this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
283 points (86.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36196 readers
1141 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

For some reason everyone views being a landlord as easy money. But in reality returns on investment are worse than the stock market for being the landlord of a single family home.

Then sell it, and put your money into the market. Now you're no longer a parasite, and you're making more money. Win/Win.

If that's not a reasonable option, then what are you not counting in the entire return on your investment?

Edit: in response to your lengthy edit, I will note that you have expanded your "return" to include more than just the financial benefits. I will focus on one thing:

Now what does a house get you then if there are all these downsides? Freedom.

Correct. You are gaining freedom, literally at the expense of a tenant. That is exactly what we are talking about when we say that landlording is parasitical. They are buying your "freedom" rather than their own.

[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Maybe I want to move back into it... And selling has a 10% cost after realtor fees and closing fees.

[–] woop_woop@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

So then it's not worse?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you are operating rationally and you actually believe your ROI on the rental property is lower than the stock market, you would transfer your wealth to the market. Since you are not, you are either behaving irrationally, or you don't actually believe your ROI is lower than the market.

Your ability to move back into the property is a return that you have not included in your evaluation. The 10% cost of selling is a sunk cost fallacy.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yikes, what a nightmarishly unempathetic take on this situation

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Emotionless is the better term. I am trying to focus on the argument. I am assuming the best intentions of the parent commenter.

Parent comment argued they were making less money from renting than they would from investing in the stock market. They could be making more money elsewhere. Think about that for a moment:

  • They have the option of making $100 from the customers of a business. They could buy shares of a company making luxury products. Their return on their investment could come from people using disposable income to make discretionary purchases.

  • Instead, they are making $90 from a tenant's housing budget. (They are also creating extra demand on the housing market, inflating prices in that market, thus increasing costs for every person seeking housing, including their own tenant.)

Somehow, that actually seems worse to me. If money was the point, they'd choose the option with the higher return. If they are choosing a "rent" option, then that is either the option with the higher effective return, or they are acting irrationally, or they are paying for the privilege of exploiting a tenant.

Regardless, all three cases demonstrate the parasitical nature of landlording. The argument in the parent comment does not rebut a claim of parasitism.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Emotionless is the same thing as what I said. They are describing people struggling to make a living, you're rejecting the human aspect and judging them

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago

Unempathetic implies a certain disdain or malevolence toward the plight of the parent commenter.

Emotionless does not.

My judgment and contempt is reserved for the concept of renting, not the parent commenter's condition or actions.