- cross-posted to:
- housing_bubble_2
- cross-posted to:
- housing_bubble_2
ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:
Landlords do not provide housing.
They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.
Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.
What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.
Yeah, we’re speaking on different terms here. I have also had a good overall experience renting, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with crux of the issue, which is that landlords exploit a renter’s need for shelter at their own personal gain. We rationalize this by claiming things like “well, the landlord offers a service,” but not really, because for the most part the landlord does not need to do any work, they just need to invest money, which in turn increases the value of their property, anyways. Everything they do increases their own personal wealth. That’s not to mention the concentration of wealth and power that landlords perpetuate.
This isn’t to say all landlords are bad people. We are all taught to make our money work for us, to try to achieve passive income, etc. in order to get out of the rat race. That doesn’t change the fact that the relationships that landlords and renting creates are inherently unequal and therefore wrong.
I don’t think I agree with your conclusion here. Some relationships are going to be inherently unequal, and that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. Take the doctor-patient relationship as an example. If I’m in need of life saving medical care, the doctor has far more power in that relationship. For me it’s “buy or die” while for him, not treating me has essentially no negative consequences. This relationship isn’t “wrong”, it’s just unequal due to its nature.
With landlords (and with the medical industry), it’s not that the relationship is inherently wrong, it’s just extremely open to abuse due to that unequal nature. It’s the abuse that’s wrong, not the relationship itself.
I’ll have to think about that…you may be right.
Although, the doctor-patient relationship does come up fairly often in anarchist thought. I think it falls under “justified hierarchy.” In this case, it is justified because the relationship is meant to end equally (ie the patient is cured, and the inequality between doctor-patient ends). Similar with parent-child, teacher-student relationships.
But your point about unequal relationships not being inherently wrong still stands…gotta think about it! thanks
I understand the issue. I suppose I’m just not as concerned as the people in this forum are. When I saw this meme I was only thinking about the practicality of renting vs owning a place. I can see why most people are upset about my view of things, but then I was already aware people would be downrating me for showing my perspective. Regardless I felt like i needed to express my opinion nonetheless. I see a lot of these on my homepage
I think people are just upset you don’t align ideologically with them, even if you’re not necessarily ideologically opposite. Plus we’re in Lefty Memes, so I think many of them probably expect you to be ideologically in-line. I wouldn’t take it to heart. But if you find yourself interested, The Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin has some really good thoughts about land ownership, and kinda pushes back against many of the ideas we are brought up in today.
Edit: Oh! here it is online http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html
Yeah, I expected this to happen so I’m indifferent about the negative replies. Thanks for the recommendation though, I’ll start to give it a read on my break.
Ok, I’m genuinely confused. Without some kind of landlord, how can people live in homes they don’t want to own? Would the state or the federal government own, maintain, and rent out unowned homes? Or would there be a free-for-all of free abandoned homes and if you want to live in one, you’d be responsible for making it livable? Or…?
Well, I can’t summarize all the possible alternatives, because I don’t realistically know all of them or all their pros and cons. Certainly one of them is communal-style state-owned housing. Another would be the more free-for-all style you describe, with an emphasis on mutual aid, I’d imagine. That’s probably the one I’d go for, because I tend to think the state is generally an oppressive force. Ultimately though our idea of private ownership of land would probably have to go out the window.
You should check out Pyotr Kropotkin’s chapter in The Conquest of Bread on Dwellings, really good book overall: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html
EVERY capitalist thing exploits your need for something you don’t have.
Don’t have a big enough car to move all of your stuff? You rent one.
Don’t have your own lawnmower? You hire someone to provide the service.
Don’t have a tool to repair your car? You rent it.
Literally, that’s the whole point. They’re leveraging something they have (that might have some difficulty to obtain) - to make money from it. We do it with everything.
That’s literally what services are too - you renting someone’s knowledge to do something you don’t have the expertise or tools to do. It’s literally the founding center of trade.
When I say need, I’m talking about hard needs. Food, shelter, medical care, etc.
I don’t consider any of the things that you list as a need (yes, a person may need those things in the moment, but they are not human needs. Those are where the moral argument, for me, comes into play)
But you are right, capitalism is essentially the interaction between a buyers demand for something and an owners supply.
Those are human needs, sure - but those things still take resources to make. Take away all of civilization, and everyone since the dawn of time has had to put in effort to be able to attain those things. I agree with, and understand the need to ensure that housing is affordable – but I don’t think scapegoating landlords is the way to go about doing it. It’s the same thing the right does with blaming immigrants for takin’ der jerrbs.
I’d much rather blame the government for not putting guardrails on the practice, or not spending our tax dollars in making affordable housing. If we can have HOAs, surely we can get the government to build housing, and sell it to single-families with stipulations that ownership can only ever be put in a single-family’s name, etc. That would drive down demand, also driving down prices.
That’s the whole deal with abortions now too - LINE MUST GO UP!! – they don’t care about children, they care about making line go up. If line keeps going up though, things are unaffordable.
Hell, remember $15/hr min wage? If we carried that with inflation, everyone would be making $25/hr MINIMUM today. If everyone was making $25/hr minimum, houses would look a lot more affordable to us. There’s a whole plethora of abuses we need to be tackling.
Its true that shelter, food, and health require some level of labor, but I don’t think that justifies small numbers of individuals controlling the means of producing those things or the ownership of the things, themselves, and then withholding them from others unless they are compensated. I don’t think its true that everyone has to put in effort to attain these things – I mean look at the very young and the very old! They shouldnt have to be put to work in order to be housed, clothed, fed, cured. I’d argue, in fact, the exact opposite of what you said – that humans have collectively worked together since the dawn of time to ensure children and elderly are taken care of, and people are fed, clothed, sheltered, etc. and in many cases, those societies had no concept of ownership or money, at all.
I do take a bit of umbrage with your wording about scapegoating landlords and comparing them to immigrants. I’d be really hesitant to compare those who have a high amount of power with those who have almost no power, at all. Scapegoating would imply that landlords do no damage to renters, when they in fact extract wealth from them for the enrichment of the landlord, while also wielding power over them in the form of eviction.
We are talking on two different planes, though, so I do understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re looking at things from a very practical and real-world standpoint, whereas I’m thinking more in theoretical, or maybe philosophical sense. I don’t think we agree ultimately but I appreciate you taking the time to write that
I guess part of my viewpoint stems from my mother starting off as a real-estate agent when I was a child - having a stroke at 32, and being unable to truly work. By racking up credit card debt, she was able to build a house and start renting it - it was a lot of work and she took a lot of risk in doing so. She rented it out in order to sustain our family - and eventually ended up giving it to my sister. You’d be surprised at how much power renters have over a house, and the difficulty in actually “extracting” anything from them. Over the years that house was destroyed by tenant after tenant, with basically no way for us to recover funds from them for the damages.
Renters can drag out the eviction process for a good 8+ months or longer, dodging service, etc. Then they live in your property and destroy it before they leave - with the landlord holding the short end of the stick. It’s not all butterflies and daisies.
On top of that, because she owned a rental, our family was ineligible for any kind of assistance programs - no food stamps, no childcare credits, etc.
Corporate landlords, are the ones who gobble up massive swaths of housing and raise prices. But landlords is a pretty broad brush to paint with, and I’ve seen the flip side of this coin.
Landlords themselves have taken some risk, or used their own savings to be able to build a house that ends up giving someone the ability to ‘digital nomad’ like they want. It’s a service in trade for money, like everything else. If it weren’t a service that someone wanted, they’d just buy a house. Many states have first time homebuyers programs, and there are still some very affordable homes that can be had on a somewhat meager wage. But - the catch with that is that you’ve gotta be willing to live below your standards for a while. That’s how I ended up in my home. Well and septic were fucked, didn’t have a kitchen, half the walls weren’t even there – And I bought it because it was still a house. Over 15 years or so I’ve put money into it here and there, and now it’s worth a lot. But I put a lot of work into it too. I basically lived in a garbage heap for the first 2 years. About 8 years ago, I got cancer. It’s difficult to work now after all the treatments. If I wanted to go take a risk and rent this out - after I did all of that work, why would that make me a bad person for wanting something I could live off of?
The renter loses a lot of the risk by renting. I take on the risk and the house provides someone with a place to live. I’ve gotta find a price to put on that to guard against a bad renter, repairs, etc.
Your story is why Im not one to say that landlords are inherently bad people, or similar such statements. Most of us are brought up in a society where we are taught to do what we gotta do to get out of it. Terms like passive income, making your money work for you, investments come to mind. I try not to blame people for playing the game that we are all expected to play.
Still, you bring up common points defending landlords that were also taught to me through my conservative family. The risk that a landlord typically incures, though, is that they have to sell their property and end up having to become a renter, themselves. I don’t necessarily think that is much of a risk, when the reward is to take a cut of someone’s wages to put toward your own equity. But again, these are statements of theory and I can’t say they apply to every case, whereas you are coming from personal experience.
In your mom’s case, I’d imagine damage would normally be covered by insurance, but then again I am no expert on renting a home out. I’m sure there are personal frustrations with it, especially if the mortgage is high and the equity is low. I’ll have to think more about the power dynamics in a squatter situation.
Anyways, I’m sorry to hear about your and your family’s housing struggles, you’ve given me a bit to think about. Hope I didn’t invalidate your experiences
No need to play soft-ball with me; I am not easily angered or offended, I’m just sharing with you the other side of that coin.
I absolutely agree with you for the most part. Corporate landlording needs to have limitations. There are powers that landlords hold over the tennant as well, and I’m sure there are bad landlords just as there are bad people.
I wasn’t even aware there was such an insurance for landlords, it doesn’t seem to be something my mother ever purchased. So thanks for that, I learned something.
Honestly, that’s why I think we need to look beyond “who’s at fault”, and need to start discussing “what are some solutions that could be implemented”. Everyone always focuses on who is to blame, because it’s easy to blame someone, it’s easy to hate others and say to yourself that the game was stacked against you.
I think it’s also difficult to manage as a politician and/or policy maker. We should start discussing solutions we would like implemented, and get behind those ideas, and push those ideas. It’s much easier to go to a politican and say “We’d like to see these things implemented!”, rather than “Landlords are bad, do something about it!” – That’s mostly the point I wanted to make. I just wish people could come together and discuss: What is the most BASIC issue we’re trying to solve here – People who want houses cannot get them. So we should come from that angle and discuss how to accomplish this - use taxes to build houses with deed restrictions which disallow renting. Or something similar.