• Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 days ago

    We don’t have an instance stance on landlord apologia, but maybe we should make one, based on the number of people from other instances defending these mooching rent-seeking parasites.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 days ago

      i hope you do; seeing it is a depressing reminder of how much americans think that exploitation like this is okay and even more depressing to see people exploited like this want to perpetuate it.

  • wheezy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 days ago

    Landlord said to me “property tax has gone up. This is my only form of income. Will need to increase rent”

    Told him “yeah, everything has gone up and my paycheck is still the same”.

    Like, these types of relationships are so parasitic. This is the “nice” mom and pop style landlord too that every liberal seems to want to give a pass too.

    Sure, are they less bad than the big corporate faceless landlords? Yes. But the entire relationship is the problem.

    They get to justify forcing me out of my home because the value of the house that they own WENT UP.

    That’s why their property tax is more. They literally own something that is more valuable and making it further impossible for me to ever buy a place of my own.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      4 days ago

      If that’s their whole retirement investment (as they said it’s their only income, no idea about us retirement details) if they don’t increase your rent, their net income will GO DOWN. Prices of everything also went up for them, if you think it’s hard with constant income, imagine with declining income.

      The value of their house going up is useless to pay for bread.

      You should get a bigger paycheck, average wage growth is around 5% in the US, higher than inflation even.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 days ago

        Sounds like they should get an actual job, rather than expecting someone else to pay for their retirement; someone who probably won’t get to retire themselves

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          4 days ago

          If it’s their only income source I assume they are retired. If they aren’t, you are absolutely right.

          • IttihadChe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            4 days ago

            Why do we have to sacrifice our future ability to retire and own a house because they bought all the houses and retired first?

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              4 days ago

              How are the two related? It’s not a zero sum game, there’s new houses being built all the time.

              • dastanktal@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                4 days ago

                There are studies recently released that show that the people who are buying houses 20 years ago are the same people buying houses today. It is a zero-sum game because nobody else is able to buy a house, especially not if they’re younger.

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      My parents own multiple rental properties and completely straight face told me it’s a charity cause they rent to people who can’t afford homes.

      Meanwhile I’m engaging with my mutual aid group every week handing out about 400 meals, and survival gear for people who can’t afford anything.

      Glad their fucking charity has turned enough profit to pay off the rentals, their main home, and their vacation spot though. /s

    • Commiunism@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      They kinda are necessary, given how they’re the byproduct of capitalism’s private property model and its commodification.

      You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that’s overly idealistic given how that’d go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.

      In other words, they’re necessary not because they’re useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.

  • godlessworm [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    5 days ago

    lazy moocher doesnt even begin to describe what this class of parasitic pieces of dog shit are. there are no words to even describe them. they’re a cancer, a plague, they need to be eradicated.

    i can not imagine thinking in my brain that i should just get a free house that someone else has to pay for by getting a real job just because i was able to secure a loan and they werent

    • tankfox@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      so if nobody will rent to you because renting is evil and you STILL can’t get a loan, where do you live? I think you kind of glossed straight over the unable to get a loan part which is going to poke them either way. Free house doesn’t exist.

        • tankfox@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          If you can’t get a loan to buy a house, what makes you think that will change if there are no rooms for rent?

          For real though not understanding how loans work at all is on brand for you guys, If you want to go back to the days when everyone could own a house why don’t you go attack the zoning laws that make houses so expensive and survivable, then we can go back to shanty towns that burn thousands and crawl with disease but hey everyone can own their own no loan hovel right?

          • godlessworm [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            dude you are literally arguing against a point nobody made because you’re too stupid to follow anything and now you’re crashing out to defend landlords

            lmfaoo. rofl.

            • tankfox@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              I’m literally arguing a point that someone made, then the comment was deleted. I think you’re projecting an inability to follow things onto me when really it’s a struggle that you’re coping with yourself.

              Reflexively hating all landlords is a symptom of not understanding how things work and, probably more importantly, a burning desire not to understand a goddamn thing.

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 days ago

    Dostoyevsky crime and punishment! Kills the landlord. Blind boy podcast on private equity becoming a massive corporate landlord? End it.

    Mao? Let’s actually be serious

  • TheCompliantCitizen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    4 days ago

    Owning 1 extra property and renting: Okay

    Owning apartment complex and renting: Okay

    Owing millions of single family homes and duplexes and rent hiking/price hiking the entire market: not okay

    • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Owning 1 slave: Okay

      Owning a dozen slaves: Okay

      Owning hundreds of slaves: not okay.

      /s obviously

      /uj

      Of course slavery and landlordism aren’t identical in every respect, but they both are based on a parasite class doing no work, and extracting labor value from people who do. Large-scale vs small-scale doesn’t make landlording any more ethical.