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?

  • howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Right, so that makes sense then. We don’t need an exchange of physical goods to make a fair exchange because labour and expertise has value. And ownership is not a service that merits payment. We agree on both of these points.

    Renting out a home doesn’t have to involve any work on the part of the owner, but it can. Think of all the work you need to do as a home owner and that you wouldn’t need to do when renting. These are the services you get.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      Think of all the work you need to do as a home owner and that you wouldn’t need to do when renting. These are the services you get.

      Then a landlord can invoice me if/when that work is done. Work like that isn’t done every month though.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        The fact that many of these expenses don’t occur monthly is precisely why most people prefer having them split up and paid over time instead of being billed at the time of the work. It makes for much more predictable expenses, and we like predictability.

        Imagine being the tenant that moves in just as the roof needs replacing and getting hit with a bill in the tens of thousands for a roof that you’re only going to be using for a year or two.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Then landlords should send me an itemized invoice that details each of the expenses incurred while I’ve been a tenant, a breakdown detailing how any rent payments cover the cost of those expenses, and a payment plan that we can negotiate to ensure both parties are getting fair deals.

          Or they should give me equity in the property based on how much I pay in rent.

          But they shouldn’t simply charge an amount based on nothing other than “the market”. That number never equates to the amount of work they put in, and makes them parasitic.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            We already agreed that market rate is too high. What I’m trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent. It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn’t zero, right? How to ensure that the deal is fair is a whole other matter. The point is that such a deal exists.

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              What I’m trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent.

              And I’ve already told you I don’t agree. Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

              • howrar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                I wouldn’t be trying to convince you of it if you agreed, would I?

                What’s this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

                • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Landlords don’t do that. Until they do, they’re parasites.

                  Also, I can’t tell if you’ve realized by now, but everything I’ve been describing as ways to make landlording “fair” is just a roundabout description of ownership.

                  • howrar@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 days ago

                    We’re not talking about what they currently do though. The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic. Where the threshold lies between parasitic and non-parasitic.

                    So far, I understand that you’re convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don’t understand is why*. We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

                    * Mainly to understand how a system with such a rule can make sense.