Just a reminder, they’re just better at being landlords. All landlords, every single one, is responsible for this, they were just too inefficient to raise rents this high this fast before becoming conglomerates.
Just a reminder, they’re just better at being landlords.
Having more capital to invest in numerous properties that can be listed at whatever price they want, with the ability to leave them empty if no one is willing to rent them, is not “better at being a landlord”.
It quite literally is. That’s the purpose of being a landlord, exclusively, is to lord over land and expand your domain with the profits.
All landlords are leeches, all landlords would rather leave homes empty than rent them as long as the line goes up, all landlords exist still lely to make money from having money.
It quite literally is. That’s the purpose of being a landlord, exclusively, is to lord over land and expand your domain with the profits.
All landlords are leeches, all landlords would rather leave homes empty than rent them as long as the line goes up, all landlords exist still lely to make money from having money.
You should work on the binary thinking pattern displayed here because “quite literally” one does not need to invest in numerous properties to be a landlord, and not all landlords are mega corporations looking to sheer every sheep they can see.
All landlords are rich people that hoard land and then, if they’re inefficient, hold it hostage in exchange for many times its worth.
It is literally the explicit purpose. And yes, some landlords own inns, that they rent to inn keepers and proprietors that then sublet. They do not run the inns if theyre landlords.
All landlords are rich people that hoard land and then, if they’re inefficient, hold it hostage in exchange for many times its worth.
I have family who own property with additional housing on it that they rent well below cost to students attending the local University.
Your argument of “all landlords” now fails with one example which is why I said “You should work on the binary thinking pattern displayed here”.
It is literally the explicit purpose. And yes, some landlords own inns, that they rent to inn keepers and proprietors that then sublet. They do not run the inns if theyre landlords.
No, it literally isn’t.
No, by definition an “Innkeeper” is a “landlord” as they own/maintain/rent the Inn in question. You are confusing an Innkeeper with a Groundskeeper, or “employee”, when they are not the same.
I think this is such a dangerous misunderstanding, that abets financialization establishing itself in more Canadian industries, increasing the cost of living and wealth inequality. Your argument - explained analogically in a simpler context - is basically that the best boss and the most exploitative boss are essentially the same, from a worker’s perspective, except the most exploitative boss should be regarded as better at their job. Unless you’re in the oligarch class, why would you think this way?
This is the opposite of what OP meant. The most exploitative boss is regarded as the best boss by their boss, whose opinion is the only one that matters under capitalism. Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth creation, and landlords have innovated and streamlined the process in order to squeeze their more ethical competition out of business.
Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth creation, and landlords have innovated and streamlined the process in order to squeeze their more ethical competition out of business.
Thank you for providing the 1% to .0000001% perspective. We should never lose sight of worshiping that. How silly of me to centre the perspective of the 99% on a grassroots non-corporate social media platform /s
Right. Some bosses are good and decent people. Some people don’t want to run their own business. Some bosses are evil incarnate.
Let’s say someone has to work somewhere for a few months or so, or go to school somewhere, or whatever other reason people may have to be somewhere temporarily.
I’m obviously not going to purchase a home.
Landlords and rentals do have a needed space in society.
It’s those who exploit and who concentrate and consolidate their powers and properties at the expense of everything other than profit that are the problem.
That could be a single person with 1 or 30 properties or a corporate parasite with thousands of units.
It’s those who exploit and who concentrate and consolidate their powers and properties at the expense of everything other than profit that are the problem.
Yes.
That could be a single person with 1 or 30 properties or a corporate parasite with thousands of units.
No. A single person with one property or any entity with 30 properties, never mind 3000, tend to exploit on my different scales.
Being a landlord does not inherently make one a leech (in a discussion with any nuance). And when you have millions of dollars to put towards gaming the system to extract as much money as possible out of tenants every year, lobby regulators, divert properties from live-in to short-term accommodation to increase demand, etc., you can be a leech on a much, much larger scale. You can screw over not just individual renters, but entire populations of people seeking apartments. Not all landlords are the same ffs. Also “better at leeching than others”?! You make it sound like you admire leeching
When your rental is owned by an individual with a second property versus when your rental is owned by a multinational company and is part of investment vehicle that pays (untaxed)* dividends to investors and has mandates to extract as much money out of you is very different things. *The people benefiting from rental properties being an investment vehicle (REITs) also want to keep this untaxed income (for being societal parasites) untaxed and thus perpetuate the housing affordability crisis for profit
You have to remember, when capitalists discuss “efficiency”, what they actually mean is the efficiency with which they capture other peoples’ money. The most efficient system is one that provides guaranteed revenue and incurs no costs.
The way I understood his point was more like saying that serial killers are the best and most efficient murderers, and all other murderers just went good at their “job”. It doesn’t mean they’re good for society, infact the better they are the worse it is for everyone else. But being a societal leech is inherently part of being a landlord and some are better at leeching than others.
But being a societal leech is inherently part of being a landlord and some are better at leeching than others.
Being a landlord does not inherently make one a leech (in a discussion with any nuance). And when you have millions of dollars to put towards gaming the system to extract as much money as possible out of tenants every year, lobby regulators, divert properties from live-in to short-term accommodation to increase demand, etc., you can be a leech on a much, much larger scale. You can screw over not just individual renters, but entire populations of people seeking apartments. Not all landlords are the same ffs. Also “better at leeching than others”?! You make it sound like you admire leeching
When your rental is owned by an individual with a second property versus when your rental is owned by a multinational company and is part of investment vehicle that pays (untaxed) dividends to investors and has mandates to extract as much money out of you is very different things.
I don’t admire leeching at all, I don’t understand how me comparing landlords to murderers would give you that impression.
I will say I do know quite a few small time landlords and they are good people, but to try and say they’re not leeching is disingenuous. In fact, I’d argue some of the big corporations are actually less of a drain on society because they generally build housing that wasn’t already there. The worst are the large “mom + pop” landlords who own multiple properties but don’t have the competence or will to take care of them. Slumlord behavior.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Just a reminder, they’re just better at being landlords. All landlords, every single one, is responsible for this, they were just too inefficient to raise rents this high this fast before becoming conglomerates.
Having more capital to invest in numerous properties that can be listed at whatever price they want, with the ability to leave them empty if no one is willing to rent them, is not “better at being a landlord”.
It quite literally is. That’s the purpose of being a landlord, exclusively, is to lord over land and expand your domain with the profits.
All landlords are leeches, all landlords would rather leave homes empty than rent them as long as the line goes up, all landlords exist still lely to make money from having money.
You should work on the binary thinking pattern displayed here because “quite literally” one does not need to invest in numerous properties to be a landlord, and not all landlords are mega corporations looking to sheer every sheep they can see.
In fact, some run Inns.
All landlords are rich people that hoard land and then, if they’re inefficient, hold it hostage in exchange for many times its worth.
It is literally the explicit purpose. And yes, some landlords own inns, that they rent to inn keepers and proprietors that then sublet. They do not run the inns if theyre landlords.
I have family who own property with additional housing on it that they rent well below cost to students attending the local University.
Your argument of “all landlords” now fails with one example which is why I said “You should work on the binary thinking pattern displayed here”.
No, it literally isn’t.
No, by definition an “Innkeeper” is a “landlord” as they own/maintain/rent the Inn in question. You are confusing an Innkeeper with a Groundskeeper, or “employee”, when they are not the same.
You’re right, but you’re not going to change their mind. The power of propaganda!
How is it always the landlords that end up defending their disgusting practices.
There is a difference between defending disgusting practices, and correcting the record.
Your claim is “all land lords bad”.
Many are, and it sucks. But many aren’t, and that is why you are wrong.
Take care.
I think this is such a dangerous misunderstanding, that abets financialization establishing itself in more Canadian industries, increasing the cost of living and wealth inequality. Your argument - explained analogically in a simpler context - is basically that the best boss and the most exploitative boss are essentially the same, from a worker’s perspective, except the most exploitative boss should be regarded as better at their job. Unless you’re in the oligarch class, why would you think this way?
This is the opposite of what OP meant. The most exploitative boss is regarded as the best boss by their boss, whose opinion is the only one that matters under capitalism. Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth creation, and landlords have innovated and streamlined the process in order to squeeze their more ethical competition out of business.
Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth extraction and accumulation. What the workers are doing is the actual wealth creation.
Thank you for providing the 1% to .0000001% perspective. We should never lose sight of worshiping that. How silly of me to centre the perspective of the 99% on a grassroots non-corporate social media platform /s
Right. Some bosses are good and decent people. Some people don’t want to run their own business. Some bosses are evil incarnate.
Let’s say someone has to work somewhere for a few months or so, or go to school somewhere, or whatever other reason people may have to be somewhere temporarily.
I’m obviously not going to purchase a home.
Landlords and rentals do have a needed space in society.
It’s those who exploit and who concentrate and consolidate their powers and properties at the expense of everything other than profit that are the problem.
That could be a single person with 1 or 30 properties or a corporate parasite with thousands of units.
Yes.
No. A single person with one property or any entity with 30 properties, never mind 3000, tend to exploit on my different scales.
Being a landlord does not inherently make one a leech (in a discussion with any nuance). And when you have millions of dollars to put towards gaming the system to extract as much money as possible out of tenants every year, lobby regulators, divert properties from live-in to short-term accommodation to increase demand, etc., you can be a leech on a much, much larger scale. You can screw over not just individual renters, but entire populations of people seeking apartments. Not all landlords are the same ffs. Also “better at leeching than others”?! You make it sound like you admire leeching
When your rental is owned by an individual with a second property versus when your rental is owned by a multinational company and is part of investment vehicle that pays (untaxed)* dividends to investors and has mandates to extract as much money out of you is very different things. *The people benefiting from rental properties being an investment vehicle (REITs) also want to keep this untaxed income (for being societal parasites) untaxed and thus perpetuate the housing affordability crisis for profit
You have to remember, when capitalists discuss “efficiency”, what they actually mean is the efficiency with which they capture other peoples’ money. The most efficient system is one that provides guaranteed revenue and incurs no costs.
The way I understood his point was more like saying that serial killers are the best and most efficient murderers, and all other murderers just went good at their “job”. It doesn’t mean they’re good for society, infact the better they are the worse it is for everyone else. But being a societal leech is inherently part of being a landlord and some are better at leeching than others.
Being a landlord does not inherently make one a leech (in a discussion with any nuance). And when you have millions of dollars to put towards gaming the system to extract as much money as possible out of tenants every year, lobby regulators, divert properties from live-in to short-term accommodation to increase demand, etc., you can be a leech on a much, much larger scale. You can screw over not just individual renters, but entire populations of people seeking apartments. Not all landlords are the same ffs. Also “better at leeching than others”?! You make it sound like you admire leeching
When your rental is owned by an individual with a second property versus when your rental is owned by a multinational company and is part of investment vehicle that pays (untaxed) dividends to investors and has mandates to extract as much money out of you is very different things.
I don’t admire leeching at all, I don’t understand how me comparing landlords to murderers would give you that impression.
I will say I do know quite a few small time landlords and they are good people, but to try and say they’re not leeching is disingenuous. In fact, I’d argue some of the big corporations are actually less of a drain on society because they generally build housing that wasn’t already there. The worst are the large “mom + pop” landlords who own multiple properties but don’t have the competence or will to take care of them. Slumlord behavior.