why landlords cannot be ethical 

It is not going to work ,your landlord probably hasn't noticed who you are prior to sending this video. send him bullet combined it with organization and collective action and that would maybe work ,well in case you prevail against police and the army that is and that means the chances are low especially if you are living in an imperial core country .

Bahahaha

based

Genuinely, if I were to send this to my landlord I’d have to send it to my parents, and I have a great relationship with them. How they themselves see it is that they allowing their properties to be rented long term instead of selling them is that it would most likely become a vacation home and AirBnB for someone else and be neglected for the majority of the year. They do try to price their rent as fairly as possible and house younger people.

slay!

Yes exactly. I’m Hawaiian and I was born in 1971 only a few years after the United States took over America illegally. I was raised by people raised in the ahu’pua’a system. I don’t know other cultures but America has definitely destroyed not only the blood line of the native Hawaiian but also the land itself

This was also the case in most of Central Europe up to the 14th/15th century. Rural communities were communally managed, and land was worked communally. The landlords developed out of an aristocracy that started to directly meddle in the affairs of the rural communities they lorded over, in order to maximize their revenues from them.

They haven't started calling Hawaii, Zuckerberg Islands yet?

@@seanpatrick1243 not yet!! Hopefully that will never happen lol. Bad things always happen to people who do bad things to the Hawaiians or to their land. Hopefully he chooses to be humble and kind instead of insecure and arrogant but that’s rare in humanity as you know!!

​@@seanpatrick1243 yes I was going to comment about that. I heard Zuckerberg was buying up all the land in Hawaii, its creepy

But the few who create typically need the infrastructure and organizing that the investor provides

Agreed 💯💯💯

@@coopers4310 they only need that because those few have hoarded those resources in the first place

​@@coopers4310infrastructure created by whoom?

@@denki2558 ah, the nationalist question Who built this?

Wait isn’t he chief engineer of space x??

All c suite individuals (regardless of their pedigree) are just fund allocators and don’t do any work. The real “builders” here are the ACTUAL engineers (not middle and upper managers), and technicians. I feel like you got half way there but stopped on “oh, that’s the highest female in the food chain, let’s assign all the credit to her on account of her 2 X chromosomes”, rather than getting to the actual place where credit should be placed. And yeah, there are female engineers and technicians too.

@@jkfcdog as comforting as it might be to tell yourself that ever c-level executive is some variation of Elon Musk in that they bring nothing to the table except for money, power, and a massive ego, that simply isn't true at all. The aforementioned Shotwell has an actual aerospace engineering degree and has made critical decisions for SpaceX, but again, she gets nowhere near the credit (or really, any at all) because she's not an obnoxious tech bro. Sure, other men and women make tireless contributions to the company, but the difference is that the internet isn't celebrating her *or* them as the heroes of modern spaceflight; it's only ever Elon.

Honestly, this is also a part of what I like to call "great man science" There's this pervasive idea that all great innovation is done by great men, your Einstein, Jobs, and Musks of the world. When in reality it is always an incremental centuries long process where thousands of individuals contribute small amounts instead of single great individuals. Some times it several highly coordinated teams working in parallel at the same problem. But the Media really likes a simple easy to digest narrative which is why we keep promoting the idea of great men in science and tech producing innovations single handedly all by themselves with nothing but their boot straps. Which gives the perception that modern scientist aren't as smart as before because there is no one big house hold name like Einstein you can point to for something, while tech thrives on this notion that there is such a man.

@@damian4727 If he is, then he is in name only. As we can see beautifully from the twitter case: He has no friggin idea what he‘s doing. The only things he‘s good at are talking other people down and blending gullible people with his supposedly „great ideas“, that in reality are all just stolen from someone else and presented in a fancy „futuristic“ way with catchy names“

You know, there used to be enough housing and since that time, UK's fertility rates have been way below replacement level. Since houses don't just magically disappear, how come there just doesn't seem to be enough of them now? Could it be that commies are, like always, downplaying the role of unchecked mass immigration into already highly densely populated countries?

Well the families of those tenants aren't complaining.

​@@jenjones90 Short-term gain for some, long-term pain for many more others. That's the conservative way! Way to promote such drivel!

​@@smithynoir9980 Right to Buy was the single greatest transfer of wealth to the working class ever. It took people living under the boot of the state, to being able to own their own home.

Different country but in my city and neighbourhood shinny new building block are ghost towns because everyone who could afford them bough them as an 'investment' properties. They can't even be bothered to finish them to rent them out, they just leave them empty. In the few occasions they rent them, the rents are exorbitant. And most people here are pushed into home ownership with a lifetime mortgage because the renting conditions are appaling. The landlords put in the absolute cheapest of everything that breaks in a weak and you have to pay for it because you broke it. And that's the luck with new buildings. Landlords in old buildings haven't renovated in 20 years, the walls are dirty, the furniture is from the 1800s and in shambles, the bathrooms are disgusting and they still charge you an outrageous amount. So people take their chance with a bank and homeownsership.

There are homeless people sleeping next to empty buildings in every "civilized" country in the world.

You should see California, or just the US in general

Omg i want to see the numbers here in the us!!! I bet they would be crazy numbers of uninhabited homes

@@hope1785Last I checked it was 17 million vacant dwellings and 600,000 homeless people in the US.

This is a great quote from a great movie. Fun fact: I heard it was almost banned in the US for being "Communist propaganda".

@@lordfreerealestate8302 I hadn't heard that but wouldn't surprise me.

Great example

Not always true, I’m all for those things and voted for candidates that say they support those things.

@@TheGeorgeD13 Well, good on you. And of course not always true, but statistically... it's basically a given. Look at Australia - we spent the last decade in a neoliberal hell because boomers (generally nice, well-meaning people) got scared that the opposition party would take away their negative gearing. And in the last elections nobody braved to even mention this topic despite of the statistics of homeownership plummeting and homelessness skyrocketing.

I thought we didn't like generalizations? Imagine if someone said "women are attracted to men" and then defended their (completely unnecessary) generalization with - "but statistically... it's basically a given" Can we stop being hypocrites so that people don't automatically think we're all morally corrupt. You're hurting literally every progressive movement with selective empathy.

As an aspiring real estate mogul, I am very much for the development of where I live. It will probably raise the value of my properties. Also for immigration. Come to me, foreign renters!

thats bc they want to weed out the poor so that they dont live there

Historically, being a landlord used to be illegal and was forbidden under "unearned income" so there's that.

Yes...exact same sensation...click, pause, reset new frame.

Because I'll just come take your house if nobody owns it. Why should you get to stay there? Housing is a commodity because of property rights. It takes some real arrogance to live at the greatest time alive to be a human by literally any metric and to then look back on a system fundamental to that progress and question its entire validity. Then on top of that to offer no real feasible solution to replace said system is just the cherry on top.

It's bizarre, they get millions in profit each year yet they say that they "have to" raise rent even though we have already payed the value of the apartment many times over.

this isn't a mind blowing concept. Housing is a commodity because modern housing in the western world requires the cooperation and input of multiple sets of individuals with specialized skill sets. it's a difficult product to create, and because we monetize in-demand products in capitalist societies, houses become something that often increases in value as time goes on. this doesn't even take into account that land is becoming more valuable as cities increase in size and the population increases.

I agree, although one can find amazing content on youtube on various topics, sometimes the videos miss one thing, some are too short, others too long, too superficial or too much information. But Alice's videos are so interesting, so profound but clear at the same time the research and connections made are always very very interesting.

Oh it will, as long as they build enough of it that nobody has to deal with a private landlord if they don't want to. Half measures don't work. There has to be enough of it at competitive enough rates to eviscerate the private rental market.

@@gwils7879 thankfully it seems like the state legislature is going to make it significantly easier to build a ton of more housing (both plexes/small apartment buildings and medium-large apartment buildings)

@@strega-nil Good for you guys. I may have to move one of these days, coast to coast. You guys have a high minimum wage as well. Well, not like.. 1970s high, but.. higher than where I live.

like the private prisons reduced crime?

@@seabreeze4559 did you reply to the correct thread?

100%. They're not offering a service or contributing to the economy - just seeking rents, in the most literal sense.

being a landlord used to be illegal and was forbidden under "unearned income"

@@gwils7879 I bought houses that were vacant and unrented. I have contributed by making the house livable and attractive. I added another family to my small town that otherwise wouldn't live there. I pay property taxes which benefit the village. How am I not contributing? Would it better that the house lay fallow, unoccupied with with bad roof.

@@aznluvr7 You are profiting from the appreciation of land value more than any work you put in. Land is a scarce resource that generally (ignoring artificial islands) does not come into existence due to market forces.

@@jamesphillips2285 Really? So an empty house with a bad roof and bad wiring was worth about the same, but for land appreciation? No, I created something out of almost nothing. My little rust belt village has about 2k people and that house was vacant for years. Now it's livable and the town has another family in it. I pay property taxes, which benefits the town and keep it from having a vacant eyesore. What's the alternative? Give the house to a homeless person? Great, are they going to fix the roof? Fix the electrical work? Or are you someone who thinks that a centralized housing committee should maintain and divvy out homes? The Soviet Union did that, and they had a housing crisis that never ended, with families waiting 10-20 years for a larger apartment. The houses in the countryside didn't have electricity or indoor plumbing btw. And yeah, I profit, and I deserve it and I don't apologize. I came from that little rust belt village, worked hard, went to night school, made good money and invested it in real estate.

Where I am theres also an artificial driving up of prices due to several investors holding monopoly with the housing production/market. They decide on a price and wait. Since they are investors they already have multiple streams of income and renting or selling that one apartment isnt a burning issue. They can afford to wait until someone moves in. The smaller landlords then raise up their prices to in order to get more money matching market prices and it just goes to hell. I remember I saw this tiny crappy but new and renovated basement apartment that the investors demanded an insane price for years ago. I was curious if it would sell at that price so I kept checking on it for about a year and a half. They didnt lower the price, they didnt sell it either, im sure it has been sold by now with how the prices went up in the last 2 years.

"He" put in the money for the new appliances and preserving the floors? No, YOU put in the money. He is spending YOUR money to do these things. His entire income is based on what you and all the other tenants give him every month while not actually doing much of anything for that money. Him KINDLY lowering your rent over the pandemic should only show you how much he's overcharging you since he and his "business" can survive just fine on lower rent. Please don't use the "no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism" argument to let this guy slide just because he isn't as obviously evil as other landlords.

@@ihatealexander His income primarily comes from serving as the medical director for a youth hospital, not from being a landlord. But nitpicking aside, my point is, in our society as it exists right now, someone has to own this building. I'm glad it's him that does. I don't see him as unethical. It would be more unethical for him to sell the building to one of the awful companies that have been buying up land in SF. I hear what you're saying, but I'm telling you that I and his other tenants really do feel respected by him.

@@ihatealexander where did she say his entire income comes from rent money? where did she say he didnt take a net loss from the lowered rent? YOU made those assumptions. you dont even know if hes making profit on his property or how much of it, considering that he does have to pay property tax and maintenance in SF.

@@ihatealexander Most private landlords in the united states still have mortgages and taxes to pay on their properties and the vast majority of them have other jobs.

@@ihatealexander people also need places to live though right? I moved into an apartment building in Atlanta when I moved from Chicago. I could have bought a house, but didn’t really understand the neighborhoods and where to live. The government doesn’t provide any housing (especially for someone like me who works a professional job (I’m a teacher). Purchasing a home costs about 25,000-30,000USD of course you don’t necessarily want to buy a house when you don’t know if you want to stay long term (my school district was in a hiring freeze and I planned to go back when the freeze was over, but ended up staying). Renting a place isn’t that bad, although some of the landlords are monsters to be honest.

@ChampagneandWaffles because "there is a discrepancy between the value they produce, and the money they receive for it" 🙃 A hotel adds tonnes of value. It gives you a short term place to stay while travelling. What a Good Thing that benefits all of society! A+ Not to mention that the rooms are furnished, they're cleaned, and often they'll offer breakfast. Whereas (in my city at least) a landlord pays ~20% of the property's value up front, and then the tenant pays the other 80%. Then the landlord keeps the property, and continues to charge a mortage-level rent forever more. That's wildly unfair, but the housing market is totally broken. So it continues, trapping people in poverty and depressing the entire economy.

​@ChampagneandWaffles if you are going to pay the mortgage cost either way then fuck off and just let me pay for the house, if it costs the same to rent or mortgage then the landlord is just in the fucking way

​@ChampagneandWaffles the alternative is to not have landlords

​​@ChampagneandWaffles The point isn't that landlords should 'subsidize' people's rent. It's that the rights of people to have adequate shelter should supercede a landlord's freedom to make a buck off of purchasing real estate they don't need. Nobody is asking these people to buy a house and rent it to them for a markup. Property managers aren't being forced to buy real estate and just renting it to make the best of their situation. Most landlords aren't choosing between living in a home or renting it out. They have purchased these homes with the explicit intent of renting them for the purpose of capital gain. They are actively creating or contributing to a market failure that they have chosen to exploit. Even if we choose to exclusively play in the space of market capitalism, landlords artificially restrict the supply of housing--something that has highly (almost infinitely) inelastic demand. Because of this, they not only are able to leverage their ownership of multiple properties to charge higher rents, but also limit the supply of homes that would otherwise be available for purchase. This decrease in supply causes people who are able to purchase a home to have to rent longer as they contend with a market where available houses rapidly are purchased before their offers can even be considered. It also increases the prices of those homes, making ownership unaffordable for many and sometimes exclusively available to those same landlords who are reducing the supply in the first place, which allows the landlord's portfolio to snowball, as owning property increases their ability to purchase even more of it. This, in essence, creates an uncompetitive market where it doesn't even matter if you are a 'good' landlord or not, because non-homeowners are forced to either play by your rules or be homeless. Another way to consider this is: landlords don't offer a service (housing and maintenance), they threaten to withhold something most people need to live if they are not paid. At particularly large scales, this essentially allows property management companies to act as oligopolies or cartels that control so much of the existing housing that they can set the prices to the highest possible value people can afford. Don't get me wrong, there are other aspects of market regulation and public policy that play into this. Zoning laws, public funding, and other incentive systems certainly make this problem better or worse, but ultimately most pure-market solutions that don't seek to restrict extraneous ownership of housing don't actually *solve* the problem. They just alleviate it's symptoms or make the problem worse.

@@kylebrekke6540 all this is assuming they have brought properties and therefore are taking away from the market as opposed to being developers and creating low income housing or inheriting properties therefore not taking away anything from this generations housing market.

Well, they function in a fixed reality. In this reality: in 30-40 years retirement system may completely collapse, and even a cheap rental may be too much. They know how f.ed up it is to rent, so they want to spare this carnage to their children, and the only way to do it is to own a place that they can inherit. It is unfortunately also one of the best ways to preserve and invest your money. Getting your mortgage later, when you are 40 means paying it back...until you are 70? Who can even imagine a job market in 30 years? Basically, in current conditions, getting a place as fast as possible is a reasonable plan. And i am writing it as a person, that was not "obsessed", and then "got obsessed" when at the age of 35 i realized I am not even remotely closer to owning a place and my window of opportunity is closing.

@@jurysdykcja Yeah that all makes a ton of sense! I think that the idealist in me is like ugh, I wish there was a better way because if home ownership is the ONLY way to have stability, some people are never going to access to that which is just unfair. It's also a big driver of wealth inequality because with every generation, those who own homes can pass them on and those who don't can't, and so some people have more struggles than others. I feel like I see a lot of discourse online about how houses should be more affordable to buy and not nearly enough about making renting better because as it is, a lot of people have to rent and I don't think they should have to put up with how rubbish things currently are for renters.

@@intentionallymadi1843 I actually found a lot of info about how to built cheap social housing, or how cities with a lot of social housing manage it (Vienna always appears as an example). So actually it is not a total terra incognita, the concepts legal and financial are there. And if you wanted to dig in history, depending where you are from, you may find that in your country already were big social houses programs, but they were privatized afterwards (I didn't dig much, but at least in Eastern Europe or UK it was the thing, so it was possible). It is a very interesting topic, that leads later on into a nice streak of recommendations about taxing, politics, economy in general and so on (I am on it right now, hence this conversation) ;)

Singaporean government are pretty good with housing availability, though all lands are government property down there, so there's barely any private ownership.

Personally, I want to live with my immediate family, if anybody-not random strangers. I get they would not be strangers if I got to know them, but the point is I don’t want to get to know them. I like having my own space and maintaining that space in any way I see fit, and not having to worry about anybody who I don’t want to worry about. And by “worry” here I more or less mean “consider” on a daily basis.

Eh? Your metaphor is confused. Renovating a property, which is the sum of investment, coordination and cooperation with tradesmen etc. would indeed be accurate to compare to a Renaissance patron saying the patronized the mona Lisa. The landlord likely would not state that they laid the electrical, gas lines, plumbing etc themselves, but they sure as hell furnished the conditions for that labour and product. The patron was indeed part of the collaboration in the creation of the Mona Lisa, as were the other people in the logistical and production chain. In fact, if we are going to be this strict in our interpretation, is is even accurate and appropriate to say Leonardo "painted" the Mona Lisa, when in reality his workshop and other painters also took part in it? You're so reductive in your assertion that you end up ignorant and miss the point.

@@serebii666 ah, I should've clarified and perhaps even marked the timestamp that I was referencing from the video: I specifically meant to call-out the landlady who implied that she renovated her property "with her own hands". My comment was more directed at the misattribution of labor and did end up being more disanalogous than I would've liked. Thanks for pointing it out!

Something I would like to point out is there are a decent amount of contractors who use their skills to fix up and maintain rental properties. While not a majority of landlords, being in the construction business there are more instances of this than people assume.

@@serebii666 theseus ship

@@seabreeze4559 this has nothing to do with the theseus ship experiment

And the other side of the coin is that when you are looking for somewhere to buy those 'flipped' properties will be more expensive because they look good, but you'll still need to renovate them because the flips are done with cheap materials, are rushed, and don't address bigger issues, just the surface.

@@guaxary Exactly. If you look into the history of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, you'll find reports from families with so many new issues. The houses don't last, they're made within a couple weeks with the cheapest materials under an extreme time constraint. They literally destroy someone's home, which might've just needed a simple renovation, and replace it with an entirely new house that's often not compliant with building codes. The families then have to spend significant amounts of money to fix these issues, tending to be the same amount that they would have anyways had they decided to just renovate their previous house on the property. And that's the last part, property, the houses built on EMHO look very pretty and often have a lot of rooms, right? Well, this causes an inevitable rise in property value which causes the taxes to climb. Just another cost to put onto these families, who are already usually poor and below middle class. I remember one specifically where a family had to sell their vehicles to pay for fixes and property taxes, impeding their ability to go to work, which made them even harder on cash, and they eventually just had to cut losses and sell the house last minute. Similar things have happened to almost all of the families that were featured on this show. I remember watching it when I was a kid and being so excited and wished that we would get a home makeover, since my family lived in a house that should honestly be condemned and tore down lol. (2bed, 1bath, 700sq ft, from 1917). But now I look back and I'm honestly glad that it never happened because if it did, we probably would've ended up homeless. We were already dealing with getting close to that at the time, as well. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia did an episode which is (unintentionally, I think) so accurate. The gang did an extreme home makeover, and they just broke into someone's home, kidnapped them, forced them into debt by forcing them to pay for all of it, and destroyed their house. In the end, Dee was sued and was ordered to give the mansion she just got from her mother after she died in return, and they visit the family later in the series and they ended up having to sell the mansion because the property taxes were too high and they couldn't afford it. The family were immigrants as well, from mexico, and so were already poor to begin with. It's just funny how accurate this episode and the subsequent revisit are to the real process of Extreme Home Makeover lol.

Another way to reframe this convo, perhaps, is to realize that these aren't just "left wing ideas", they're human ideas that make the most sense for the most amount of people, typically in theory and in practice. I know dogmatic thinking is frowned upon in the information age, but it is what it is. The best ideas are usually pretty self-evident without needing to do too much mental gymnastics to figure out whether or not they're true and worth implementing imo, but yeah. Go with what makes the most sense for you.

@@axeslinger94 "they're human ideas that make the most sense for the most amount of people". Oh how I wish I could agree with that but unfortunately that's not what I observe. There are a lot of people who genuinely believe these things (that we on this side consider unethical) to be good and fair and will say anything to justify it. "The best ideas are usually pretty self-evident" unfortunately I was very surprised to learn this is simply not true.

@albummutation that's insane 🤯 i didn't know all that

I have heard of people in similar situations, becoming 'accidental landlords' due to being unable to sell a house. While owning multiple properties is unethical in that it contributes to the scarcity of housing, it isn't AS unethical if you are not actively profiting from commodifying someone's (the tenants) home. There is some issue of feeling defensive about repairs (eg. "why should WE pay for damage they did to the property?" because they're paying your mortgage, and property damage can happen to empty properties, get insurance if needed) you must accept that improvements and repairs to the home increase the value for you when you can eventually sell, whereas they don't benefit from spending money on a rented property.

Despite the reasonable justification, you are both (1) lowering the supply of homes to potential homebuyers in the area, thus contributing to high housing costs and putting a squeeze on the working class, (2) ultimately building wealth off of someone else’s back who will never see a return on their own investment in your future. You are correct in feeling conflicted and ultimately have to decide what is most important to you: the comfortable thing or the ethical thing. The reason we have a conscious as humans is to produce discomfort in doing the comfortable thing when it negatively affects others.

What do you mean you ‘can’t’ sell it? If the person currently paying the rent is covering the mortgage that you’re paying then they could afford to pay that mortgage and you could find a way to transfer the ownership to this person who is doing the work to actually pay for it

​@@CalamityJay-ez2mq They can't sell it because they took out a mortgage to buy the house at a certain price and now if they want to sell it, it's at a lower price. In this type of sale, losses can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. If they sold, they wouldn't cover the initial mortgage and would have to continue to pay for several years, no longer having a project for several years. There is no hard choice to make, no logical person would sell in this case. At the same time, they rent the house by making the ethical choice to rent it at a price far below market prices. It's fair. kudo to them. The fact that tenants pay rent that covers the mortgage does not mean that they themselves can obtain a mortgage. And there you should not complain to the owners but to the banks.

I think this is how I feel. I don’t believe capitalism is ethical, but we all have to live in it. I find stock investing to be similarly unethical so I am choosing to not partake. As a result, My plan for real estate investing is to only ever charge tenants what it costs me to pay the mortgage. That is also how social housing would work - the maintenance, property taxes and upkeep etc is what the renters would pay. I think that on a micro scale as an individual, only asking for reimbursement for what you are paying is morally neutral. It’s also a fine way to invest for the future because the market will continue to rise and you will receive a return on your investment in the future, just not off of the back of your tenants. I guess I’m saying my problem is the passive income aspect.

Is this from his main book?

@@bernardogalvao4448 The wealth of nations explores these ideas, there are chapters on it. I suggest you look up Henry George's ideas, which are derived from it.

you should actually read the book and not just quote it

"If you rely on council housing, socialised healthcare, public transport, you have a really strong interest in society. But private ownership leads to atomisation. My home, my car, my wealth." - wrong. After I had to move to another country where I don't own anything beyond what I brought on my back after fleeing Russia I stopped caring about the future of my new country beyond a very short period of time which I will have to live here until I receive new international passsport. If I would own any property here this wouldn't not be true since I would lose everything I earned in many years. "It's no surprise we've seen the break down of society because society is precisely that interconnected system of mutual reliance." - I doubt that there is "break down of society" anywhere.

... it's just a used car salesman's line that the media put on endless repeat. Thatcher would have been nothing without Murdoch.

London is just insane in terms of renting. Absolutely bollocks.

London is privately owned, they don't want poors (people with less than a 7-figure income).

to pay for the refugees of course

literally, landlords are being offered bonuses to take Ukrainians

@@seabreeze4559 You know

Straight men are the reason there's a focus on dick size in mainstream porn. As much as men convince themselves that women are the ones obsessed with length it's just not true. Porn for women doesn't focus on big dicks at all lol. As a straight man it's just embarrassing how unaware we are of our own urges and fetishes.

@@IshtarNike yeah that’s interesting to say the least

Speak for yourself. The only thing I want to show off is the creative work I've managed to somehow finish... albeit in an earnest, self-deprecating way.

Dominance hierarchies are real.

@@jernaugurgeh451”I’m not like other men.” 😂

"I bEcAmE a LaNdLoRd To HeLp PeOpLe" lol stfu. The house already exists you are just a pointless middle man, you are providing nothing, landlords 👏 don't 👏 provide 👏 housing 👏. All of the things you do and pay for come out of the rent that the tenants pay you and there is still some left over for your profit.

There is no value created

You failed economics 101. Rent control is HORRIBLE. Look at New York

That's... fcked up.

@@leifanderson3487 Absolutely, it happened a lot during peak covid, apparently.

I saw another comment discuss the idea of tourism and things like airbnbs. I would like to hear how airbnbs would work in your example? (my bad if this came passive aggressive, not intending to sound like a dick)

@@colldude7693 Basically a property tax which is scaled up for any properties after the 1st one you own/occupy yourself. The step points could be at 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 and max out at 1000 additional properties (as an example). If you own 1 airbnb + your home, you pay normal property tax on both, if you own 2 airbnbs + your home, you pay normal property tax for your home and a slightly higher property tax for your 2 airbnbs. If you own 5 airbnb's, your property tax for those is slightly higher again scaling all the way up to a significant multiplier for 1000+ properties (whether they are airbnb's or normal rental apartments etc). We can then build in certain additional rules to the tax such as a reduced tax rate if a property is being rented within a controlled rent band (i.e. rent control) and maintained to a certain minimum standard (i.e. not a hellhole with broken appliances and utilities that don't work). Since different countries, states and local jurisdictions have different types of taxes and real estate values and costs I'm only outlining a general concept and the specific implementation would need to be worked out to suit the country where the law would be implemented. The idea is that a middle class family that owns 1 additional property will not be disadvantaged, whereas investor entities owning dozens or hundreds of properties will pay more tax, which provides a disincentive to treat actual cities like monopoly boards.

@@BobfromSydney that’s a very cool idea.

@ibis are not bin chickens! Firstly, you called me triggered. That's gaslighting. Secondly, I'm responding to someone signaling out a group and painting them all with one brush and casting them all in the worst light possible. Sound familiar? Guys like Tucker Carlson do that. That your play book? Not cool. I have a right to stick up for myself.

The idea that a rental property is guaranteed return on investment is the problem.

They are nothing but Klimasünder

I'm in the same boat with my duplex. I'm lucky to have paid off my 1893 property that my dad and I brought back to life. Renting out his half after his death has kept me out of the poor house. I still have to work construction to make ends meet because the rental only covers property tax and insurance. These judgmental comments of landlords are all the same, and evil drives me nuts.

My landlords visited yesterday to take some of the old stuff they had me living with for a year and wanted me to store for them even tho its broken and dirty (filthy), I had shoved it all in a couple of the few cupboards in the house which is small and some other bits just had to linger in a corner and drive me absolutely crazy everytime they caught my eye. They both actually thanked me (quite vehemently lmao) for keeping the house so nice (I like things clean, tidy and well maintained). They also told me about the nightmares they had with old tenants including having to replace a rooms wooden flooring due to cat pee, the kitchen floor tiles which somehow got smashed, a sofa thrown out due to cat pee etc etc etc - when I moved in it was absolutely filthy and I spent a month of my time and money cleaning and painting to make it livable which sent me spiralling into a pit of depressed frustration - it felt like it would never end, I can't even express how bad it was. When I brought this up yesterday (after they told me about the old tenant) and said the estate agents had promised me it would be clean by move in the landlords then said that it "had been cleaned twice" and that if I thought "it was bad then imagine what it was like before" as if that's my problem!! I paid them £1k to clean and decorate their property - I was compensated £60 for paint, if they had paid contractors to do it would have cost them probably 20x plus times that. And, despite their thanks for my care and respect of their property, they still want to increase my rent now that renewal is due. Sooo yeah It's hard to like landlords, the expectation is that because you (as a landlord) own a house you have the right to the majority of someone else's paycheck and do the bare minimum in return yet still expect them to care about your property - this is the case with the majority of landlords and while you may be offended by people's perception of your mode of money making, facts are facts - most landlords suuuuck. Don't even get me started on estate agents either, I think they may just be worse 🤔

@@anima6035 You only have one perspective, that of a tenant. When you have been a tenant and a landlord, your perspective changes.

@anima Most landlords may suck (statistically highly unlikely btw) but most landlords are not all landlords and definitely not me. Just like you said. We never hear about good landlords or good politicians or good neighbors or good cops etc because it isn't interesting/newsworthy.

@ibis are not bin chickens! I had 3 girls and an income of about 20 thousand a year at the beginning. We bought a duplex that was half burnt and covered in gang tags for the price of a new car because it was trashed (used my Veterans loan). Dad and I both worked construction (I was working 10-12 hours 6 days a week on the clock and would remodel for about 3 hours a night and 5 hours on Sundays). I did that for about 3 years until it was finished. Kept the long hours up for about 10 more years and paid off the place. Dad died a few years back, and i started renting his side out. Now, our investment in ourselves and our building is paying off as we all grow older. I cut back on the hours lately because I move a little slower now, but I am not a rich person. I will have this place to leave to my kids. So tell me, am I evil?

🥰

​@@AliceCappelle your friendship and WhatsApp plz 🌹🥀🌻🌺🌼🌹 specially

I actually would favor FOOD being declared a basic human right. Seem mental that you actually have to pay for bread and water. Especially in the USA where we produce so much more food than we could ever consume.

Food stamps are a thing.

​​@@penultimateh766 seems mental you have to pay for someone to do work to make bread and water? So they should work for free? Which just means the rich will pay for everyone else to mooch for free.

Why do people farm? why do people build houses? why do people make anything they don't personally need?

no

being a landlord used to be illegal and was forbidden under "unearned income" historically..... just saying.

You would really hate me then

competition. this is simple market economics. A single owner creates no pricing pressure among those 10,000 properties, 10,000 owners compete with each other for tenants.

Typically leftists would consider a stove to be personal property and not private property. The difference is that private property is used to produce private profit while personal property is something that is just used. For example your toothbrush is personal property while the dentist's equipment (at a private practice) is private property.

I assume you’re against free health care as well, or free education There are a lot of benefits of providing free services to people, especially regarding their basic needs, it allows them to be healthy, mentally stable, skilled workers who help increase their happiness and productivity

@@AliceCappelle The problem is that this argument can be extended to all aspects of life. Housing? Healthcare? Food? Even prisoners are guaranteed entertainment, so add that to the list. Who's working to create all of these things that are being consumed? Why is it fair to let those people be lazy and do nothing, while forcing others to work to create those goods/services?

Just came to the comment section to say that 😂 So spot on and caught me off guard! Please Alice more Dudebro content

@@Arbustro #MoreDudebroContent

Well actually it's cause of contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation

It's her House you can just leave

Every Landlord is unethical capitalist

A lot of " rent to buy" are scams. But if they did it ethically it would be good, but it's never happened yet

It would still be unethical. The property could've gone to someone who would actually use and live in it. By buying it as a landlord, this possibility is already prevented regardless of what the landlord does after acquisition. Landlording necessarily begins with denying access to the land from someone who needs shelter.

@ibisarenotbinchickens9846 right I get all the liability and he gets none of the equity. Honestly the liability scares me, and sometimes I think I should be charging him more just to cover myself or ask him to move out now that time has passed. But since I am financially benefitting from splitting costs in the short term, I try to just focus on that. But I fear raising the rent to cover liability for the ethics of it all. *shrugs* oh well.

That's how it used to be. New age wannabe investor types have now saturated the markets and they want tenants to do most of the upkeep and pay outrageous sums of money. Not to mention the air bnbs hoarding single family homes off market. It's gotten out of hand fast.

and no mind shattering electronic outro music!!

nope, places like blackrock buying it and banks leaving places empty

blaming middle class people for selling homes after their parents die is not the solution. the income inequality, in part due to unaffordable housing, is WHY they are selling the homes. most people arent upscaling, their selling because they need the money. the issue is not singlular people, its corporations buying up single family homes and price gauging apartments causing an inflated price.

Vote for rent control

Thriftstores

Bro, the point that she is making is that housing should not be an investment because as long as that is the case, housing becomes scarce and unaffordable

@@jemima_brown If I go out into the woods on unclaimed land and chop down trees and do everything myself, then no. The abstract financing is tangential and only relevant because we live under capitalism where much of the wealth is ill-gotten by syphoning off the surplus value generated by undercompensated laborers.

​@@jemima_brownyes they do but scalpers coming in after Than demanding you pay their mortgage aren't those people

A house might not be but land is a human right.

Exactly, I fear they're the same people. Hypocritical opportunists to the core

zero

This was a good video. I am a person who lives in one unit of a duplex who rents out the other. It's one house, that in the 40's was turned into a top and bottom unit. We also work full time and rent for under market value, no late fees, etc. I think I've heard that on a technically I'm more of a property manager and also closer to a roommate, I believe I work for the tenant in regards to maintenance on a 100 year old. Property management is an actual value to society, even if ownership is not, because if you have any building with more than one unit, someone has to maintain the single building as a whole. I do always feel strange looking at the anti landlord content (I want critique on being better). I don't really believe in ownership. But I do think that it's a net good to rent out a space for 500 below market without fees to a family that needs it rather than make it a personal office or something. I have other jobs, I'm an illustrator, tattoo apprentice, and substitute teacher, my partner works full time too. I still feel like the critique offers little solution other than the classic "no ethical consumption under capitalism". Rather than any solutions for what can we do right now.

@@toacidrainbows It sounds like you're doing the right thing. Honestly, if landlords just wouldn't raise rates on existing renters beyond tax increases and management fees, they would have plenty of opportunity to jack up rents when people cycle through and everything would be fine. Real life isn't a Disney movie, the right answer is always somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, even if it doesn't make for a very exciting debate. Even a perfect set of policies wont prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. I think this is a reason everything works so well in Scandinavian and other highly functioning modern economies...because on average the citizenry cares and feels a sense of duty to their community and society as a whole, and this permeates the way they make and enforce rules. The slimy landlords know they are scum deep down...they just surround themselves with likeminded predatory individuals and normalize their excessive greed.