Folks, there’s a difference between a slumlord and a decent landlord. I’ve owned a house for ten years now, and in addition to the mortgage and taxes and insurance I pay every month for the privelege, I’ve had to spend tens of thousands replacing the roof and doing other regular maintenance tasks. I’m actually about to dump thirty percent of the original purchase price into more deferred repairs and maintenance to get it back to a point where all the finished space is habitable again. Owning a house is expensive in ways that I did not fully understand until I bought mine, and decent property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that’s not a job I honestly don’t know what is.
Slumlords and corporate landlords can fuck right the hell off, though.
I fully understand your point of view - but in my opinion paying mortgage and putting effort into your house/apartment is a kind of an investment and it’s still way better than renting. Assuming worst case scenario, you can always sell your property, get (at least part of) your money back and pay off the mortgage.
In terms of renting - you’re just trading your money for a right to have a roof over your head.
And to not have to worry about costs if shit goes wrong, and not have to worry about the overhead if you find a job and need to move, or meet someone and want to move in with them, or if you have kids and need to upgrade size, or if you are moving somewhere only temporarily.
Owning a home is great and a sound financial investment if you’ve settled down. Other than that, there are plenty of good reasons to rent.
Even if a landlord spends 100% of the rent then they still get to sell all the houses which people have paid the mortgage for. The same mortgage that the banks say that the people who are renting cannot afford…
Maintenance workers and property managers exist and are different than ‘landlords’. The distinction is ownership, and it is from ownership that a landlord derives their ability to charge rent
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities, makes a third”.
― Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
In @GreenTacklebox’s defense, I’ve had a couple awful landlords (see the post in my comment history about being charged for carpet cleaning in a house with all wood floors… I could tell some stories about that shithole, too) but when I’ve rented directly from a human being, who had a personal connection to and investment in the building, it’s been great. I lived in an old “bachelor’s apartment” building several years ago which was purchased by a well-to-do commercial real estate developer who just wanted a nice penthouse unit in the neighborhood, and she was the best landlord I’ve ever had. Hired one of the longtime residents as a live-in super, got to know her tenants, and put a lot of effort into fixing the place up while keep rents very reasonable. One month I forgot to drop off my rent check, and two weeks after it was due, she called to ask not where her money was, but if I was okay or if I needed any help. She wasn’t exactly a mom-n-pop operation, but I’d classify her as quite decent.
Was she the exception that proves the rule? Possibly. On the other hand, I think that in this field as in many others it’s the corrupting presence of megacorporations seeking yottabucks of ROI off the backs of the little people that distort the healthy functioning of the marketplace. If we could get Wall Street out of the residential real estate market things wouldn’t be so insane as they are now.
I bet you can see why people would feel that way but yes there are good landlords, and yes some shitty ones. Does it change the facts of the post, no not really and yes Personally I feel basic needs like housing should be free.
My house has been paid off for a decade. The mortgage was a significant cost, but unlike rent it went away (and stayed at a flat rate as rents went up). I spent a boatload replacing the HVAC, but it was “working”, it just sucked. If I were renting it would have just stayed at “suck”. I replaced the roof once, but because I wanted solar panels, which again if I were renting it would never happen. So over the last 20 years, I’ve put up with only two significant items and both were elective. When I was renting the only thing that the landlord had to cover was when the 15 year old water heater rusted through and he just had a cheap low end unit swapped in, probably a 600 to 800 dollar job at the time.
For the past 6 years it’s been nothing but insurance and property tax. I’m getting boatloads of money from not having to pay rent or mortgage. This is the light at the end of the tunnel of a mortgage that is nowhere in sight for perpetual renter.
Have a colleague that opts for home warranty to own house but not be surprised by big repair expenses. I’d be skeptical, but he says his has honored their warranty reasonably.
Folks, there’s a difference between a slumlord and a decent landlord. I’ve owned a house for ten years now, and in addition to the mortgage and taxes and insurance I pay every month for the privelege, I’ve had to spend tens of thousands replacing the roof and doing other regular maintenance tasks. I’m actually about to dump thirty percent of the original purchase price into more deferred repairs and maintenance to get it back to a point where all the finished space is habitable again. Owning a house is expensive in ways that I did not fully understand until I bought mine, and decent property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that’s not a job I honestly don’t know what is.
Slumlords and corporate landlords can fuck right the hell off, though.
I fully understand your point of view - but in my opinion paying mortgage and putting effort into your house/apartment is a kind of an investment and it’s still way better than renting. Assuming worst case scenario, you can always sell your property, get (at least part of) your money back and pay off the mortgage.
In terms of renting - you’re just trading your money for a right to have a roof over your head.
And to not have to worry about costs if shit goes wrong, and not have to worry about the overhead if you find a job and need to move, or meet someone and want to move in with them, or if you have kids and need to upgrade size, or if you are moving somewhere only temporarily.
Owning a home is great and a sound financial investment if you’ve settled down. Other than that, there are plenty of good reasons to rent.
Nobody is saying property management isn’t a job. But that property manager probably works for a real estate company, owned by the rich.
It’s that last part that’s the issue. The residents should collectively own the housing, not the rich.
Even if a landlord spends 100% of the rent then they still get to sell all the houses which people have paid the mortgage for. The same mortgage that the banks say that the people who are renting cannot afford…
Maintenance workers and property managers exist and are different than ‘landlords’. The distinction is ownership, and it is from ownership that a landlord derives their ability to charge rent
There is no such thing as a decent landlord.
Everyone so butt hurt about landlords all the time. I don’t get it. You just expect housing for free or something?
Every landlord I’ve ever had had been reasonable
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities, makes a third”.
― Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
In @GreenTacklebox’s defense, I’ve had a couple awful landlords (see the post in my comment history about being charged for carpet cleaning in a house with all wood floors… I could tell some stories about that shithole, too) but when I’ve rented directly from a human being, who had a personal connection to and investment in the building, it’s been great. I lived in an old “bachelor’s apartment” building several years ago which was purchased by a well-to-do commercial real estate developer who just wanted a nice penthouse unit in the neighborhood, and she was the best landlord I’ve ever had. Hired one of the longtime residents as a live-in super, got to know her tenants, and put a lot of effort into fixing the place up while keep rents very reasonable. One month I forgot to drop off my rent check, and two weeks after it was due, she called to ask not where her money was, but if I was okay or if I needed any help. She wasn’t exactly a mom-n-pop operation, but I’d classify her as quite decent.
Was she the exception that proves the rule? Possibly. On the other hand, I think that in this field as in many others it’s the corrupting presence of megacorporations seeking yottabucks of ROI off the backs of the little people that distort the healthy functioning of the marketplace. If we could get Wall Street out of the residential real estate market things wouldn’t be so insane as they are now.
I bet you can see why people would feel that way but yes there are good landlords, and yes some shitty ones. Does it change the facts of the post, no not really and yes Personally I feel basic needs like housing should be free.
To offer a counter perspective.
My house has been paid off for a decade. The mortgage was a significant cost, but unlike rent it went away (and stayed at a flat rate as rents went up). I spent a boatload replacing the HVAC, but it was “working”, it just sucked. If I were renting it would have just stayed at “suck”. I replaced the roof once, but because I wanted solar panels, which again if I were renting it would never happen. So over the last 20 years, I’ve put up with only two significant items and both were elective. When I was renting the only thing that the landlord had to cover was when the 15 year old water heater rusted through and he just had a cheap low end unit swapped in, probably a 600 to 800 dollar job at the time.
For the past 6 years it’s been nothing but insurance and property tax. I’m getting boatloads of money from not having to pay rent or mortgage. This is the light at the end of the tunnel of a mortgage that is nowhere in sight for perpetual renter.
Have a colleague that opts for home warranty to own house but not be surprised by big repair expenses. I’d be skeptical, but he says his has honored their warranty reasonably.