don’t provide this, either. Again, you’re describing building staff, not the property owners. And you’re describing it within an artificially calcified market, with prices that prohibit people from easily transferring their positions.
You’re also ignoring the reality of rental contracts, with all sorts of deposits and fees tied to move-in/move-out, particularly if you’re operating outside a long-term rental period.
Potentially access to rent a home when no one will loan you money.
This comes together for renting making a whole lot of sense for people
You’re describing an artificial scarcity of housing created by speculative investment in vacant properties. The “renting just makes sense” argument falls apart when you realize the cost of these units is often several times the market cost of the property itself.
Turn the administration of vacant units over to the public sector with a mandate to fill units at-cost and the monthly rate for all these units craters.
Should hotels be illegal too? That’s basically renting out a room by the day. What if you cannot afford to buy a house, or only want to live somewhere temporarily? If you cannot rent any place to live, what would you do?
There are 16M vacant homes to distribute among around 770k homeless people. With such an enormous housing surplus, why is the clearing price for a housing unit so far above a new prospective buyer’s budget?
You posit that people can’t afford to buy homes without asking why homes are unaffordable.
If they’re monopolizing the housing market, absolutely.
I think there’s a middle ground between ‘consuming all housing stock in hopes of making airbnbs’ and ‘illegal’. There’s a legitimate case for short term and medium term residence that doesn’t make sense with ownership. However while we should accommodate those, it is a fair point the market should be regulated so that people have a reasonable path to ownership if it makes sense without being stuck with competing with rent-seeking corporations sucking up all the inventory.
Investors accounted for 25.7% of residential home sales in 2024.
In that article, the word “investors” is deliberately lumping together individuals, and institutions/corporations, in an obvious attempt to trick people into thinking that category is comprised entirely of the latter. Underhanded semantic maneuver. Within the same article:
While large institutional investors continue to get most of the headlines in the single-family rental space, small investors account for more than 90% of the market.
the word “investors” is deliberately lumping together individuals, and institutions/corporations, in an obvious attempt to trick people into thinking that category is comprised entirely of the latter.
Corporations are people, my friend.
Underhanded semantic maneuver.
Is ownership less virtuous in a partnership than a sole proprietorship somehow?
I merely pointed out that not all ‘rent is bad’, ‘landlords are evil’.
Among probably many reasons that housing is unaffordable for many is that some persons or corporations are awful scumbags that want to maximize their profit beyond what is reasonable or fair.
Renting isn’t bad. Capitalism isn’t bad. Abuse of these things is bad.
Shelter is a fundamental human need, locking it behind an unnecessarily high and ever increasing pay wall is the epitome of abuse. Landlords are leeches.
Yes it is. But you and I both said it. It is abuse of capitalism.
I would support some idea that corporations cannot own property like single homes solely for the purpose of profit. And any single person should be heavily taxed on rental income, at least beyond a certain point.
And let’s use eminent domain to take back those empty houses and put people in them.
But there’s still lots of people who would prefer to rent than own.
The problem is not landlords. And the problem is not capitalism. The problem is unfettered greed. Greed is not good, despite what Michael Douglas said in that movie.
You gotta look at the nuance here. Yes, high and ever increasing rent is bad and it’s because of the abuse and poor regulation of the system. And traditional lords of the land is pretty bad however you slice it. But small landlords now can be providing a needed service. It’s a lot of work keeping a house rentable - even if you are ‘just’ organizing contractors, accountants, lawyers, etc.
Well, it’s a way to incentivize people to use their resources to provide services for others. It would be nice if people just did that on their own, but humans are generally too lazy.
All rent is bad and all forms of landlords are evil. They are a separate class with legal mandate to steal the labor value of the working class. They serve no function whatsoever and it is entirely conceivable that an apartment building’s occupants could pool money together for repairs when that is necessary.
Shelter is a human right. Housing is a human right. Landlords are not mechanics, they are not repair men, they are not construction workers, they are not laborers. Some Landlords may do some of those things, but it doesn’t change the fact that by virtue of stealing from the working class they are still evil. If they want to do repair work, I should be able to simply pay them for the repair work they do. If they want to do property maintenance work, I should be able to simply pay them for the property maintenance. They have a legal document enabling them to steal half of my income every month for no reason. They do not live in my home, I live in my home. If I stopped living there it wouldn’t be my home anymore.
There are 0 downsides to entirely rejecting the housing market. Housing is a human right, it should be fairly distributed to everyone. I couldn’t give a fuck about real estate markets, they could all dissappear today and no one would ever profit off of housing again and not a single tear would be shed. I’d really like it if everyone could have a fucking home. All Landlords are evil. There are NO exceptions. If they collect rent for someone else’s home, they are evil.
If I own a house that is too big for me, and I can’t afford the taxes and upkeep, so I rent out some rooms to make a little money.
I am now a landlord. Are you suggesting that I am evil? That it should not be allowed?
I think you are conflating slum lords and greedy corporations with any and all people who have rental properties. Something, something… deals in absolutes.
You are not a landlord if you are sharing your home, you would be a roommate. If you are charging them rent, then yes you are a landlord :) no should ever profit off of housing! Housing is a human right! No one should ever have to sleep in your home, everyone should be able to have their own shelter that belongs to them! This is an absolutely conceivable reality homelessness is entirely a manufactured byproduct of capitalism. We have millions of empty homes and wasted infrastructure that could be used to house people.
You’re intentionally leaving out that the landlord maintains the property and appliances. That’s no small thing.
There are absolutely bad landlords who will do as little as their tenants will allow them to, for sure. Landlords aren’t like cops though, the continuing existence of bad landlords is not enabled by good ones like how “good cops” do.
Well, not always. Back in college (btw, a prime example of valid rental scenario), when the water heater in my rental started dripping, the landlord himself was there with a new water heater in his pickup same day.
Some landlords (by far not all, maybe only a minority) take on the risk directly and do the work themselves.
They’re still buying a surplus of housing, creating scarcity that raises home prices, and charging you more than it costs to live in the housing they’re hoarding.
So even if they’re doing the maintenance themselves (and no guarantee they’re doing a good job), they’re still a drain on the resources of actual workers.
Their scenario was that they bought the house and rented it out while their kid went to college, with the expectation that they would have the house for the kid after college (their college was like 30 minutes away, and the kid lived in the dorm, so it was a perfectly reasonable expectation they might want to move into a house in the area).
Ultimately, the kid didn’t move back and they sold the property, but they bought it during what they saw as a dip in the market and used rent to keep it active while waiting for the kid to return.
You might say that a different system could have provided for all of this, but within the framework of the system they had, they were decent folks doing the right thing as landlord and not sucking up housing stock that they didn’t plan on actually having be owned by the resident. I’m reasonably confident that they even charged less than a mortgage+insurance+taxes would have been for me and between interest and closing costs, no way I would have come out ahead buying and then selling the property in the short time I lived there. Even with that reasonable rent they waived it when I got laid off from my college job.
Again, not every rental experience and in fact probably a small minority, but a landlord is not automatically evil.
Eating meat is not automatically evil but if you look at it objectively and at the current scale it is indisputably a moral wrong. Same goes to hoarding homes.
You can own a property and pay landscapers and handyman for less than the cost of renting. Hell, I’ve had landlords pay property managers to handle even that.
Good landlords will only be as good as they need to be, to continue renting. In a housing shortage, that means they will keep getting worse over time, doing little and hearing little from their tenants who have only ever dealt with predatory landlords.
They will almost always charge as much as they can, not doing anything to help the renters.
The exceptions to this will be invisible on the market, because renters will do everything in their power to never move out or change their situation.
Long time renters are trapped, because they are paying nearly as much as a mortgage, and getting no equity from it, unable to save a down payment to get out of it.
Renting to seasonal, temp workers or students is about the only exception where renting is a necessary service, but currently its way over priced, so its not a great value. So still predatory.
Good landlords will only be as good as they need to be
I mean, this is an overly dismissive statement, those aren’t ‘good landlords’, but it’s also fair to note that the likelihood of getting a ‘good’ landlord is like a lottery.
In college I experienced both a person renting out a property they owned and a more ‘corporate’ arrangement. The corporate arrangement was ‘meh’, didn’t do much one way or the other. The personal rental was nicer and cheaper, and they were out the same day when we reported the one thing that ever needed fixing. When they heard I got laid off, they waived rent until I got a new job.
This “landlords are purely evil and rent is stealing” discourse doesn’t do any of us any good. It’s dishonest and makes people with sense not want to join your cause. If we actually want to make housing better and more available, we can’t be wasting our time throwing with this.
What service does the land speculator provide to the tenant?
The ability to live somewhere that otherwise would have been reversed?
I am lucky enough to be able to own a home. I can live here, and nobody else. But if I decided to rent my home out and they paid me rent, they could live here instead!
The ability to live somewhere that otherwise would have been reversed?
The land speculators do not provide access to the tenant, they prohibit access. That’s what inclosure is. You’re blocking people from the land on pain of injury and death.
I can live here, and nobody else.
Until the state decrees otherwise, sure.
But if I decided to rent my home out and they paid me rent, they could live here instead!
There are three people and three houses. How do you decide which of the three people owns all three houses and which of the other two pay that first person rent?
Clearly you are much smarter than myself. Can you tell me why renting land/a home is different than any other object that can be owned? Obviously shelter is a greater need than a chainsaw I could rent at Home Depot, but I thought the basic concepts should still apply?
And again, maybe I’m not smart enough to understand what you’re saying, but it seems like land owners (or “speculators”, if that’s the correct term now 🤷♂️) prohibit access to everyone except for tenants, and tenants instead have rights to use that property?
Can you tell me why renting land/a home is different than any other object that can be owned?
For starters, you can’t own much if you don’t own land. So it becomes a prerequisite for accruing any other objects.
If you’re locked out of owning land, you’re locked out of owning anything.
it seems like land owners (or “speculators”, if that’s the correct term now 🤷♂️) prohibit access to everyone except for tenants
Speculators (or, “land owners”, as you’re calling them) aren’t required to host tenants. They can leave their property vacant without regard to social need.
And landlords can evict tenants for any reason or no reason at all - or raise rents so high that an eviction is inevitable.
A question you need to ask is why the landlord possessed the land to begin with. What allows a landlord original access to property?
You buy a pressure washer, and rent it out, thats a good business. Theres no shortage of pressure washers. I can live without one. I can biy my own relatively easy. Choosing to rent or own is a question of how often I expect to want to pressure wash something.
You can only rent a home that you buy. Which means you had to take it off the market. You can also only rent a home (or room) that you aren’t living in. Which means you need somewhere else to live. You’re taking more than you need, to charge someone else who also needs it, to cover your cost of owning it, maintaining it, and presumably profiting from the difference.
When this is done at scale, you have owners skewing the market to make it harder and harder to buy.
They make more money, buy more properties and make it worse. While renters, and young adults get trapped i to renting because they have no options.
Last I looked into the difference, (in my area) if you planned to stay longer than three years, owning was the cheaper option. Less than that you’d be better off renting. Assuming no big house repairs of course, and no crazy house value changes.
Just because both sides benefit doesn’t mean that it’s not exploitative. A slave gets the benefit of housing and food provided by their master, that doesn’t mean the slave isn’t exploited.
Like slavery a landlord uses a claim to property to extract labor / wages / money out of a person that doesn’t have a claim to property. That is exploitative.
So if I hypothetically own a home and rent my basement suite out, you think I would be inherently exploiting someone? What’s my alternative? What if I need the rental income to afford the mortgage?
I feel like following this train of thought results in either nobody owns anything to keep it fair, or everyone is entitled to a home for free, both of which are not realistic.
If all the money just goes to the interest on the mortgage then no, you aren’t exploiting them, the bank is exploiting both of you. If the person is paying for your equity then you are benefiting off of that person’s misfortune of not being able to own a house.
Many slave owners were relatively poor or heavily in debt, Washington wasn’t solvent until after his presidency, Jefferson too. They would probably say they have to work their slaves to pay off their debts, doesn’t make it right.
I feel like following this train of thought results in either nobody owns anything to keep it fair
Sort of, both anarchists and communists support the abolition of private, not personal, property, ie stuff you own not to use, but to make money off of. So you can own a house to live in, you can’t own a house to rent out.
or everyone is entitled to a home for free, both of which are not realistic.
Not necessarily, the third option is public / social housing. The government owns housing and operates it at cost instead of seeking a profit. So all the money used to pay for housing is going to produce and maintain housing instead of into the pockets of landlords. It’s not exploitative assuming the government is democratic, just as taxes aren’t exploitative if you get a say in what happens to them.
Of course it’s exploitative, that isn’t a question. The entire purpose of rent is to exploit. The down voters are people who recognize that it’s complete nonsense to suggest housing rental could ever not be exploitative.
If it really sucked so much to own a home, the upper class wouldn’t be buying as many of the fucking things as they could.
Owning a home is 100% upside 0% downside. You have your name on it and someone else pays for it. You use their money to pay other people to maintain it, skim the rest and fuck off to the beach. If you fail at this you wouldn’t last an hour at a real job.
Sounds like you’ve never dealt with home ownership. It’s definitely not 100% upsides.
Renting you don’t have to keep $30k on hand in case you need to replace your roof or HVAC. Renting you’re not saddled with an asset that you have to unload before you can relocate.
And the wealthy aren’t buying as much residential property as they can because they find home ownership preferable to renting.
I dunno man. When we moved into our apartment we got a new water heater, new washer/dryer, new kitchen sink, and HVAC repaired within the first couple weeks. We’ve gotten multiple smaller things fixed as well including exterior tuck pointing to fix a leak.
Sometimes I lament not owning, but that would have all been out of pocket if we had bought a property as is with those issues. Didn’t cost us a dime.
There are undeniable benefits to renting. I rent. It’s still a for-profit business in the end, though, and per capitalism, they’ll fuck you as hard as you let them.
Agreeing: Appliances, repairs, taxes, HOA fees, and utilities are all going up in cost faster than salary. The only homeowner cost I can think of that isn’t going up is my mortgage, which is fixed-rate. With a variable-rate mortgage, even that could be going up.
It’s important to be aware of the fact that as long as we allow landlords to exist, they will work tirelessly to get rid of all of these regulations. They have the money and power to do so, and their condition depends on it.
Providing maintenance isn’t being a landlord. You can be a landlord and also do real work on the house as a maintenance person, the same way you can be a landlord and also work at McDonald’s. But being a landlord is not a job and provides no value.
If you’ve never dealt with home ownership, how can you draw such a conclusion? I know several people who sold theirs and went back to renting because they were sick of dealing with all the shit that goes into owning a home.
I can draw that conclusion simply by looking around me seeing how better off are home owners financially.
Where I live, paying a mortgage is 30% cheaper than paying rent.
Also paying a mortgage is like putting money inside your bank account while having somewhere to live, whereas by paying rent you simply put money in your landlord’s pockets further enriching them or allowing then to not work.
Additionaly there are guardrails for when you can’t pay your mortgage while in most countries there are none for not paying your rent.
Edit: I guess the people you mention are so well off that they don’t experience any financial insecurity, have passive income unrelated to actual work and thus can threat home ownership as a services. Aren’t they?
You might want to get your eyes checked. I don’t ever intend on owning rental property, but I’m not naive enough to think the renter gets nothing from the deal.
Yes! Exactly! That’s why I said “you’re almost there”. You almost had the right idea, but you needed the exact distinction between owning possessions and property. This distinction, plus a little bit of critical reflection, should be enough to come to the conclusion that landlordism is exploitative. The FAQ explicitly sketches out the argument that landlords exploit people.
The land monopoly consists of enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and use. It also includes making the squatting of abandoned housing and other forms of property illegal. This leads to ground-rent, by which landlords get payment for letting others use the land they own but do not actually cultivate or use. It also allows the ownership and control of natural resources like oil, gas, coal and timber. This monopoly is particularly exploitative as the owner cannot claim to have created the land or its resources. It was available to all until the landlord claimed it by fencing it off and barring others from using it.
Mostly, yeah. In the western world, anyways, pretty much everything we have was gained via theft. So it isn’t earned and we shouldn’t treat property like it’s gained via merit.
Part of the payment is for services, but it doesn’t make sense overall to call it a service because the cost is only in small part determined by the value of upkeep etc. being handled, there is no option to do this yourself instead and not pay. The main thing driving the cost of housing is the supply of housing, the desirability of the location, and who owns it all.
Think about mobile homes; how well built a mobile home is, or how well it is maintained, ultimately doesn’t matter that much and it will still depreciate if it is located on rented land, because the real driver of housing value is the value of the legal right to live in that particular location, and that right is ultimately controlled by the owner of the lot. Same goes for any housing; what matters most is the land, being able to safely and legally sleep there, and the ability of the property owner to control who can do that.
The costs of the services aren’t the only thing a landlord provides. They also get to deal with the contractors to do work and repairs, and they carry a large amount of financial risk. Not to mention that tenants are typically way more protected than landlords, legally.
You also get the benefit of being able to leave basically whenever you want. With a home you’re stuck with it until it sells.
Like I said, that situation doesn’t work for everyone, but the truth is that literally any service is going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.
I absolutely know people who sold their homes and rented because paying extra was worth more to them than the hassle of owning.
Also, I did have landlords who would subtract from my rent the cost of hiring a repairman if I did the work myself. It was worth it to them to not hassle with flakey contractors.
Also, I did have landlords who would subtract from my rent the cost of hiring a repairman if I did the work myself. It was worth it to them to not hassle with flakey contractors
This isn’t quite what I meant though; the fact remains that willingness to do more things yourself will not by itself get you housing, you still have to pay. As I said, I’m not disputing that part of the cost of rent is for services a landlord provides, or disputing that these have value. Rather I am saying that there is a more substantial baseline component to the cost that has nothing to do with these services and has everything to do with control of property, and because of this the statement in the OP comic is broadly accurate.
Rent isn’t theft. It’s payment for a service
Sure there’s a service and the owner has costs, but it’s actually quite unrelated to the rental price in most places.
I think the question is about the regulation of markets for basic life requirements. Alternatives aren’t very appealing IMHO: social aids (taxes on the rich), charity (by the rich), or persistent homelessness.
The nuanced take is always controversial here. Lemmy generally doesn’t like speaking against the hive’s directives- so it’s refreshing to see something like this in the positive.
Rent isn’t theft. It’s payment for a service. Whether or not that service is of value to you is a different story, but not everyone is interested in owning.
There are benefits to renting. You don’t have to be financially responsible for repairs, you don’t have to do maintenance or pay someone to do it for you, you have much less financial risk, and you can relocate much easier.
And not all landlords are rich people. I do agree that corporate ownership of residential property shouldn’t be allowed, though.
What service does the land speculator provide to the tenant? The landlord doesn’t develop the property, that’s the builder. The landlord doesn’t maintain the property, that’s done by contractors. The landlord doesn’t secure the property, that’s done by the state. The landlord often doesn’t even finance the property, as the property is inevitably mortgaged and underwritten by banks one step removed from the title holder.
Quite literally, the only thing landlords do is collect the check and transfer portions of it onward. They are, at best, payment processors. And even this job is routinely outsourced to a third party.
There are lower institutional barriers to renting than to owning, largely resulting from the artificial shortage of public land and public housing. Rents are the consequence of real estate monopolization and public malinvestment. Once the landlords themselves vanish, the “benefits” of renting vanish with them.
There’s an old joke Donald Trump likes to tell, back in the 90s when he was underwater on his personal holdings. He’s driving through Lower Manhattan in a limo with his daughter and he points out the window to a homeless man. Then he quips, “I’m $800M poorer than that man”. To which his daughter replies, “If that’s true why are we in a limo while he’s out on the street?”
a place to live
Tendentious language.
You think providing exclusive access to a house for the renter to live in is not something that has value?
Soon I will probably become a landlord, not because I want to but because it makes financial sense. My partner and I are pooling money to buy a place together so we can live together, she will sell her apartment and I will rent out my old apartment, which I bought with my own money and worked 20 years for to pay off. Are you suggesting I should just have to give the fruit of my 20 years of labor away to someone for free?
You’re fucking insane.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it
My salary? I am a wage slave just like everybody else.
Anyway, you didn’t address the main questions:
It seems you are the one here who is not making any effort to be understanding.
The key thing that the landlord handles is risk. If the roof is very expensive to fix, that is not the contractor’s problem. If the property does not generate revenue, that is not the bank’s problem. If the property is not worth the cost to build, that is not the builder’s problem. If the property is unsafe to live in, that is not the renter’s problem.
The landlord’s financial risk in the property (should) provide an incentive to maintain and make use of that property.
I’m not saying there aren’t other system of distribution people to homes, and I’m not saying that the capitalist system in the US is the best system to do it. I’m just pointing out that a core principle of capitalism is risk, and that is what the landlord provides, a single point buffer of risk for the other parties involved.
This is completely ignorant of the fact that landlords can get insurance for those things and often dont have to pay anything at all. And when they do have to pay themselves, they will pay the minimum amount possible to maximize their profits often resulting in degrading housing that people living in suffer the consequences for.
Housing is a human right. Capitalism commits violence against the people by denying them shelter. It’s a crime against humanity. Landlords exist only to profit off of this system. By your own exact definition all homeowners are the same point of risk mitigation, and therefore all renters would also be the same point of risk mitigation. Landlords have inserted themselves as a middle man to steal the labor of the working class. They profit off of the venture. Thats the whole point of them doing it.
You’ve got this upside-down. The existence of the insurance industry in a capitalist system is proof that risk is a thing that can be bought, sold, traded, banked and spent. If there was no financial cost to risk, then there would be no market for insurance to mitigate that risk.
The landlord gives up some income in order to mitigate risk, and most of the time, only some of that risk. I have yet to see or hear of an insurance policy that would basically cut a check for 100% of an insured item’s value unconditionally. If it did exist, it would probably be more expensive than the object itself.
As opposed to the tenants just getting rid of the landlord, buying their own insurance, and covering costs collectively. Thereby entirely eliminating the landlord and they can keep their wages to themselves.
Good luck finding 30 people who are willing to pool together 6 million to buy/build an apartment complex and live together.
I mean co-ops can happen, but the majority of time when something like that happens, it’s actually a cult.
They still have to pay insurance to get insurance. And I’m not sure you can get insurance against the roof getting old (not in my area anyway). When the roof is too old and needs replacing, you do it out of pocket/bank loan. Complete roof replacement are not so often (depending on material), so you can (and should) as a home owner save up to this.
Sure, but half the income of your tenants that you steal from them every month supplies you with more than enough extra money to make such a thing a minor expenditure in the long run.
I’m glad that we agree.
Go and have a look at property prices over the last 50 years and see how risky it is.
There are a few fundamental things a landlord provides:
This comes together for renting making a whole lot of sense for people on a remote work assignment, college students, and seasonal occupants who need a residence for a few months or a couple of years. Also for people who have just moved out on their own and need a residence while they get some credit history under their belt, hopefully being in a situation like university where the need is short term as well.
Landlords don’t do this. You’re describing the rental management agencies/staff, which do not actually own the property.
Landlords don’t provide this, either. Again, you’re describing building staff, not the property owners. And you’re describing it within an artificially calcified market, with prices that prohibit people from easily transferring their positions.
You’re also ignoring the reality of rental contracts, with all sorts of deposits and fees tied to move-in/move-out, particularly if you’re operating outside a long-term rental period.
Landlords don’t provide access to real estate, they deny access to real estate. In some instances, they can exploit a scarcity of units by collecting application fees without ever renting the unit.
You’re describing an artificial scarcity of housing created by speculative investment in vacant properties. The “renting just makes sense” argument falls apart when you realize the cost of these units is often several times the market cost of the property itself.
Turn the administration of vacant units over to the public sector with a mandate to fill units at-cost and the monthly rate for all these units craters.
Should hotels be illegal too? That’s basically renting out a room by the day. What if you cannot afford to buy a house, or only want to live somewhere temporarily? If you cannot rent any place to live, what would you do?
As with most things, it is a matter of degree.
If they’re monopolizing the housing market, absolutely.
There are 16M vacant homes to distribute among around 770k homeless people. With such an enormous housing surplus, why is the clearing price for a housing unit so far above a new prospective buyer’s budget?
You posit that people can’t afford to buy homes without asking why homes are unaffordable.
Investors accounted for 25.7% of residential home sales in 2024.
I think there’s a middle ground between ‘consuming all housing stock in hopes of making airbnbs’ and ‘illegal’. There’s a legitimate case for short term and medium term residence that doesn’t make sense with ownership. However while we should accommodate those, it is a fair point the market should be regulated so that people have a reasonable path to ownership if it makes sense without being stuck with competing with rent-seeking corporations sucking up all the inventory.
Sure. Neither case requires speculative investors to enter the market and maximize profits.
You’re confusing physical infrastructure with rent seeking bureaucracy.
In that article, the word “investors” is deliberately lumping together individuals, and institutions/corporations, in an obvious attempt to trick people into thinking that category is comprised entirely of the latter. Underhanded semantic maneuver. Within the same article:
Corporations are people, my friend.
Is ownership less virtuous in a partnership than a sole proprietorship somehow?
I merely pointed out that not all ‘rent is bad’, ‘landlords are evil’.
Among probably many reasons that housing is unaffordable for many is that some persons or corporations are awful scumbags that want to maximize their profit beyond what is reasonable or fair.
Renting isn’t bad. Capitalism isn’t bad. Abuse of these things is bad.
Abuse of these things is a core feature of capitalism. How can you contradict yourself so quickly?
The world is not black and white. I don’t accept the validity of your claim.
Shelter is a fundamental human need, locking it behind an unnecessarily high and ever increasing pay wall is the epitome of abuse. Landlords are leeches.
Yes it is. But you and I both said it. It is abuse of capitalism.
I would support some idea that corporations cannot own property like single homes solely for the purpose of profit. And any single person should be heavily taxed on rental income, at least beyond a certain point.
And let’s use eminent domain to take back those empty houses and put people in them.
But there’s still lots of people who would prefer to rent than own.
The problem is not landlords. And the problem is not capitalism. The problem is unfettered greed. Greed is not good, despite what Michael Douglas said in that movie.
You gotta look at the nuance here. Yes, high and ever increasing rent is bad and it’s because of the abuse and poor regulation of the system. And traditional lords of the land is pretty bad however you slice it. But small landlords now can be providing a needed service. It’s a lot of work keeping a house rentable - even if you are ‘just’ organizing contractors, accountants, lawyers, etc.
The world is not black and white. But still you will 100% keep your claim. Again. Contradict yourself in two sentences.
Capitalism is most definitely bad tho, like come on.
Well, it’s a way to incentivize people to use their resources to provide services for others. It would be nice if people just did that on their own, but humans are generally too lazy.
I think we’re a bit beyond good and evil.
Sure sure sure. Love the sin, hate the sinner.
All rent is bad and all forms of landlords are evil. They are a separate class with legal mandate to steal the labor value of the working class. They serve no function whatsoever and it is entirely conceivable that an apartment building’s occupants could pool money together for repairs when that is necessary.
Shelter is a human right. Housing is a human right. Landlords are not mechanics, they are not repair men, they are not construction workers, they are not laborers. Some Landlords may do some of those things, but it doesn’t change the fact that by virtue of stealing from the working class they are still evil. If they want to do repair work, I should be able to simply pay them for the repair work they do. If they want to do property maintenance work, I should be able to simply pay them for the property maintenance. They have a legal document enabling them to steal half of my income every month for no reason. They do not live in my home, I live in my home. If I stopped living there it wouldn’t be my home anymore.
There are 0 downsides to entirely rejecting the housing market. Housing is a human right, it should be fairly distributed to everyone. I couldn’t give a fuck about real estate markets, they could all dissappear today and no one would ever profit off of housing again and not a single tear would be shed. I’d really like it if everyone could have a fucking home. All Landlords are evil. There are NO exceptions. If they collect rent for someone else’s home, they are evil.
If I own a house that is too big for me, and I can’t afford the taxes and upkeep, so I rent out some rooms to make a little money.
I am now a landlord. Are you suggesting that I am evil? That it should not be allowed?
I think you are conflating slum lords and greedy corporations with any and all people who have rental properties. Something, something… deals in absolutes.
You are not a landlord if you are sharing your home, you would be a roommate. If you are charging them rent, then yes you are a landlord :) no should ever profit off of housing! Housing is a human right! No one should ever have to sleep in your home, everyone should be able to have their own shelter that belongs to them! This is an absolutely conceivable reality homelessness is entirely a manufactured byproduct of capitalism. We have millions of empty homes and wasted infrastructure that could be used to house people.
deleted by creator
You’re intentionally leaving out that the landlord maintains the property and appliances. That’s no small thing.
There are absolutely bad landlords who will do as little as their tenants will allow them to, for sure. Landlords aren’t like cops though, the continuing existence of bad landlords is not enabled by good ones like how “good cops” do.
The landlord uses my rent money to pay others to maintain the property. It’s an entirely middle man position of zero value to society
Well, not always. Back in college (btw, a prime example of valid rental scenario), when the water heater in my rental started dripping, the landlord himself was there with a new water heater in his pickup same day.
Some landlords (by far not all, maybe only a minority) take on the risk directly and do the work themselves.
They’re still buying a surplus of housing, creating scarcity that raises home prices, and charging you more than it costs to live in the housing they’re hoarding.
So even if they’re doing the maintenance themselves (and no guarantee they’re doing a good job), they’re still a drain on the resources of actual workers.
Housing must be decommodified.
Their scenario was that they bought the house and rented it out while their kid went to college, with the expectation that they would have the house for the kid after college (their college was like 30 minutes away, and the kid lived in the dorm, so it was a perfectly reasonable expectation they might want to move into a house in the area).
Ultimately, the kid didn’t move back and they sold the property, but they bought it during what they saw as a dip in the market and used rent to keep it active while waiting for the kid to return.
You might say that a different system could have provided for all of this, but within the framework of the system they had, they were decent folks doing the right thing as landlord and not sucking up housing stock that they didn’t plan on actually having be owned by the resident. I’m reasonably confident that they even charged less than a mortgage+insurance+taxes would have been for me and between interest and closing costs, no way I would have come out ahead buying and then selling the property in the short time I lived there. Even with that reasonable rent they waived it when I got laid off from my college job.
Again, not every rental experience and in fact probably a small minority, but a landlord is not automatically evil.
Eating meat is not automatically evil but if you look at it objectively and at the current scale it is indisputably a moral wrong. Same goes to hoarding homes.
You can own a property and pay landscapers and handyman for less than the cost of renting. Hell, I’ve had landlords pay property managers to handle even that.
Good landlords will only be as good as they need to be, to continue renting. In a housing shortage, that means they will keep getting worse over time, doing little and hearing little from their tenants who have only ever dealt with predatory landlords.
They will almost always charge as much as they can, not doing anything to help the renters.
The exceptions to this will be invisible on the market, because renters will do everything in their power to never move out or change their situation.
Long time renters are trapped, because they are paying nearly as much as a mortgage, and getting no equity from it, unable to save a down payment to get out of it.
Renting to seasonal, temp workers or students is about the only exception where renting is a necessary service, but currently its way over priced, so its not a great value. So still predatory.
I mean, this is an overly dismissive statement, those aren’t ‘good landlords’, but it’s also fair to note that the likelihood of getting a ‘good’ landlord is like a lottery.
In college I experienced both a person renting out a property they owned and a more ‘corporate’ arrangement. The corporate arrangement was ‘meh’, didn’t do much one way or the other. The personal rental was nicer and cheaper, and they were out the same day when we reported the one thing that ever needed fixing. When they heard I got laid off, they waived rent until I got a new job.
Keep dodging.
This “landlords are purely evil and rent is stealing” discourse doesn’t do any of us any good. It’s dishonest and makes people with sense not want to join your cause. If we actually want to make housing better and more available, we can’t be wasting our time throwing with this.
Landlords are purely evil, they are nothing but a drain on society, and if you disagree you’re my enemy and we have no common cause.
Which of my statements are false?
The ability to live somewhere that otherwise would have been reversed?
I am lucky enough to be able to own a home. I can live here, and nobody else. But if I decided to rent my home out and they paid me rent, they could live here instead!
They could also live there if you sold it to them.
Only if they can afford its price.
Who gets to originate the claim on property? Who gets to set the price and collect on the sale?
As mentioned elsewhere, owning isn’t necessarily for everyone.
Freedom isn’t necessarily for everyone has also been mentioned throughout time. Slavery has existed all through history.
That doesn’t make it ok but anyone who is an enslavery or aspiring enslaver is going to argue some people want to be slaves.
Removing and restricting the agency of others is never ok. When it’s for economic gain, it’s always exploitation.
The big difference being that one thing being owned is completely inanimate, and the other is a literal human being against their will 🤷♂️
The point is people are really good at exploiting each other and justifying it as for the greater good.
The land speculators do not provide access to the tenant, they prohibit access. That’s what inclosure is. You’re blocking people from the land on pain of injury and death.
Until the state decrees otherwise, sure.
There are three people and three houses. How do you decide which of the three people owns all three houses and which of the other two pay that first person rent?
Clearly you are much smarter than myself. Can you tell me why renting land/a home is different than any other object that can be owned? Obviously shelter is a greater need than a chainsaw I could rent at Home Depot, but I thought the basic concepts should still apply?
And again, maybe I’m not smart enough to understand what you’re saying, but it seems like land owners (or “speculators”, if that’s the correct term now 🤷♂️) prohibit access to everyone except for tenants, and tenants instead have rights to use that property?
For starters, you can’t own much if you don’t own land. So it becomes a prerequisite for accruing any other objects.
If you’re locked out of owning land, you’re locked out of owning anything.
Speculators (or, “land owners”, as you’re calling them) aren’t required to host tenants. They can leave their property vacant without regard to social need.
And landlords can evict tenants for any reason or no reason at all - or raise rents so high that an eviction is inevitable.
A question you need to ask is why the landlord possessed the land to begin with. What allows a landlord original access to property?
People need homes.
You buy a pressure washer, and rent it out, thats a good business. Theres no shortage of pressure washers. I can live without one. I can biy my own relatively easy. Choosing to rent or own is a question of how often I expect to want to pressure wash something.
You can only rent a home that you buy. Which means you had to take it off the market. You can also only rent a home (or room) that you aren’t living in. Which means you need somewhere else to live. You’re taking more than you need, to charge someone else who also needs it, to cover your cost of owning it, maintaining it, and presumably profiting from the difference.
When this is done at scale, you have owners skewing the market to make it harder and harder to buy.
They make more money, buy more properties and make it worse. While renters, and young adults get trapped i to renting because they have no options.
That is what makes it so much different.
Can you agree it’s at least exploitative?
It can be exploitative, but it’s not automatically so. Both parties benefit from the agreement in different ways.
Last I looked into the difference, (in my area) if you planned to stay longer than three years, owning was the cheaper option. Less than that you’d be better off renting. Assuming no big house repairs of course, and no crazy house value changes.
Cheaper isn’t always the goal. Home ownership comes with a lot of stress and time investment that you don’t have with renting.
I don’t get how this above conversation isn’t just /thread.
7 people who downvoted, care to explain? Genuinely curious what your take is.
Just because both sides benefit doesn’t mean that it’s not exploitative. A slave gets the benefit of housing and food provided by their master, that doesn’t mean the slave isn’t exploited.
Like slavery a landlord uses a claim to property to extract labor / wages / money out of a person that doesn’t have a claim to property. That is exploitative.
So if I hypothetically own a home and rent my basement suite out, you think I would be inherently exploiting someone? What’s my alternative? What if I need the rental income to afford the mortgage?
I feel like following this train of thought results in either nobody owns anything to keep it fair, or everyone is entitled to a home for free, both of which are not realistic.
If all the money just goes to the interest on the mortgage then no, you aren’t exploiting them, the bank is exploiting both of you. If the person is paying for your equity then you are benefiting off of that person’s misfortune of not being able to own a house.
Many slave owners were relatively poor or heavily in debt, Washington wasn’t solvent until after his presidency, Jefferson too. They would probably say they have to work their slaves to pay off their debts, doesn’t make it right.
Sort of, both anarchists and communists support the abolition of private, not personal, property, ie stuff you own not to use, but to make money off of. So you can own a house to live in, you can’t own a house to rent out.
Not necessarily, the third option is public / social housing. The government owns housing and operates it at cost instead of seeking a profit. So all the money used to pay for housing is going to produce and maintain housing instead of into the pockets of landlords. It’s not exploitative assuming the government is democratic, just as taxes aren’t exploitative if you get a say in what happens to them.
Well, I can’t say I necessarily agree with everything, but I can see your points.
Thanks for sharing your POV.
Of course it’s exploitative, that isn’t a question. The entire purpose of rent is to exploit. The down voters are people who recognize that it’s complete nonsense to suggest housing rental could ever not be exploitative.
The downvoters are probably people who have never owned a home and don’t realize that it has its own set of issues that renting doesn’t.
If it really sucked so much to own a home, the upper class wouldn’t be buying as many of the fucking things as they could.
Owning a home is 100% upside 0% downside. You have your name on it and someone else pays for it. You use their money to pay other people to maintain it, skim the rest and fuck off to the beach. If you fail at this you wouldn’t last an hour at a real job.
Sounds like you’ve never dealt with home ownership. It’s definitely not 100% upsides.
Renting you don’t have to keep $30k on hand in case you need to replace your roof or HVAC. Renting you’re not saddled with an asset that you have to unload before you can relocate.
And the wealthy aren’t buying as much residential property as they can because they find home ownership preferable to renting.
Oh woe is me, I could literally fill a swimming pool with other people’s money, please feel sorry for me
I don’t mean to be shocking, but this feels very much like “she orgasmed when I molested her”.
The other option is homelessness. You rent at the barrel of a gun. How could you possibly call that consent?
I dunno man. When we moved into our apartment we got a new water heater, new washer/dryer, new kitchen sink, and HVAC repaired within the first couple weeks. We’ve gotten multiple smaller things fixed as well including exterior tuck pointing to fix a leak.
Sometimes I lament not owning, but that would have all been out of pocket if we had bought a property as is with those issues. Didn’t cost us a dime.
There are undeniable benefits to renting. I rent. It’s still a for-profit business in the end, though, and per capitalism, they’ll fuck you as hard as you let them.
But I also fuck them as hard as they let me. And in my city and state, which have very strong tenants’ rights protections, my fucking goes a long way.
Good on you.
It’s hard for most people who see rent rise faster than salary. Which is the case for most of the United States.
You say that as if the cost of home ownership isn’t also increasing faster than salary. This is not a function of landlords/renting.
Agreeing: Appliances, repairs, taxes, HOA fees, and utilities are all going up in cost faster than salary. The only homeowner cost I can think of that isn’t going up is my mortgage, which is fixed-rate. With a variable-rate mortgage, even that could be going up.
It’s important to be aware of the fact that as long as we allow landlords to exist, they will work tirelessly to get rid of all of these regulations. They have the money and power to do so, and their condition depends on it.
“Vigilance, Mr. Worf. That is the price we have to continually pay.”
Owning a house isn’t a service.
Providing maintenance/repairs and carrying the financial risk is.
Providing maintenance isn’t being a landlord. You can be a landlord and also do real work on the house as a maintenance person, the same way you can be a landlord and also work at McDonald’s. But being a landlord is not a job and provides no value.
This is one of the most capitalist takes you’ll ever see on lemmy. I wonder if this person is a landlord or has landlords in the family…
Been renting the last 20 years, and I can rightfully say FUCK YOU!!!
So you’ve only experienced one side of things.
If you’ve never dealt with home ownership, how can you draw such a conclusion? I know several people who sold theirs and went back to renting because they were sick of dealing with all the shit that goes into owning a home.
I can draw that conclusion simply by looking around me seeing how better off are home owners financially.
Where I live, paying a mortgage is 30% cheaper than paying rent.
Also paying a mortgage is like putting money inside your bank account while having somewhere to live, whereas by paying rent you simply put money in your landlord’s pockets further enriching them or allowing then to not work.
Additionaly there are guardrails for when you can’t pay your mortgage while in most countries there are none for not paying your rent.
Edit: I guess the people you mention are so well off that they don’t experience any financial insecurity, have passive income unrelated to actual work and thus can threat home ownership as a services. Aren’t they?
So you’ve still never experienced home ownership and don’t have the requisite experience to comment on it.
I’m done engaging with you.
So you can only talk about what you experienced, noted.
You have no empathy nor capacity of abstraction.
No wonder why you are incapable to put yourself in other people’s shoes.
Even in this conversation you have to run away from anything that jeopardises your comfortable way of thinking.
Good for you, but then again Fuck you.
Spot the landlord
You might want to get your eyes checked. I don’t ever intend on owning rental property, but I’m not naive enough to think the renter gets nothing from the deal.
Nobody said nothing. Just not enough
In the interest of pedantry, technically you are correct.
Land ownership is theft, rent is just the symptom.
By that logic owning anything is theft.
You’re almost there!
Yeah, that’s not what your link is saying.
I said anything, not only things used to exploit people. It straight up says that owning possessions is fine.
Yes! Exactly! That’s why I said “you’re almost there”. You almost had the right idea, but you needed the exact distinction between owning possessions and property. This distinction, plus a little bit of critical reflection, should be enough to come to the conclusion that landlordism is exploitative. The FAQ explicitly sketches out the argument that landlords exploit people.
Mostly, yeah. In the western world, anyways, pretty much everything we have was gained via theft. So it isn’t earned and we shouldn’t treat property like it’s gained via merit.
Rent is the acquisition of a temporary privilege to the use of a property.
A mortgage is the acquisition of a permanent right to the use of a property.
Where a tenant’s rent payment is greater than a landlord’s mortgage payment, the temporary privilege is deemed more valuable than the permanent right.
This condition is absurd. It can only exist in an artificially manipulated housing market.
And yet, it is also the current norm.
in my housing market mortgages about double what rents are.
is that absurd? or is that correct. because i live in the #1 or #2 most expensive market depending on the year.
Part of the payment is for services, but it doesn’t make sense overall to call it a service because the cost is only in small part determined by the value of upkeep etc. being handled, there is no option to do this yourself instead and not pay. The main thing driving the cost of housing is the supply of housing, the desirability of the location, and who owns it all.
Think about mobile homes; how well built a mobile home is, or how well it is maintained, ultimately doesn’t matter that much and it will still depreciate if it is located on rented land, because the real driver of housing value is the value of the legal right to live in that particular location, and that right is ultimately controlled by the owner of the lot. Same goes for any housing; what matters most is the land, being able to safely and legally sleep there, and the ability of the property owner to control who can do that.
The costs of the services aren’t the only thing a landlord provides. They also get to deal with the contractors to do work and repairs, and they carry a large amount of financial risk. Not to mention that tenants are typically way more protected than landlords, legally.
You also get the benefit of being able to leave basically whenever you want. With a home you’re stuck with it until it sells.
Like I said, that situation doesn’t work for everyone, but the truth is that literally any service is going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.
I absolutely know people who sold their homes and rented because paying extra was worth more to them than the hassle of owning.
Also, I did have landlords who would subtract from my rent the cost of hiring a repairman if I did the work myself. It was worth it to them to not hassle with flakey contractors.
This isn’t quite what I meant though; the fact remains that willingness to do more things yourself will not by itself get you housing, you still have to pay. As I said, I’m not disputing that part of the cost of rent is for services a landlord provides, or disputing that these have value. Rather I am saying that there is a more substantial baseline component to the cost that has nothing to do with these services and has everything to do with control of property, and because of this the statement in the OP comic is broadly accurate.
I’m all down for regulating the markets on necessities. Like I said, I don’t think businesses should be able to own residential property at all.
But a tenant/landlord agreement doesn’t only benefit the landlord.
The nuanced take is always controversial here. Lemmy generally doesn’t like speaking against the hive’s directives- so it’s refreshing to see something like this in the positive.
Yeah, I fully expected to be heavily in the negative, so I’m glad that at least some people got the nuance I was going for.
Yes, many times, especially with corporate owned housing, the agreement is exploitative, but that’s not all rental situations.
The second paragraph is only true under most laws in the world