this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
281 points (86.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36047 readers
2904 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Reason I'm asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say "city" think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn't seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I'm not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don't overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.

I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don't see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.

Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the "landlords are bad" sentinment?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phthalocyanin 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

i can paint over my own roaches, thanks. landlords are in inflating artificial scarcity of a necessity

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is the implication here that if the landlords hadn't bought the property, the people renting would be able to buy it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes that's correct, if landlords couldn't run a business then the overall pricing of housing would be low enough that a renter could afford it due to supply and demand of the greater housing market

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're assuming said people would be able to obtain a mortgage at those house prices?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, at the lower prices now that supply isn't constrained by landlords

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Where do these people get their deposits from for the mortgage on the cheaper houses? Where do they live whilst saving up for these cheaper deposits?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We're speaking in hypotheticals already, and you want to get into even more details? The world would be different in this odd scenario so trying to figure out the details ahead of time seems like you just want to make it fail before we even start.

So I guess my answer would be, the same place as before this problem occurred of having too many landlords. Go back to the 50s and see what they did then. In the 50s a down payment wasn't even a problem because housing pricing was affordable to everyone.

We still have plenty of houses in the country. Enough to house every homeless person 4x over, so it's not a real problem except the owners of those houses that want more and more profit out of thin air make it a problem

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because people are talking on here like it would the solve the problem... it's a much more complex and nuanced issue than "landlords making (too much) profit". The knock-on effects and interconnectedness in (some) economies all need to be thought through and resolved/have a plan to resolve first otherwise you're just creating other problems.

This whole thread reminds me of Brexit (I'm from the UK) and how leavers were saying how simple it would be to leave... this is such a complex problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's the kind of answer people like to give when they just don't want to do anything to fix it. Who cares if it's a complex problem, we have really smart people in the world. We can bang this out.

There's no reason to haggle over details though because we're not the people in that room haggling over details. All we need to do is continue to point out that there is a problem and that we want our representatives and scientists who do studies on housing to fix it.

Leaving the EU had no upsides, and the only talking points leavers had were lies, not complexity. Making it difficult for landlords to continue owning more and more of the world's property has plenty of upsides and very few downsides.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I disagree, it's the details that will bite you on the ass... until those people have haggled over the details we realistically have no idea how many up or downsides there would be.

I agree it's a problem and I agree the current landlord situation is very likely contributing but removing that component by itself I believe is likely to cause all manner of problems... landlords are currently parasiting (is that a word?) off a system that's broken... my view is if you fix the system they won't be able to parasite on it.