this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
171 points (83.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43989 readers
788 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man there's so much indiscriminate hate in here. I rent out an apartment to some tenants, and I rent myself, elsewhere. So I'm both a landlord and a tenant.
The rent I receive doesn't even cover the cost of the apartment. I'm losing money on it every year. So I'm subsidising someone's housing.
So why all the hate?
I like moving around so I'm not going sell and buy every couple of years.
What's causing you to lose money on your apartment?
I have to pay interest on the loan, and lots of other owning costs, that are greater then the rent I receive.
The third statement might be true, but it does not follow from the first two. Are the two houses of equal size? Are they in equally desirable locations? Also, is the market price of the house you are renting out increasing? You need to account for these.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I meant the rent I receive from my tenant doesn't cover the interest on the loan for that place. I don't own the apartment outright. I have a mortgage with a bank. That bank charges me interest on the loan. There are also other costs of owning.
Ah okay.
Because landlording, as a practice, is a fundamental flaw in the system we live in.
That doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it makes you a part of a bad system.
To some degree, we're all part of a bad system. Every time we buy a latte, or a smartphone, we're participating in a broken system that causes unimaginable harm. Half the shit you own was probably made with slave labour.
That's what "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" means. It's not saying "don't consume", it's saying the idea of living a morally pure life in a morally defunct system is impossible.
We don't yet know what a future post-capitalist housing system will look like. Maybe your particular scenario is one that will eventually be seen as perfectly acceptable.
For now, if you feel what you're doing is completely justified then you can simply assume that the hate isn't directed at you. You don't have to jump in and justify yourself at every turn. That's no different than being the guy who has to yell "I'm not like that" every time a woman talks about how shitty her interactions with men are.
And even if what you're doing isn't a moral good in the world, it may simply be that it's the best you can do in a bad system. We're all just trying to survive, and capitalism demands that we be morally impure in order to live, because there are no morally pure ways left to live. Again, you don't need to justify that. We're trying to fix a broken system. No one here called you out personally by name.
It's indiscriminate hate without proposing a better system. It's just lazy. It's not that I feel personally attacked. It's that I think the criticism is lazy and I'm using my situation to demonstrate my point.
Just because you can find one example of a good use of a bad system, doesn't make it a good system. That's like saying that monarchy was good actually because you can name some good kings.
Can you suggest a better system?
First off, let's assess the purpose of this question. If you're implying that an argument against a system is invalid without a fully thought out proposal to replace it, you're engaging in pointless sophistry. If someone says "I think my leg is broken" you don't ask them to tell you exactly how they think it should be fixed before you believe them. We don't have to know the solution in order to realise we have a problem.
With that caveat out of the way, I'm personally a big advocate for getting private capital out of rental markets. I know a lot of people just want to eliminate renting altogether, but I agree that this is short sighted. It either relies on the idea that everyone owns their home, which isn't always practical, or that people simply have homes provided at no cost, which opens up its own complications. Basically, while I am in favour of the total destruction of capitalism, I don't think that has to mean getting rid of money. Money is a very useful way of tokenising resources so that they can easily be exchanged. This allows for more efficient distribution of the correct resources to the people who most need them.
What I want to see is rentals at a price that everyone can afford l. Obviously, in an ideal scenario this would be paired with UBI to ensure that no one ever goes unhoused, but we'll focus on the housing side for now.
If given total power over my country's political system, I would look to implement a scheme that would ultimately result in rentals being handled only by Crown corporations (not-for-profit entities operating at arm's length from the government) created with a mandate to provide affordable rental properties. These corporations would invest building and buying housing in their area in order to fulfill this mandate. They would also be required to offer rent to own schemes. Rental rates would be set by a formula that would account for factors affecting the desirability of a property such as location, square footage and amenities. Conflicts would be solved by waiting lists.
Private rentals would be outlawed (with possible carve-outs for situations like a property owner who is temporarily away from their primary residence - even in these situations, the rental would be handled by the Crown corp with the collected rents passing to the property owner, minus a handling fee). Most likely this scheme would be phased in over time, allowing investment property owners to sell off their properties to the Crown corps. Investors would take a hit on this, but any economic downsides will be more than offset by the upside of the vast majority of the populace becoming, in effect, significantly wealthier (in GDP terms the economy would certainly shrink, but GDP is a terrible measure of economic health).
Unfortunately necessary disclaimer: This is the rough outline of a proposal. Were I actually in a position to implement it, a LOT of details would be worked out in committee, with advice from respected experts. This disclaimer shall be henceforth known as "The Sign". Do not make me tap "The Sign."
Thanks for your detailed reply. I mostly agree with you.
Would rents increase if an area becomes more desirable? For example if I rent a house on a large block of land and the population grows significantly and we now need higher density, would I be encouraged or forced to move? That seems to be a problem where I live. When we had a smaller population, big blocks were fine. Now we need higher density but people don't want to move and don't want apartment buildings near them.
To be decided by committee. We'd have to study both options and examine the potential negative and positive impacts.
In general the goal of the rent formula would be to keep average rents at a low percentage of average incomes. That means a typical two person apartment should clock in at, say for arguments sake, around 20% of monthly minimum wage. So even if there was some flex in rental prices, it should basically be impossible for anyone to struggle to make rent.
That said, I think it would definitely be important to ensure that an increase in desirability in an area doesn't end up punishing the existing inhabitants. That way lies gentrification. This would tend to argue against factoring in desirability. A waiting list system will naturally push people away from areas that are highly desirable, since no one will want to wait that long for somewhere to live. I suspect that alone would be a sufficient solution, but again, I'd like to see it studied.
Obviously, there are problems this can't solve, but they need their own solutions. More walkable neighbourhoods, better public transit, these are the kind of factors that would help reduce housing pressure on specific areas by making everywhere more desirable to live. Same goes for ensuring fair distribution of resources to schools and other public amenities, and so on.
Also I think things can only be bad in comparison to something "good". In your broken leg example, we know what an unbroken leg is, so that's obviously the desired state. With the landlord criticism, there's no obvious desired state.
I'd argue that the obvious desired state is simple; people should not struggle to afford housing. Every other consideration is secondary to that. The question is just how to get there.