Yup

Even the best monarchs do not justify monarchy; it is a position inherently created for abuse. You may have a good king, or two, or ten - even kings who WILL put your wellbeing before their own interests - but invariably they will always be outnumbered by those who seek the position for the sake of abuse, or who succumb to the structure of the position which encourages abuse. Likewise with landlording. The problem isn't with individuals, the problem is with the system.

Yeah. Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient government type. The only problem is the odds of getting benevolence plus the impossibility of keeping it.
It's way worse than that. Any dictator (monarchs included) has to balance interests to keep their head. They literally can't distribute wealth more freely without their top general taking over.
- No king rules alone. So yes, a dictator has to keep his key positions happy. Money spent on useless citizens is money not spent for your ruling infrastructur. And uneducated hungry citizens make bad revolutuonarys.
- Reminds me of the rules for rulers video by cgp grey

Every landlord I've had has been "nice" and "friendly." Unless you need something or they're not happy with something you did.

Because they don't see you as a person ... they see you as either a benefit or detriment to their wealth. You are an extension of their wealth and their only interest is in watching to see if that wealth increases or decreases.
- I mean yeah if they're assholes sure. And many (most?) are no doubt. Yet I have friends who are landlords and they're not fucking monsters or I wouldn't be friends with them.
  I think this reductive take of yours feels good to type but if we want to address the problems of housing, I think a more nuanced understanding is needed.
  If you're like a friend of mine, it's just a family that owns a couple extra houses (withholding judgment on that) and let's say the husband is out of work the wife makes like $50k/yr, and you're on the hook for two mortgages (say $5000) and now the sewer pipe to the sewer main needs replacing at a cost of $15,000, your car breaks and needs $1000 of repairs.
  If it comes to it and you don't have the cash or credit to deal with it, nobody is going to prioritize the tenant's sewer over their kids having a house to live in and food to eat. When times are so desperate you have to choose, you're choosing your own family. (The assholes always choose themselves under all circumstances of course)
  Idk wtf the answer is but housing is a human right and the idea that anyone should be unsheltered is fucked.
  Both friends bought another house and rented their original. Some inherit a house. Because putting your money in savings like we used to in the 70s and 80s when you got rock solid perfectly safe 2-5% return hasn't been a thing for 20+ years.
  Then you have corporations with the capital to be able to snap up houses after the 2008 predatory lending fiasco (thanks to unregulated capitalism). With low interest rates that ended up being the best play and then that ended up pricing out regular people.
  Yeah we need more supply but the equation there doesn't really favor building affordable housing because reasons I don't understand well enough to try to talk to. Some claim too much regulation but that claim is usually the kind of bullshit that corpos/rich and their shills spout to be able to deregulate and better screw us peons. So I'm skeptical.
  Idk what the solution is because I don't understand the very complex problem well enough. But I know that "landlords eat babies" isn't that helpful because the whole housing thing (rental, ownership) is a train wreck systemically.
- I think my landlord sees us as people, he's just fundamentally incapable of understanding what it means to live in a lower income bracket. He's selling the house we live in and seemed genuinely confused why we, as a single earner household paying significantly below market rent, would be worried because "there's only a few situations where they can kick you out". Yes and if they invoke one, which they will because we're a bad investment, we're SCREWED.
  Meanwhile he thinks he's being generous by listing for below appraisal when it's still at least double what he paid a couple years ago. Just living on a totally different planet.
- If that's what you think, your life must suck ass. Landlord wants to pay their expense and that's it. If a tenants destroys the place or ask stupid shit all the time, that sucks. That's just being normal human being. Stop dehumanizing people.
You needing something is fair as it "should" be part of the agreement you have with the landlord. Even if unspecified, the landlord agreed to provide a place that is fully functioning and comfortable livable. So they can't removed if you need something.
On the other hand, you are renting their property and you agreed, even if unspecified, to care for their property during your stay and return it in the same state as you received it. You fucking up their shit in any way gives them the right to removed. Both scenarios are a breach of agreement, written or not.
PS: Landlords require tenants to get credit checks etc. in order to ensure that the tenant can pay. Tenants should have the right to require landlords to hold adequate insurance that would protect and accommodate the tenant.
- That sounds good in theory, but in practice, I've had to ask multiple times and then just begrudgingly get the plumber called in or whatever. Landlords hold all the power.
My landlord lives in the same house as me. Things get fixed very quickly, especially when it comes to anything leaky. Might also be especially connected to their mother living one flat below mine.
landlord is just living within the system he was put in.
if you wanna hate someone stop hating the individual and hate the system that forces this behavior.
except THIS IS AMERICA we cant have beneficial economic decisions

That's not landlord/tenant that's just people/people.

- Different is not necessarily oppositional.
  My doctor does not benefit from me being sick. My tutor does not benefit from me flanking.
  My landlord does benefit from me living paycheck to paycheck because they have extracted the maximum possible cash from me.
- “Not saying your tutor is a bad person, but they have interests that oppose your own”
  Not really.
  “Not saying your doctor is a bad person, but they have interests that oppose your own”
  Not really.
  You could say that if they were ruthlessly in pursuit of money above all other interests, maybe, and then only if they were short-sighted enough to think that keeping you stupid or sick was the best way to make the most money.
  Doctors have other goals and are paid salary. Tutors are often working temporarily and part time. I don't think either of these groups actually oppose your interests.
  A landlord, on the other hand, directly opposes tenant interests in multiple ways. Every dollar they spend on repairs is a dollar less profit. Every dollar of rent increase they can get you to pay is a dollar more in their pocket. Every competing housing development being built threatens the value of their asset as well as the future profitability of their current housing stock due to the competition.
  Of course there are "good" landlords that don't maximize their own interests just like there are shitty doctors (mostly holistic, to be fair) out there that want to milk you dry and never cure anything. But that doesn't change the calculus much. They're just the exceptions that prove the rule.
People/people made worse by the system. The system that created the landlord/tenant roles.

I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I used to be a landlord. I never charged full market rate, and I always took care of my tenants. I never kept any security deposit money. One tenant had a breakup, and I showed up that evening with a locksmith to change her locks so he wouldn't be a problem. That cost me some money but it didn't cost her anything. I mean, they're paying for service you need to provide service.

I remember people like you. It's always appreciated but eventually a corporation gets every building.
And because of that, you made less money. A bastard landlord would make more money and be able to invest that money into buying more properties. Those properties would bring even more money, allowing them to buy even more property and so forth. This dynamic is why the vast majority of landlords (and capitalists in general) are bastards.
- Capitalism is a system where the selfish and greedy will always triumph over the selfless and charitable. It is designed from the ground up to incentivize selfish behavior.
- I was OK making less money. The place was paid for, no mortgage. The only reason I sold was because of our horrible medical system.
Sincerely thank you for being a good person in a harmfully flawed system. You probably won't get rewarded for it. Most likely you'll be punished for it. But someone out there probably thinks you're pretty cool for doing it.

Who wouldn’t put their income before your wellbeing when push came to shove?

Socialists
- Funny thing is when socialists make some money they stop being socialists.
Context matters. Would you choose to go make a little bit of money or help someone who was about to be killed?
- You just invented a scenario where the landlord stands to lose very little and the tenant stands to lose their life.
In any of the systems we've tried since the species got agrarian—especially Capitalism whenever it's Fascism Hammer Time—not the average person that's for a certainty.
They're too busy surviving.
In a proper society where we (the collective We, but really ~2k dragons) used the same tools we used to separate us to instead expand the sense of the tribal umbrella so that the species innate selfish altruism could shine?
A whole lot more folks whose part would be exactly like in the fabric of society, comfortable and without a thought of want for they know We got their backs too.

But also many of them will make someone homeless just because they couldn't provide an extra ten percent of profit this year.

So yeah.

Almost all people will put their own well-being above yours. This isn't a trait exclusive to the upper-class.

Yeah if we're both in the same situation maybe but my income Vs your well-being is a different thing isn't it?
I can accept to be a bit less comfortable to help you live in less horrible conditions.
- In an ideal world we'd all treat each other how we wish to be treated. I try to do that in every interaction, not always successfully. But we saw during covid that there are hundreds of millions of selfish-ass people. People that wouldn't even temporarily give up haircuts or Starbucks to potentially save someone's life. Hell man, they wouldn't even wear a thin piece of cloth across their mouth and nose to potentially save people's lives.
  I guess I'm saying that I agree with you, but many people don't... at least not in practice.
That's true. However.
The owning class has interests directly opposed to the working class, which makes that "natural" trait toxic to the working class. In addition, the owning class has a lot more power.
Your landlord wants to make as much money as possible for as long as possible. (fair enough right?) The problem is that for that to happen
demand needs to stay high or go higher which means that
supply needs to stay low which means that (at the level of class interests, not personal belief)
Your landlord doesn't want new affordable housing to be built in your area. They want you to never own a house, never have any cheaper rent options. They don't want to have to keep renting to you at the price you are paying now.
They don't want to have to invest money in making your apartment/house safe or comfortable.
The problem is not that people will put their own wellbeing above yours, it's that their wellbeing is in conflict with yours. A conflict of interests between classes... class conflict... class warfare. And they have all the guns.
It doesn't have to be this way.
- You make some good points, but I'm confused by your statement that they have all the guns. Do you mean they control the police? I'm not sure where you live, but in the USA there are literally hundreds of millions of guns owned by the lower and middle class. In 2017, there was estimated to be near 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 Million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens.

More descriptive title next time please :)

I love lemmy, but these titles make it feel like everything is posted by bots
- Yup
Didn't see anything in the about section requiring a descriptive title, mighy want to put something there if a descriptive title is required for posting on this instance...
- Firstly, even without rules 'yup' is a terrible post title.
  Also if you look at every other post in this community, just try and do something similar. Even a single relevant word is fine.
- It helps to know youre human and worth my time reading... but ehhh.. whatever

My landlords wife yelled at the plumber for sealing our bathroom wall back up when the shower spigot was still leaking, and then her husband comes in and says "honey stop we don't need to pay to fix the valve if we don't have to". So my shower still leaks and they really fixed nothing because they didn't want to spend $1000 (less than half our rent) to redo the shower.

Wouldn't the leak cause more damage to their property over time?
- Yes, but here you are expecting a landlord to actually think about the future.

They are also a bad person

Of all the anti-landlord arguments this has to be one of the dumbest. Of course a person is going to try to protect their income. I'm not a landlord but I'm not going to let anyone jeopardize my job.

How is it a dumb argument? The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that's a problem with the system.
- And? Do you donate all the excess money you have at the end of the month to the homeless?
Collecting rent as an income is different than having a job.
- So?

True story.

For those interested I recommend Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. An amazing breakdown of the history and why. Eye opener at the very least.

Edit: Curious: Why the down votes?

history of what
- Class and caste systems.

And so will you.

There sure are a lot of landlords on Lemmy.

That's just a good thing to remember in general: no matter how good of a relationship you have with someone, whether it be a coworker or a friend, at the end of the day, most of them will put their own interest over yours.

Some of them won't, but they are rare.

"They might not treat you like shit, but when push comes to shove they will put their income before your wellbeing." Yes, you know, just like any business. Just like you do for them. Would you pay them extra rent to improve THEIR wellbeing? No? Why would you expect the opposite?

Just because you have a more personalized relationship with your landlord than the McDonalds down the street, why would you expect that they let you stay in their house for free when you lose your job? Do you expect McD's to give you a free meal if you walk in after you've lost your job? For a month? For 6 months?

I own a 2nd house across the street from mine that I rent to my parents. After I pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance, I probably lose about ~$100 each month in that arrangement. (This is cash flow. Increasing equity means I'm making money overall, but not a ton). I charge them $3000 per month which is actually below market rate here and they have good retirement savings so they can easily afford it.

If they were a normal tenant and they quit paying mortgage I would lose $3k out of pocket each month. $18k if they didn't pay rent for 6 months. $36k if not for a full year. For my parents I would just eat those costs. It would hurt, but I would get by. Do you all expect that I should do that for any random person I'm renting the house to? Should I also continue working for my boss also if he quits paying me? Do you pay rent for your neighbor if he loses his/her job?

I really don't get the landlord is evil view. The landlord has an asset (a building and property) and they're renting it out. It's a business, just like if they're a restaurant or a construction company. Unless they have a monopoly on the land and buildings in your area, I don't see how they're any more evil than the other businesses you're dealing with every day.

Something like 3/4 of houses are getting bought up by instant cash offer corporations who sell in bundles to venture capitalist backed renting corporations.
So yes. They have an effective monopoly. Oh and they've also been caught working together to raise prices. Nobody is mad at the landlord renting out the second place at cost.
- Where are you getting your numbers? At best corporations buy up 25% (according to online statistics), but the statistics say "investors" buy up 25%, not corporations. For example, i bought a 2nd house to rent to my parents so that would be considered "bought by an investor" I think. I think the boogieman investor-purchases are overstated from what I've seen. Do you have anything you can point at that can back up your numbers?
Landlords individually may not be evil, but the landlording class is opposed to the working class. Like you said landlording is a business and they will try to get as much rent out of you as possible, and in turn the tenant will try and pay as little rent as possible. This is class conflict. Any person, or structure or system your in conflict with over basic necessities like housing you may call evil, if your inclined to the good and evil morality view.
The critique of landlords is that they are a small, wealthy and powerful class extracting wealth from a larger and poorer class while not actually producing anything. They don't produce housing, they just use their capital to buy it and then rent it out. McDonald's may be taking money from the poor but at least they're producing the burgers they sell.
Best comment. Thanks 👍
I'm not going to pretend that I'm on the side of the landlords here, but I don't think individuals who own and rent out a few properties are part of the problem. In fact, there should be more people like that.
I think it's the large corporations owning tons of properties across multiple cities or even countries that are the issue. Houses shouldn't be treated as financial products or investment vehicles for massive entities, they are places for people to live. It's insane to have more empty houses than homeless people, there is no justifying that. I think requiring companies to have local offices in the cities they have properties would go a long way to address this.
I'm currently trying to convince the company that manages my current place that yes, they do have our insurance and to please stop charging us fees. They want insurance with both my wife and I 's names on it. I've submitted it 3 times over the last couple of months, and I swear they only read the top name on the paperwork and reject it.

I rent my house to a woman who worked as a server in a restaurant until Covid. When restaurants were forced to close she offered me half of the rent as that was all she had. I told her to keep it, not worry and stay safe. This was when there was still a lot of uncertainty. After 3 months she started paying me again without me asking. Do you think I'm a terrible person?

Your missing the point, this is about structural incentives and class interests not individuals. The structural incentives of landlords are to keep or even raise rents, even during times of hardship. You are incentivised to take her half rent or even charge ther full rent and put her in debt because you can and it would give you the most money. You chose not to act on those incentives because your not evil but relying on people to not be horrible for an issue as crucial as housing is not a good system. We need to remake the system so these perverse incentives don't exist, and that will require getting rid of landlords because they as a class, not individuals, have bad incentives tied to their place in the system.
- This was incredibly well said. I have always struggled with phrasing when talking about this issue and I like how you've worded it.
You are a terrible landlord. I would have evicted and found somebody who could pay full price, and kept her security deposit to cover the transition. I doubt you are as successful of a landlord as me because you make foolish business decisions.
- Username checks out
You are a landlord, you have to be evil /s
That's why having a good relationship with the landlord or your renter is just good for everyone.

Image Transcription:

X/Twitter post by user 🎇 K8 is a Danger to The Republic 🎇 @K84UnitedLeft reading:

"The point of class analysis isn't to say that your landlord is a bad person, it's to say that your landlord has class interests that directly oppose your own.
"They might not treat you like shit, but when push comes to shove they will put their income before your wellbeing."

[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜 We have a community! If you wish for us to transcribe something, want to help improve ease of use here on Lemmy, or just want to hang out with us, join us at !lemmy_scribes@lemmy.world!]

Where are all these single owner landlords? Everything here is owned by management companies and the 'landlord', more propertt manager, is an employee who gets a free rental unit to live in while they have the job.

In my country it's bad in a different way - there are no single owner landlords that actually manage their lads, they all hand it over to a management company.
I miss the days where you could find a landlord who was an old Italian dude who would manage it all himself. My parents had multiple rentals that was like that. One of them the landlord lived across the street. And all of them the properties were well maintained and we could actually get stuff fixed. And half the time we'd end up staying there 2-6 years longer than the lease agreement.
Now you can't find that to save your life, our current house, sure rent is comparatively low as we got in before the rental crisis. But they don't fix shit and when they do, it's half assed and dad ends up having to fix the fix.
The lack of communication and human connection between tenant and landlord results in problematic treatment and negligence. That connection honestly keept the landlord honest. We were friends with all our single owner self managed landlords, and any inspections we had usually meant cracking a beer in the backyard.

Can anybody link me to educational resources on class analysis?

Especially those pertaining to the United Kingdom, such as the big northern working class cities like Manchester.

Marxists.org has tons of great resources

There shouldn't be a conflict. We should want new landlords to enter the system and provide cheaper housing.

Cheaper housing aligns with renters interests.

There is no limit on the amount of housing that can be built.

I'm struggling to understand this. What class of human puts other people before their own income? I'm not a landlord and I'm not putting my income in jeopardy to help a hobo out.