Bro, we need Glassdoor for renting…
I’ll build it, just as soon as you figure out how it gets paid for.
Get paid by landlords to remove negative reviews, like yelp. Offer to show all reviews, even removed ones, to renters that pay for the premium service.
Ew, I feel gross after coming up with that idea.
It’s a lovely pattern to look out for, your efforts to show just how ugly it is, are welcome.
For anyone considering implementing this: No.
shake down bad landlords to delete bad reviews.
charge landlords for priority in search results.
sell searcher info as marketing data.
sell search trends as financial early indicators to hedge funds.
expand to HOA reviews for neighborhoods.
Real estate advertising, surely?
Yeah. No.
“Advertise your rental property on the page where your tenants review you.”
Most retailer websites have customer reviews on them?
They could also promote houses for sale (not rent).
I think it works.
“I mean… If you really value your brand, you’ll stand behind it? I can put you on the opt-out list though, so future tenants know you don’t stand behind it. I’m offering value at a fraction of the cost of advertisement and you’re paying for peace of mind.”
Nonprofit … crowd funded… build it and all you need afterward are paying for servers. Then you’re just doing donations like Wikipedia. How much would would it cost to maintain such servers? Seems fundable by a wealthy liberal.
And then a wealthy slumlord does the math and finds out it’s cheaper to pay people to sabotage the website than to lose tenants due to reviews.
You know somehow wikipedia maintains it’s integrity pretty well.
Wikipedia has two significant advantages:
- The content is objective, and sources should be cited.
- Individual editors are volunteers with actual interest in their topics.
The former makes for a clear and low-effort bar for determining if a contribution is bad. If it’s not cited, or it’s biased, revert and move on. Figuring out if a user-written review is paid for, factually false, or exaggerated is a lot harder.
As for the latter… aside from doing it out of spite or as a favor to landlord friends, I have a hard time imagining that many people would volunteer their time moderating the review page about the apartment they rented 14 years ago.
Well, I don’t think the content is objective. There are many politically contentious articles and they have systems, disclaimers, and discussions to try to deal with it.
I think the moderators would be locals looking over an entire neighborhood, sort of like our Lemmy mods.
Just an FYI. Wikipedia is actually privately funded at this point. They don’t need donations anymore. From what I have seen of their financial statements, the donations are essentially building a slush fund for them, at this point, and have been for the last few years.
Yeah that’s kinda what I meant by the wealthy liberal thing. Make something good enough and you only need a couple good donors.
For apartment complexes there’s yelp/Google maps reviews.
I just left a building with 4.5 stars on Google that was an absolute horrific nightmare. Somehow they had gamed the system so that all the recent very negative reviews got mostly taken down or hidden. Do NOT trust Google reviews if you have any inkling the place is sketchy. (I did but the reviews and price were good)
Indeed, while this idea should work in principle, I’ve found it mostly useless in practice.
I don’t know if all large apartment complexes are notoriously bad, but a few years ago, you’d mainly find horrifically negative reviews on those sites (likely because only people who have had issues with them actually bothered to write a review in order to get their petty revenge on them).
Nowadays, all the management companies are aware of these sites, and they likely either pay Yelp to “manage” their reviews for them and/or incentivize their tenants to leave positive reviews (even though that’s technically against the rules). Meanwhile, small buildings generally aren’t even listed on these sites or don’t have nearly enough reviews to get an objective picture.
Yeah, I’m fairly sure this building was paying for good reviews and paying tenants to take down bad reviews. In fact they did waive a hefty fee in exchange for me removing mine. I wish I had enough money to tell them to fuck themselves on that one, but I don’t.
Most of the reviews at this place were either glowingly positive or very negative, citing the same kinds of severe maintenance issues that we’d had there. But the catch was that you’d almost never see the negative reviews unless you sorted by most recent. A fact I learned after it was too late and we were already moved in and having terrible experiences there. Basically Google was helping them bury the reviews that made them look bad.
Also originally Google had silently hidden my very negative review. I tried removing a phrase about how I was sure the apartment complex was breaking the law and it magically showed back up… The whole damn thing is suspect. I no longer put any stock in reviews.
Edit: I just went looking back at the reviews for this building and I found out that Google removed the only small power the public has against fake reviews. The “not helpful” button was replaced with reaction emojis, all of which convey positive emotions. Fuck Google. They know they are helping shield bad businesses, they just want to keep clicks (ad dollars) flowing.
Yup, I’m pretty sure I’ve also seen some leasing offices offer gift cards or one time rent reduction in exchange for a positive review. Like I said, I’m pretty sure that’s against the sites’ rules but not technically illegal. I suppose you could file a complaint but good look having them take your side over that of a paying customer’s.
I just went looking back at the reviews for this building and I found out that Google removed the only small power the public has against fake reviews
Reporting is still an option, and it works. Literally just 3 days ago reported some inaccurate reviews at a place near where I work and I got the email last night they’d taken action, they’re gone now
What was the inaccuracy? I’ve had mixed results with reporting things to Google
Multiple 1 star reviews for a nearby business that complain it doesn’t do something that it doesn’t claim to do (bulk fuel delivery place people are complaining it’s not a gas station even though it doesn’t come up as one) was the most recent one I did.
I also got one removed last year because someone gave a 1-star review whining about a fee that you weren’t warned about if you were late, I sent in a picture of the big ass sign about it that’s been there for years
Those are shit though, on average. Only the very upset respond. You’re going to have to figure out a way to make the satisfied show up.
Something like this?
References for renting? What sort of dystopia is that? I’ve never heard of that concept, luckily.
It’s common in Germany to get a “reference” from your current landlord that basically just says “paid rent on time and didn’t set anything on fire”.
Huh. Here we have registries for people who habitually don’t pay on time, with a cooldown once they’re caught up. If you’re not in the registry it’s assumed that you’re good.
Don’t worry, we have that registry in Germany as well. And you have to pay to get your own data from them (although a GDPR request works once a year)
It is? I’m german and I’ve rented my entire life and never got anything like it nor needed anything like it to rent.
I had to present such slips several times.
But I’m living in a city where the queues for apartments is 50 people long.
See, that seems reasonable.
It doesn’t say any more than it has to.
What country are you in? I thought landlord reference is the norm.
not a thing i’ve ever heard of in sweden, either apartments are just expensive or you need to sign up for a waiting list and maintain your spot for like 7 years until you have the queue points needed for the apartment you want to rent
What? Seven years for an apartment? I know people that buy and sell their homes more often than that.
it’s usually not that extreme, but that’s how it is in the large cities.
More normal for an average city is probably like 3 years waiting, you’re expected to sign up before you have any intentions of moving out from your parents.
That’s wild.
it’s usually not that extreme, but that’s how it is in the large cities.
More normal for an average city is probably like 3 years waiting, you’re expected to sign up before you have any intentions of moving out from your parents.
Never heard about it in Norway
I’m a Swede living in Denmark. Not a thing in Scandinavia, apparently.
Not here (Switzerland) either.
Never heard of it in Croatia.
doesnt croatia have a really low percentage of people who live in rent (as opposed to owing the property or living with relatives eho own it)
I don’t know the stats, but doesn’t sound wrong.
One apartment I lived in was rented out by a private landlord, and there we had the option to write a personal letter/application which would allow us to skip the queue if we matched what they were looking for. We had just become a family of three and they wanted more families with children so we were approved. That was completely voluntary though. In honesty, I think it’s kind of weird that we could jump the queue but we were no longer allowed to live in my student apartment so we jumped on it.
That was completely voluntary though
The problem with power imbalances is that they allow enforcing “completely voluntary” practices.
I know. That’s why I said it’s a bit weird that we could skip the queue. On the other hand, the fact that decades long queue times are necessary instead of more, affordable housing being built is also a problem.
One apartment you lived in? Or the only apartment youve lived in?
One of four. The rest have been queues or first come, first served.
not in finland at least. never heard of that stuff
I’ve definitely never heard of it in Uranus.
Columbus Ohio, Louisville Ky, and Deerfield Beach Fl lol
I’m having to do that now. Three years prior renting needs to be accounted for. I left on very bad terms with my previous landlord but I had to give the information over because it showed up on my history check and they refused to let my application be complete without it. So we’ll see wtf is gonna happen…
That’s sad. There could be so many reasons for disagreements. As long as you paid you shouldn’t be forced to do this. Best of luck.
Disagreement is a light way of putting it. 😅
It went full-on, lawyers-involved horseshit from her freaking out about trivial shit. So it’s a guarantee that her response to any inquiry will be negative. Fun!
Thanks for the kind words, I should find out later today whether she’s blocked me from getting a place.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I had a disagreement with my previous landlord. He included power in the rent (not uncommon here) and I have a home lab.
He was not happy with the electrical bill and accused me of mining Bitcoin.
Sir, this hardware is from 2010, and couldn’t possibly mine a single Bitcoin in the time it has remaining to run before it dies.
He threatened to evict me, I took his eviction threat documentation to a lawyer who basically told me that “this is not sufficient grounds to evict” (more or less he just laughed at how dumb it was), and I promptly ignored it. Moved out when my lease was up. There were a ton of other problems I won’t get into. When he showed it to new potential renters some showed up before the agent who was showing the place and we gave them a warning about the landlord. I’m sure someone rented it eventually, but hopefully we saved a couple of people from going through all that.
I actually like the idea of landlords covering electricity or at least a portion of it. It incentives them to install things like heat pumps which have a high up front cost but long term savings. If they aren’t sweating the long term loss then why would they upgrade?
Most places here pay for heating, not cooling. Heating is usually natural gas or similar, cooling by AC is up to the tenant, and there’s usually a premium in the summer paid to run AC when electricity is included.
Heat pumps are for heating too, not just cooling.
Oh. I know. I’m just saying that since it heats and cools, it’s not a priority.
Where I am there’s no legal requirement to provide AC to tenants, so whatever heating system is cheap, that’s what landlords will install. Natural gas is usually cheaper per unit of heat output than anything based on electricity, mainly in up front costs. A forced air furnace with no AC which is heated by natural gas is so common and therefore ridiculously cheap by comparison. For larger apartment systems, it’s usually a central boiler that heats dozens of units. It’s difficult and certainly not cheaper to cool the same amount of space.
Electricity being included is usually for smaller rentals, like rental homes or multi-rental properties, which haven’t been outfitted with the required energy meters to individually separate electricity per rental, so, because doing that would require rewiring the property and adding several new service panels/electrical meters, which would easily be thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more), most smaller landlords just don’t bother. Since they can’t differentiate power usage between tenants, they just charge a bit more and include it in the rent.
That was my situation.
I moved to a larger apartment building, that was built from the ground up to be exactly that, and each unit had its own power meter and service panel. I paid my own electricity there. Heat was brought in from a boiler, but air conditioning was up to the renter. No HVAC system was built into the unit. Newer apartment builds and especially condos here can have air handlers installed per unit (though, not always), which may or may not have AC.
It’s very hit and miss, but the vast majority of portable AC sales is to renters, since they don’t have another option if they want to stay cool.
Presently, I live in a house (we’re not renting it), and this house has central AC. I’m planning to move to a heat pump eventually, and hopefully also install solar to offset electricity costs around the same time; probably in a few years when the roofing needs to be redone. Once the roofing is done, install solar, and then, hopefully in the same project, upgrade the forced air furnace to a heat pump system. Right now it’s natural gas. I’m not keen on that.
Wait, you only have to give a reference for a place to rent? Here in Ireland (Dublin) you need a scan of your passport, government id, work reference, housing reference, and at least bank statements from the last three months.
Depends on the market. Like New York City is competitive, I think they demand references because they have plenty of options for tenants. Other places maybe not so much. Whatever people can get away with they will do.
What the actual fuck? You renting a basement apartment or applying for a mortgage?
It’s basically the same process. The ideal tenant is someone that can’t afford a mortgage by the slimmest of margins.
Hang the land
lordsleeches.
Room or studio apartment.
https://www.daft.ie/for-rent/studio-apartment-1-dublin-20-dublin-20/5704336
“Verifiable reference’s essential Verifiable affordability essential”
The passport, government id, and work reference are all to make sure you can “afford” to live there.
I’m going through the process right now in Kansas City Missouri and it seems like it varies from place to place. Leasing agencies seem to be the worst. One of these required everything you mention above except the passport scan, and it was 1.5 months of paycheck stubs from your employer.
Catch 22 for everyone trying to move out of their parent’s home when they specifically state the references can’t be family.
lie through your teeth, the landlord won’t hesitate to blatantly lie so neither should you.
oh no no mr landlord sir, this isn’t my dad, this is my “previous landlord”!
just ask a friend and lie
Some landlords will give good recommendations for shitty tenants, just so they can get rid of them.
One guy I bothered every day about his other tenant stomping across my ceiling. That landlord gave me a fantastic recommendation because he was tired of having to do any effort whatsoever instead of just receiving money for doing nothing.
I saw that tenant as I was moving out, “I don’t understand the problem, I always wore my indoor boots?” Fuck apartments lol.
Carpets help
Can confirm, had a friend rent a room in a house I was staying in (privately rented from the owner) after months of issues, he was given a glowing referee from myself and the owner, and swiftly ejected from the house. Guarantee it got him out the door a shitload quicker.
Life hack: lie, steal and manipulate. Or be a honest homeless person. It’s definitely not going to bother me.
J Roc says Photoshop your pay stubs and get a friend to give you references
Just stay at a Holiday Inn Express and bypass the whole system.
It is an asymmetric relationship. The landlord only cares if a tenant can be trusted to pay rent and not trash the place. On the other hand, the tenant is getting a service (shelter and upkeep) from the landlord.
Like other service providers, an aggregate rating is probably more appropriate. Some people are fine as long as they have a roof and indoor plumbing while others rate 1-star if the water takes a minute to warm up. Some tenants care about kitchen appliances while others care about an updated bathroom. Some like to be woken up by the first rays of sun while others want a dark room to sleep in. It is important for tenants to both get a good aggregate of a landlord’s quality but also understand if the landlord’s faults are ones that they care about.
Being a landlord is morally wrong. Shelter is a human right, not a service. The service that they provide is not calling the cops to evict you so long as you pay them. They don’t otherwise provide you with anything.
So, grocery stores are morally wrong? I mean, food is a human right, isn’t it? What about hotels?
Providing a necessary service in exchange for money isn’t morally wrong.
Not everyone wants to own property. It’s a huge financial liability, and a pain in the ass, tbh. I actually know people who sold their homes and moved into apartments because they were sick of the time and money required to upkeep a house.
While there are absolutely landlords who are immoral, especially corporate landlords, saying that being a landlord is inherently immoral is just incorrect.
I do agree that grocery stores are morally wrong in some sense yes. People should not have to lend their bodies in order to eat. Hotels aren’t morally wrong entirely, because they’re only providing a place to stay temporarily. If they did provide long term stay and charged for it than yes that would be morally wrong. You’ll note that I’m an anarchist.
There is no such thing as a moral landlord. And the people you’re talking about downsized. The landlord does not do repairs, he hires handyman and trades workers to do repairs. The landlord collects a tax from you while giving you nothing in return. My rent is twice the monthly cost of a mortgage for a mini home in my area.
When you have a mortgage the money isn’t gone when you spend it, it’s used to pay off your loan. When you’re done you own the property.
I will never own this property. None of my money is returned to me. It is taken by a person or entity who literally does not provide me anything.
I’ll repeat, providing shelter isn’t a service. What the landlord is providing you, is not evicting you so long as you provide them a taxation of your wages that goes straight into their pocket. If all landlords died overnight nothing would materially change except for all the people renting could now keep their wages, and hire the handyman to do the work themselves. Housing co-ops also cover the costs of upkeep by pooling money to spend. No, landlords are 100% immoral 100% of the time and your buddy who’s a good guy and a landlord might be a good guy but it has nothing to do with his being a landlord. Some cops save dying animals and volunteer at soup kitchens I’m sure, they’re all still bastards by participating in a system of militarized state violence.
For the record, I think most people confused about your position do not believe the basic principles your stance is based on, such as profit = wage theft. Would you say so, or am I putting words into your mouth?
You must know nothing about owning a home if you think rent just goes straight into a landlord’s pocket.
Also, dealing with contractors is a service that’s being provided. Having to hire a contractor is often a pain in the ass.
Having both rented and owned, renting is much less stressful. You apparently don’t see any value in not having to worry about maintenance, taxes, massive debt, liability, insurance, etc. which is fine, but that doesn’t mean paying for it is a scam.
My rent is 50% of my income I will never get back.
No, renting is literally incomparably more stressful than owning a home would be where I could sell it at any time and get a portion of my invested income back.
If I could opt out of my landlord calling the plumber when I need one, I sure as fuck would if it meant I could keep my money. No, my rent goes straight into his pocket every month and a fraction of a fraction ever comes out to cover upkeep. I’d happily opt out and pay it myself.
You sound like you’re probably decently middle class. Which is fine and I’m not saying that you have no experience being a lower class renter. But you probably are not familiar with the same financial pressures we live under today.
Landlords should not exist. Nothing would be lost if we converted every apartment building into a co-op. We would all have much more disposable income and much more control over where we lived.
You must know nothing about owning a home if you think rent just goes straight into a landlord’s pocket.
Is the landlord making a profit? That comes from rent going into their pockets.
that doesn’t mean paying for it is a scam.
Choosing to pay for it, sure. Most renters would rather own but can’t because landlords have bought up a limited supply of a resource in order to profit off it. When scalpers do that they get vilified, but do that with something necessary for survival and for some reason it becomes an investment?
“People with more money than sense would rather pay someone else to do it” is not a good argument for forcing everyone else to also pay someone else to do it.
I agree with you by principle but there are those who have no interest in ever having a house of their own, either by personal or professional reasons.
Maintaining a house entails expenses, from current maintenance, to taxes and the eventual full overhaul because someone decided to trash the place.
I don’t want to see people exploited to have a roof over their head and I’m a hairs width away from starting to actively trolling stupid people that think their busted places are gold plated to ask fortunes. But I don’t want to see people be deprived of what is theirs and/or see it trashed by others that consider because they are there just for a limited time frame any concern for consequences is out the window.
Where are you writing from? Tenants have pretty strong protections where I live and an eviction is not a trivial matter here. And if people actually knew how to read, the law is pretty explicit on what is licit, both for tenants and owners (the word “landlord” sounds too much like feudalism to me to use it). Rent prices are high here but a poorly kept place can backfire so badly to the owners that they can see the rent not being paid in place of having work done on the house by the tenants.
I agree with you by principle but there are those who have no interest in ever having a house of their own, either by personal or professional reasons.
A landlord-tenant relationship isn’t the only way to solve this, though. A more humane way would be housing coops.
Maintaining a house entails expenses, from current maintenance, to taxes and the eventual full overhaul because someone decided to trash the place.
The primary purpose of rent isn’t maintenance, though; it’s profit. The concept of making profit by mere ownership is even called “rent-seeking”.
But I don’t want to see people be deprived of what is theirs
Well, I’m deprived of 30% of my wages. Why does my landlord need two houses, anyway?
And if people actually knew how to read, the law is pretty explicit on what is licit, both for tenants and owners
Wow, what a classist statement. Not everyone has the time/ability/resources to take advantage of laws protecting the tenants (guess who usually has more resources for lawyers; it’s the one with more capital).
Also, you ignore the inherent power dynamics. My current landlord demands more rent than what is actually legal where I live. I didn’t bring it up, because if I did, I would have risked having to look for a different appartment.
the word “landlord” sounds too much like feudalism to me to use it
It fits the congept of a feudal society quite nicely, though.
I wonder how much of the concept of tenants “trashing” the place is actually occuring. It seems to me like the occurence is highly exaggerated.
the fact that most of the rent goes to pure landlord profit becomes obvious with municipal housing here in sweden, where we basically only pay for maintenance.
suddenly the rent is so cheap that the americans i’ve told it to just wanted to cry, 400€/month for a small apartment that’s plenty big enough for a single person, and full on family apartments can be had for as low as 600€/month if you look around for a while.
I have municipal housing in my town. Rent is, at most, 15€. That is affordable even for the poorest of the poor.
You’re awfully lucky then. That’s a form of socialism, assuming that your government is intervening and ensuring affordable rent even for homeless and those on assistance. And what are the quality of those rentals? Have you lived in one personally?
Lived, no. Went there a few times and have coworkers that grew up there and their parents still live there.
The housing was purpose built to house a wave of immigrants that returned to the country in the 70’s. It was built with money from a state-funded development initiative to foment building of new houses in the very early 80’s, by the municipality, and was overhauled to add external insulation and improved windows somewhere between two or three years ago.
The rents are reviewed yearly by the city hall. On average, rents are around €10. Central government does not interfere.
But homeless people can’t be forced to live there. We have had cases in our country where homeless people were housed and simply left some time after. Where I live, to my knowledge, there has been no such cases.
We also have a program - nation wide in this case - where extremely vulnerable people can resort to our Social Security to get aid in finding housing. I know a few cases of single mothers, elderly and even entire families being housed, with the rent being assured by social services, either by directly sourcing a house and paying the rent or providing the monetary support for the people to find one by themselves.
Lately, these programs have even started to relocate these cases inside the country to move population from high density urbam areas, more problematic usually, to low density areas. This creates a flow of people and money to less populated areas.
The reason we don’t have federally funded municipal housing in the US is that the Clinton Administration capped the number of units the federal government is allowed to fund
A landlord-tenant relationship isn’t the only way to solve this, though. A more humane way would be housing coops.
Co-ops? How do those work? I’ve known co-ops for building purposes, not for renting.
The primary purpose of rent isn’t maintenance, though; it’s profit. The concept of making profit by mere ownership is even called “rent-seeking”.
Wasn’t aware such concept existed.
Well, I’m deprived of 30% of my wages. Why does my landlord need two houses, anyway?
I’m deprived of my income through various means as well and don’t like it but I have to trade my money for other things I require to live. Hopefully, we can shed this system but I risk with a good amount of certainty I won’t be alive to see it.
Why can’t you own more than one house? Let’s state, for the purpose of the argument, you inherit a house. You already have one. Do you sell the other? For what reason? And for what price?
Wow, what a classist statement.
This is a self appointed criticism. I had to read the law to explain it to others and it is not hard to understand.
Not everyone has the time/ability/resources to take advantage of laws protecting the tenants (guess who usually has more resources for lawyers; it’s the one with more capital).
Again, I speak based on my reality; this applies to my country. A quick search on the internet gave me pointers to which articles to read and then it was just a question of time (think of two bathroom breaks for a relaxing #2) to read and relate law with specific questions.
Also, you ignore the inherent power dynamics. My current landlord demands more rent than what is actually legal where I live. I didn’t bring it up, because if I did, I would have risked having to look for a different appartment.
There are no legal limits in my country; if one part asks and the other accepts, it’s legitimate. What exists is the notion of fair rental values, which are established by the government.
It fits the congept of a feudal society quite nicely, though.
Does not imply I have to like and abide the use of the word.
I wonder how much of the concept of tenants “trashing” the place is actually occuring. It seems to me like the occurence is highly exaggerated.
It’s a hard thing to gauge. I’ve seen my share of houses completely destroyed by occupants: destroyed kitchens, bathrooms, walls covered in filth, tobbacco smoke and whatever it may have been, besides other damage.
On one, I helped the person move out and I was horrified. On others, I helped cleaning.
How do those work?
https://www.wohnungsbaugenossenschaften.de/genossenschaften/how-cooperatives-work
I’m deprived of my income through various means as well and don’t like it but I have to trade my money for other things I require to live.
I’m against wage slavery in any form.
Hopefully, we can shed this system but I risk with a good amount of certainty I won’t be alive to see it.
Just because you’re pessimistic, doesn’t mean we should stop criticising currently occurring injustice.
Why can’t you own more than one house? Let’s state, for the purpose of the argument, you inherit a house. You already have one. Do you sell the other? For what reason? And for what price?
Because I don’t need more than one house for shelter. The other house could enter a usufruct property relation with the community. The accumulation of generational capital is one of the main drivers of economic injustice in the world.
This is a self appointed criticism. I had to read the law to explain it to others and it is not hard to understand.
Let’s ignore the fact that you can’t make that statement for every juristiction and that not every country has as good tenant protections as yours. Doubling down on the classism, are we? The whole power imbalance is unjust (the whole “justice” system is).
You also didn’t understand what I meant with power imbalance.
Does not imply I have to like and abide the use of the word.
Then you have a problem with accurate descriptions. That’s your problem, though.
It’s a hard thing to gauge. I’ve seen my share of houses completely destroyed by occupants: destroyed kitchens, bathrooms, walls covered in filth, tobbacco smoke and whatever it may have been, besides other damage.
Yeah, sure. I’m guessing: selection bias.
Edit: you weren’t aware that landlords seek profits? O.o
I’m against wage slavery in any form.
I work for a salary, like anyone else. The same way I like to earn my money, others do as well. Do I earn enough to live? Yes. Could I earn more? Yes. Are salaries too low for a decent living? Most. But that sentence as been reduced to a non sequitur and I won’t engage it beyond this.
Just because you’re pessimistic, doesn’t mean we should stop criticising currently occurring injustice.
Allow me my pragmatism; a deep systemic change to completely upturn the current operating societal norms would only be achieveable through a massive uprising, which would probably lead to serious conflict. I prefer to never see it but make my best efforts to foment change for others to enjoy it.
Because I don’t need more than one house for shelter. The other house could enter a usufruct property relation with the community. The accumulation of generational capital is one of the main drivers of economic injustice in the world.
I’m starting to get a sinking feeling. You have two houses. You decide to start a family. You have a child, maybe two. Each child gets one. Where is the generational wealth? At best, you give the next generation an easier entry into adulthood. Is that wrong?
Let’s ignore the fact that you can’t make that statement for every juristiction and that not every country has as good tenant protections as yours. Doubling down on the classism, are we? The whole power imbalance is unjust (the whole “justice” system is).
I am pretty confident I was speaking from my own experience, which implies it may or may not be transferable.
Then you have a problem with accurate descriptions. That’s your problem, though.
Which you seem to be giving more value than it is worth.
Yeah, sure. I’m guessing: selection bias.
What do you need to know? That I worked with a moving company and was inside dozens of houses, in order to make my statement more “valid”? Or that family of mine worked as house cleaners and the things they saw should never be writen?
Try reading Wealth of Nations, and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, both written by the “Father of Capitalism,” Adam Smith. Those are where the concept of rent-seeking comes from.
Once you are thoroughly enraged by the fact that we were never supposed to get this far into crony capitalism, then you’ll be prepared to read Karl Marx and Trotsky.
I’m already left leaning. You don’t need to preach to the choir.
Knowing more of the theory is good so that you have the arguments you need to convince the centerists in your life
Oh my sweet summer child.
We’d all love to live in a socialist utopia where a house to live in is the right of all citizens, but sadly that’s just not a reality here on planet earth.
“Shelter” may be a right, as in if you’re destitute you’ll get food and something to keep the rain off, but a nice house to live in is not a right.
Ultimately landlords are providing capital, which you need to pay for a nice house. Providing said capital is not in itself immoral.
I wonder why so many people dismiss a better world as imaginary, when the thing that prevents such a world is, in fact, imaginary. We made up money. It is fake, imaginary, not fucking real. I can prove it too. You go into nature, and find me money. You can’t. You can find currency, but not money. No animals have a damn mint. We made that shit up, and we can collectively decide that it doesn’t matter.
Grow up and stop believing in the money fairy
What a silly thing to say.
Try telling someone who is destitute that money is imaginary and see how they react.
Even if we could collectively decide that it doesn’t matter youre still going to need some between now and then.
Can you explain your last sentence? I don’t see how landlords are providing capital, at all. If anything, landlords are depriving you of capital, and using your money (rent) to gradually gain capital (increase in ownership of property, through mortgage payment) for themselves.
But maybe I’m misreading you somehow.
Because if you had the capital to buy a house, you would. A landlord has the capital to purchase the house and rent it to you under more favorable terms. I.e., not putting ~20% down and committing to a 15-30 year loan.
What is the alternative (besides a utopian society where everyone is provided housing for free or near-free)?
Sorry, I know you’re not the original poster, but that doesn’t actually answer my question. The question is “what capital does a landlord provide?” and the answer is, none, because when we talk about capital in this context, we’re talking ownership of money or assets.
The landlord does not provide either of these things, and in fact only takes them in order to increase their own personal wealth.
The question is “what capital does a landlord provide?”
The capital needed to buy the house which the renter either doesn’t have, or doesn’t want to spend.
and the answer is, none, because when we talk about capital in this context, we’re talking ownership of money or assets
I’m not even sure what you mean by this? The capital the landlord provides IS the money to buy the house and the asset (the house).
Just because the landlord makes money off the transaction? It’s a transaction. The landlord is providing the risk of using their capital to purchase the home and the renter gains the ability to live there without having to extend their own capital to purchase the house (for whatever reason, maybe they don’t have it, maybe they don’t plan to live their long, maybe they are adverse to owning property, there’s lots of reasons).
Why is it OK for any other business to make a profit from their risk and service they provide, but it’s not OK for a landlord? The landlord is providing a service just like any other business.
I get the argument against large corporations buying mass amounts of land and driving up housing prices locking homeowners out of the ability to purchase land, but what is wrong with, if for example I have extra cash, am able to buy a home and rent it to someone who can’t purchase a house for whatever reason?
Capital, as in ownership of money or assets that combine to a persons overall wealth – A landlord does not provide this, and only takes it from the renter in order to increase their own capital. You can make an argument that a landlord provides a service, sure, but not that they provide capital, because they really don’t. Maybe you mean they provide a means for a renter to accrue capital? Even then, that’s shoddy, because you have to drill down to owners who actually care about their tenants vs those who charge as much as the market allows.
You can bring up risk, and sure, the landlord incurs risk. That risk is losing their property and becoming a renter. The “service” they provide is entirely dependent on their ownership of property, and I don’t have much sympathy for a person who uses their ownership of property to exploit another person’s need for shelter in the name of accruing more capital.
Those are kinda my quick thoughts, and I’m not totally prepared to defend the absolute shit out of them. My initial point was that landlords do not provide capital, and I stick by that.
To be clear, I don’t think being a landlord automatically makes you a bad person, considering the economic system we live in. But I also don’t think landlords provide a good, generally, to society. I don’t think we need landlords, and I don’t think they become landlords out of the kindness of their hearts, or that they wish to provide a home for someone. They just own more, and as such they can use that ownership to further increase their ownership. I don’t think your example about you with extra cash is wrong in the context of the society we live in – hell, I’m pretty much in that exact situation with my roommate, with whom I was renting before I bought a house. Sure, you could say I’m doing him a favor by letting him live in my house for a low cost, but mostly I am the one accruing capital at his expense. It doesn’t make me a saint for doing that, it makes me greedy that I’m charging anything at all. That’s part of the disgust I personally have for this system, is that we are all compelled to own more more more more. It’s really not work hard and you’ll succeed. It’s own hard.
Landlord lets tenant use their capital in exchange for rent.
That totally clarifies it, thank you. I was confused. Still, that does not increase the renter’s capital, and puts them at a disadvantage, because as they lose capital, the landlord gains equity. That’s where we were disconnected, but I see now how you were using the term.
The alternative of everyone living in communist bloc apartments built by the lowest bidder sounds so good.
Same with getting a job.
I was thinking the same. Let me interview non-management members of the team to see what working there is really like.
Oh no it’s worse than that. I have mandatory binding arbitration so I don’t really have rights. Mind you that’s after the application fees and paying for my own background check, commonly used to strong-arm you into accepting horrible terms.
It’s that or be homeless.
naybe its time to buy abandoned malls and convert them to dormitories with shared kitchens
You know, malls were initially envisioned as fully indoor planned communities. It didn’t survive long, but it was a way better concept
https://www.shitrentals.org/review/review-a-shit-rental
Check this out. Power to the people.
Cool idea, if you’re in Australia or New Zealand go complain about your shit landlord!
The gallows and guillotine have a nice easy solution for all that bullshit.
I think you’re on to something…
How is this weird, whoever has the power in a transaction is able to make their demands. Goes for anything that involves an exchange. Labour, housing, goods. This isn’t insightful.
It’s sarcasm.
I don’t think that really addresses the comment you’re responding to
The post is with a sarcastic tone. It is not actually saying that this is surprising or weird.
Yes, and I guess I took the post you responded to be aware of that, whilst expressing frustration with the initial post regardless - presumably because it phrased this as an action of class warfare rather than a feature common to all value-for-money exchanges where demand exceeds supply…
I’d say having the supply when demand exceeds supply in value-for-money exchanges implies a class hierarchy in and of itself.
Nah, don’t think that’s class in general tbh, but in the context of land ownership there is a pretty strong history of association between the two
ALL
LEMONS
ARE
TASTY
True, but you can also ask for the number of the previous tenant?
