I think you have a very misguided idea of what it's like to be a landlord....and perceptions of who/what 'landlords' (a very unfortunate term) are from some tenants... no good deed goes unpunished etc. Plenty of great people around but you have to be very careful who you rent to...
For most of my adult life (now I'm 34) I have spent 30-50% of any paycheck I've received on rent.
In my country (Ireland) over the previous two generations, houses went from dirt cheap to extremely expensive. In the generation that came of age in the late 80s and early 90s, you could work a normal job and buy a house, easily. If you had a good job, you could buy several houses.
Now, my generation. We came too late. Houses now cost so much that you will be en-debted to a bank for life if you buy one. Now we have a rent crisis. For many people, they can barely even afford to rent a house and buy basics like food. Meanwhile, anyone who was lucky enough to be a bit older and smart enough to jump on the property wagon when it was cheap, they are rolling in money. They earn thousands of euros from doing essentially nothing except be born in the right generation.
It's very hard not to look at them, look at the hardships of the people my age who struggle to pay rent, and not think of landlords as social parasites.
This is a problem for our generation actually. The two generations before us became rent seekers about everything and from what I can see %90 of current population is unable to acquire significant income to buy anything meaningful. We are going back to feudal times, with minority of population owning everything and others paying for the privilege of using them.
I think a big part of this is that suburbanization created a tremendous amount of (government subsidized via infrastructure) value that in many metro regions has all been scooped up now. There’s not much left to build outward, no arbitrage, and not enough political will to fix it (or: too many people benefitting from capturing the value).
And in combination globalization/corporatization has put a lot of high paying jobs in a small number of areas.
In my opinion it’s basically generational warfare or at least a hidden retirement tax paid for by professionals in booming cities for old people who happened to own property in those cities. Even if you don’t subscribe to that hot take, it should be uncontroversial that property values massively outstripping wages in some areas reduces quality of life and contributes to inequality.
I wonder if the current behavior can change if majority of companies start allowing remote work for a wide area of job families. I think we are already starting to see this in Bay Area with the introduction of remote work in leading tech companies.
Affordable housing/having roof over your head is a massive problem for everyone but the super wealthy. House costs in the western world are wildly out of whack with median incomes and whether you rent or own a disproportionate amount of your income is gone on this. The 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' house flipping and rental era did enormous damage to society, giving the illusion property owners are primarily rent seekers. (Slightly ironic on HackerNews since so many are now paid for working on software for rent rather than being purchased outright).
The reality of owning rental property is often one of breaking even and spending money for repairs and new appliances that must be done now, as opposed to when you have the money in the bank for your own place. Finding good tenants is like Russian Roulette. A friend's mother died and she rented the house to a man without doing proper background checks. He showed up once and was never seen again after saying a 'friend' would move in some furniture. That 'friend' was a woman who changed the locks, never paid any rent and was seen bringing large packs of dogs in by neighbors. After months of expensive litigation the woman suddenly left on the eve of final eviction. The house had been trashed with every room used to keep dogs in for her 'dog walking' business. The place stunk and there was drug paraphernalia and needles everywhere. It cost thousands more to restore the house to livable condition. Horror stories like this are not uncommon, These are not 'rent seekers', just ordinary people renting out houses and flats, often under considerable financial stress themselves. Another (also female) friend answered a home wanted ad on a lamp post for a section 8 person and rented a small unit in her garden to her out of the kindness of her heart. That person then called social services after harassing her 'landlord' and told them the person she was renting from was insane. She made her 'landlord's' life hell for months until she was finally dealt with.
The solution is far more affordable housing but how we get back to that 1960's era English and Irish council housing model I have no idea in the current political and financial climate...
> Of all the investment opportunities available to people, I'm not particular sympathetic to purchasing property to seek rents.
If forbidding renting properties to tenants would solve problems, I would be on your side.
People will always need to rent. A society has to allow them to without allowing them to be exploited. But once you allow renting, you have to protect property owners from tenant caused damage as well.
I'm not saying we're there - we may be far from it. But renting is not only useful, it is necessary.
Think lease-to-buy. That way the tenant has skin in the game. MY house was a school project. It was absurdly cheap to build as the construction workers had to pay to build it. If you account for market value the rent paid for the place 4-5 times by now. If you only take the original construction cost + maintenance its been paid for an absurd number of times, so many times over that I don't want to think about it.
We can at least lower the rent down to zero over [say] 40 years but it would be more reasonable to make the tenant the owner after he paid for the place 3 times over.
The rent would have to increase a lot - why not just take the extra money, invest it and save for a down payment? Much faster than 40 years, tenant can live anywhere and there's no financial entanglement between landlord and tenant along the way.
@majormajor Absolutely. People are untrustworthy on both sides. I've had the stress of being evicted by an unscrupulous San Francisco property shark in the past, and also know people who have had to spend large sums to evict sketchy people and then thousands more to make repairs. It cuts both ways...
When we talk about 'rent seeking' it's usually not about actual rental of property, which fills a very real need in society.
Maybe it's different in other parts of the world but where I live, rent seldom covers the mortgage on a property, let alone all other expenses. The profit, if any, generally comes from capital gains when selling the property (which right now isn't on the cards for pretty much anyone.)
For Germany, the profits usually come from rent itself as well as capital gains, at least in the cities.
I'm a member and live in a housing complex owned by a cooperative. The rent you'll pay in this kind of setting is at the lower end of the market, the services you get are at the upper end. Being a cooperative means I own shares, so I get dividends and balance sheets etc. Even with this great (for renters) setup, they still pay out 4% dividends and expand like crazy (not to produce more dividends but to provide more apartments). They could pay out much more than 4% but they don't want to optimize for profit and make it an investment, the dividends are meant to incentivize members to invest/save more than legally required.
The place I lived at previously had higher rents and less services. I don't know how much of a profit they made annually, but I'm sure it wasn't anywhere close to 4%.
Don't forget that "covering the mortgage" involves building the landlord's equity, so it's not as if this portion is lost to the bank while the landlord has to depend on appreciation. If I "only just cover the mortgage" while renting for the entire term of the mortgage on a house that doesn't appreciate above inflation, the landlord still goes from owning 20% of a house to 100% of a house over that term.
True but there are a lot of additional costs (maintenance, council rates, depreciation) to owning a house on top of the mortgage. Again only speaking for myself but I have a small rental property and the rent basically only covers the interest plus expenses.
I wasn't in it to seek rents, we were nearly breaking even. It happened to be a place I previously lived in and it was easier to rent than to sell during the great recession.
In my experience most people serve their own interests. Commercial enterprises in fact select for those who serve their own interests over morality because those parties are most likely to succeed.
In America you are lucky if your interests coincide sufficiently with the owner class that you can both get along productively. Expecting beneficence as well is unproductive.
Right, but in the case of renters, "serving their own interests" means establishing the fundamental right of having a place to live. That is important at a much deeper level than landlords rights, which involves making money from land and property ownership beyond what is required for their own domicile.
The landlord doesn't provide the place to live, it is already there, and the cost of upkeep is lower than the rent otherwise the landlord wouldn't be able to make a profit.
This is different from, for example, a retailer, who provides the service of gathering things into one convenient place, and does so more efficiently than everyone gathering the things for themselves. A retailer's profits are payment for providing that social utility.
Landlords' profits are mostly a consequence of their holding rights, rather than the provision of any comparable social utility (there are some small efficiencies to be had, but they are not the primary driver of profits).
Property developers (and the people who actually physically construct housing) provide places for people to live. Landlords simply buy/own those places.
Those are almost always different groups in practice though I’m sure you could contrive a counterexample.
A landlord provides about as much value to a consumer as a stockholder does to a public company. Economically the landlord-tenant interaction is primarily a speculative/investment/arbitrage relationship rather than a service
Thus landlords are the one to actually finance those buildings.
> A landlord provides about as much value to a consumer as a stockholder does to a public company.
Which is a significant value, for a company (even if I would like more companies to be privately owned). In this model a landlord is how people can get access to housing without huge initial capital and/or long term commitment.
A rent-based housing economy causes huge problems for those that want to buy an house (somilarly to how Airbnb/short stays cause problems for rent seekers) but this is not about one sector being parasites, it is about an imbalance in the market.
the situation would not be better if landlords did not exist.
Landlords take housing out of supply and extract rents from it. They produce nothing- the house was "provided" already, they just inserted themselves into the process.
That is because the buying process is an artificially inflated burden that reinforces the current system.
Removing landlords would also remove the need for them to exist.
