But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.
Right, because the system is broken.
That’s a rather arbitrary rule.
It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.
Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?
At the end of your lease, if you choose not to renew, you still have equity in a property which is worth something, rather than ending up with nothing in the current system.
Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right?
The relationship between a landlord (parasite) and a renter (host) is absolutely a net negative, because at the termination of the relationship, the landlord ends up with more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).
howrar@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Exactly. So what’s not to understand? A broken system means problems exist, and you can do things to compensate for those problems. Things that provide value to others. Now, we can go into what it means to “need” something and whether we ever actually “need” anything, but that’s a whole other discussion and not the one we’re here to have. In this context, “someone needs to do X” means that doing X provides value to someone else.
Co-ownership refers to the ownership structure, doesn’t it? I’m talking about the threshold you proposed for the landlord-tenant relationship to not be parasitic.
And I’m saying it doesn’t have to be that way. Do we at least agree that if the landlords sets the rent at $1/month, then the transaction will be to the benefit of the tenant? And if you set it to market rates, then it benefits the landlord. There exists some middle ground between $1/month and market rates where it’s a net neutral.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
No. A tenant never gains anything once the terms of the lease expire. The property owner is the only one that gains, as long as the price of rent is a positive number.
howrar@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
I feel like this is the main point of contention. No, you’re left with no new physical assets after spending that $1. But why is that a problem? Not everything is about physical possessions. If you purchase a meal and eat it, you’re left with nothing at the end of the meal. If you pay someone to move an old couch out of your home, then you’re left with nothing after they’re done. If you pay a taxi to drive you home, you’ve again gained nothing physical at the end of the transaction. But in all these cases, you’ve gained something, or else you wouldn’t spend your money there.
When you pay a landlord for shelter, you’ve exchanged some sum of money so that you’re protected from the elements and live to see the next day. Similar to buying a meal and eating it.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Because whatever a renter pays in rent disproportionately enriches the landlord. Sure they get temporary shelter, but the landlord owns the shelter, plus they get extra money on top of that. The renter ends the relationship in the red, the landlord ends in the black. That’s definitionally parasitic.
It sort of is though. In the case of renting, the renter pays money but ends up with zero physical possessions, but the landlord ends up with more money and physical possessions (in the form of increased equity in a property). That can never be an equal exchange. That’s the difference between renting and buying a meal (or the difference between renting and ownership in general) - when you buy something, the buyer loses money but gains a physical possession, and the seller gains money but loses a physical possession. That can be an equal exchange.