Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
If you argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also own investment properties?
Submitted 18 hours ago by artifactsofchina@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 4 hours ago
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
If you make even a penny of profit, then yes. Housing should never be something someone does to make money. Shelter is a basic human need for survival.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:
- Supply of housing influencing its cost
- Wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
- Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
- Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)
The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 hours ago
Nah fuck that.
nucleative@lemmy.world 22 minutes ago
OP: constructive addition to thread You: nah
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 hours ago
Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?
SuiXi3D@fedia.io 17 hours ago
Unless you are by extension making those properties affordable for whomever is leasing or renting, then absolutely it is, yes.
scarabic@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
If the property is giving you any kind of return, you’re extracting profit, so the property is less “affordable” than it would be if the resident owned it.
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 1 hour ago
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Most people can’t buy a property, because they don’t have enough money. In order to go around that problem, they either borrow money or rent the property. Either way, some extra money always goes somewhere.
Some of it is justified, because you need to go around the problem not having enough money to buy a house. However, there are many cases where that extra expense is absolute wild and rooted in greed.
Actually, if you happen to own the property, some extra money will go to periodic maintenance and miscellaneous expenses you never even think of if you just rent the place. You just don’t pay for those things every month a little bit at a time. Instead, you pay a large bill once a year or an enormous bill every 10 years.
AmidFuror@fedia.io 14 hours ago
You can make them affordable by screening for high income.
sopularity_fax@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
Only if you’re advising on how to close all the bullshit loopholes you’ve exploited preventing them from being used further.
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
It’s not hypocritical if you are providing affordable housing for someone.
Despite the kneejerk hate towards landlords lately, which is largely justified due to the extreme levels of rent-seeking behavior evident in today’s completely unaffordable rental market, affordable rental housing is actually a legitimate market and there needs to be availability to meet that demand. Renting on its own is not a crime. Some people even prefer it. It can provide significantly more flexibility and less responsibility, stress and hassle, at a lower monthly cost than home ownership IF (and ONLY IF) you have a good landlord, either because they choose to be or because the laws require them to be, which is not so much the case with most of the laws.
So for me those are the dividing lines. If you are not:
- A slumlord providing “affordable” rental housing by leaving your tenants in unsafe, unsanitary, and unmaintained properties.
- Demanding luxury-priced rents for an extremely modest property with no features that can be considered a luxury and no intention of maintaining anything to luxurious standards.
Then maybe it’s not hypocritical. And I don’t mean just taking the highest price you can find on rentfaster and posting your property for that price because “that’s what the market price is” I mean actually thinking about whether that price you’re asking is actually affordable for real human beings living in your area.
Basically, if you treat your tenants like actual human beings with the understanding they may be struggling to get by, trying to raise a family, working as much as they can even when work is not reliable, and dealing with all life throws at them, and you don’t treat these things as immediately evictable offenses like a battleaxe over their head just waiting to drop, then yes, you absolutely can argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone – because you are helping provide it.
If, after contributing to legitimate maintenance expenses and reserves, you are making a tiny profit, barely breaking even or even losing money renting, good. If you are treating it as a cash cow that funds your entire life, fuck you.
joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 8 hours ago
Maybe it is different elsewhere but according to my calculations, renting property is not very profitable. Investing in stocks is better if you only want to make money and do not care about the apartment otherwise.
You can’t easily get your money out of the property and if loan rates go up, you pay more and the property value goes down.
The real parasite is the bank who takes a cut but has little risk as the money it lends out is created from thin air.
pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
That’s not at all how interest rates work on homes… They’re fixed and yes while fluctuations in interest rates can have an effect on the home value, that won’t change how much your mortgage payments are, and can only effect your property taxes by at most 2% per year
Rent doesn’t have to fluctuate with interest rates at all as it’s up to the home owner
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
You are part of the society. You cannot escape it.
It’s not because you own property (which, if you can, is a wise investment) that you can’t see how messed up the system is at the expense of the working poor.
greenskye@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
I think it’s one thing to not be willing to go live as a hermit to avoid unethical consumption and another thing to simply… not participate in rent seeking behavior like this.
einkorn@feddit.org 17 hours ago
I’d say if they are solely an investment, then yes you are part of the problem. Because you expect a return on your investment and so inherently rent has to be increased to generate the necessary profits.
If you’d live in a house that has more room than you need and rent these out that’s fine in my book. But possession solely for profit is one of the main problems of our current economic system.
the_q@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
Yes. Housing is a necessity. It’s not a way to gain financial freedom or security. Anyone that participates in the system of commodifying a need in any capacity is a greedy and awful person. You can’t be for affordable housing while also having some poor person paying your mortgage and shrugging that “this is just how it is”.
tyler@programming.dev 17 hours ago
In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.
the_q@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
Your assumption that our government is somehow not for profit is the flaw here. “Someone has to own it” why not a person? Why do people have to pay for shelter?
Pika@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
It depends on how you are looking at it. Since you called it “Investment properties” I have to assume you plan to maximize profits on it so I would have to say yes it is. However if you are renting the property out for market value and only doing a modest increase to cover costs and the mortgage I don’t think it is. Obviously you need to cover expenses for the property or else someone else who won’t do the same is going to obtain it.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
Yes, there are plenty of other investment opportunities, the fact that you chose the one that profits off of housing insecurity shows you don’t enough about it to forgo a little bit of extra money.
Like other people have mentioned you would also have to be advocating against your own interest. Yes you can do that but your passion will at least be dulled by your innate desire for profit. You’d have more passion and will for the cause if you didn’t own investment properties, even more if you are renting and are a victim of housing commodification.
Another point is that you’d be adding to the demand of houses and thus raising the price. You could argue it’s a drop in the ocean, but that sort of attitude leads to a million drops in the ocean and rising sea levels. You would also probably be buying it on a mortgage that’s larger then the house was previously on so the floor for rent , the break even point, would be higher.
Eg. If you bought the property for $400,000 on a mortgage for say $2,000 a month from someone who only had a $200,000 mortgage on it for $1,000 a month you’ve now upped the rent floor $1,000.
anothernobody@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Depends on how greedy you are.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 17 hours ago
Yes. That is, if you’re actively hurting the availability of affordable housing, that would be hypocrisy. Your economic interests are at odds with your stated ethical stance, which means your ethical stance is unstable.
Owning the property is not the problem: Rent-seeking is. Running it as a managed coöp would be the ethical path forward in that situation.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
But if you’re advocating for changing the system there is nothing hypocritical about owning it since your impact is a drop in the bucket. In order to make changes you need power and power comes from wealth.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 14 hours ago
I’d say that you’re unlikely extract enough wealth to make a difference in the large scale, but you absolutely have enough power to make an immediate difference for however many people can live in your building.
That’s the problem with consequentialism: A certain evil now for a possible good later. I don’t agree with that.
bluGill@fedia.io 16 hours ago
For many people owning their own housing is the wrong decision. That means somebody else needs to own their housing and that person may as well be you (depending of course on your situation - it isn't for everyone)
OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network 10 hours ago
Yeah this is the thing that makes me really disagree with the whole “landlords are necessarily bad” thing. A lot of them are, to be sure, and there is so much wrong with our housing market, but there should still be a place for those who wish to rent to rent. I mean just speaking for myself right now, I would not want to own a home right now, even if it was affordable. I’d like to some day but where I am at life right now I would rather rent.
fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
So why not have it be owned by some kind of non profit organization or handle it like local utilities?
I only mention it because a lot of what I’ve seen on the topic is people saying the point you made and nothing else. It just seems like we’ve (largely) figured out and implemented a way for the system to work in many places, but only for certain basic needs and not others.
bluGill@fedia.io 3 hours ago
That doesn't change anything useful. There are many not for profit health insurance companies in the us - they are no cheaper and don't have better service than the for profit ones.
Aeao@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Yeah even in a perfect utopia not everyone would own a house. Sometimes you’re only living in a place for a short time
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Personally I’ve grown to despise home ownership and its constant cycle of maintenance. I’d love to let that be someone else’s problem again.
Mighty@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Hm I’d say not necessarily. That depends on your situation I guess. The question comes down to “would you give up your property for other people to live in?” If you own 1-2 small properties, that’s not being a greedy landlord. And it would make it possible for you to give people housing they could afford (while still profitable for you, if you needed it to be).
If you charge insane rents, then you’re not only a hypocrite but maybe also schizophrenic. That just sounds like a disconnect.
But it’s very possible to “change the system from within”, even if that’s not my political opinion. If you can buy property, maybe you should. And then rent it to people for an affordable price.
I’m sometimes thinking people should get together and buy mansions to convert into shelters
HubertManne@piefed.social 13 hours ago
If your profit is modest no. Even less so if you live on the property like renting out a room or having a multiflat or coachhouse.
RBWells@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Are you renting them for unaffordable amounts? Maybe. But I think you can both live in the world that exists, and argue for a better one.
And I guess if your investment property is affordable housing then you are also walking the walk, right? So no I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical. Likely so, but not necessarily so.
We’ve rented for much less than it costs to buy a house here, in fact all of the places we rented were like that. Old houses that were paid off, that we did not want to buy, just paid to live in them month to month. Sure we can wish for a better system but sometimes renting is affordable.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 9 hours ago
It isn’t hypocritical, but I’d question why I would invest in something that I would want to lose value from a moral standpoint.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
You can not blame people for using a system that is legal. Just because you believe something is immoral doesn’t make it wrong.
zlatiah@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Methinks it is only not hypocritical under a few circumstances:
- I am renting a place myself and simultaneously leasing out my otherwise primary residence
- The property is my primary residence and is not overly big, but I rent out parts of it for roommates/traditional BnBs
- Unique property ownership situations that shouldn’t last longer than 6 months (maybe I’m downsizing, maybe house swapping… Not sure)
Any other condition is in principle hypocritical… Although there is probably still a massive moral difference between someone with a severe disability who owns a few rentals to pay for bills vs a professional investor who systematically prices out locals to improve profit margins
AmidFuror@fedia.io 14 hours ago
What if you think affordable housing should be government subsidized? Or as is the case in many places, below market priced units that the builder is required to include, with limits on how they are used (income qualifications and owner occupation).
Neither of those requires you not to rent to other people. It would be like saying I'm for mental health services being paid for by the government but running a psychiatric business.
zlatiah@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
On this… I did read a prior research work suggesting that US government should use subsidy/housing vouchers in private markets instead of public housing construction; this way it helps with creating affordable housing while avoiding risks of defunding public housing projects due to political changes. I’m not sure if the findings of that work apply to other countries or if the author was mainly thinking about US
I guess I was thinking more about my personal morals. In terms of actual implementation, I do think you’re correct that the goal of “affordable housing for everyone” can be done even in a completely private housing market, as long as the market is well-managed with abundant supply (so no shortages, no excessive investor bidding, etc)
Cataphract@lemmy.ml 11 hours ago
Only two avenues I could see nothing being hypocritical, signing it over/forming a co-op or doing rent-to-own with rent control and everything being transferable to “next of kin” upon some kind of accidental death.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
If you’re arguing for a particular public policy, then generally no. If you’re arguing for social change driven by private behavior, then perhaps.
blarghly@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
No, not at all.
A parallel analogy I see here all the time: driving cars is bad for the planet. It contributes to climate change. So should you give up your car for the sake of the climate? No - because if you live in an auto-dependent area (which is a lot of affordable areas), then you need a car to effectively live your life. To have a job, go to the grocery store, spend time with friends, etc. The problem is the structures and incentives which don’t appropriately dissuade people from driving and provide alternatives. You as an individual giving up your ability to transport yourself will have an entirely negligible impact on the climate while severely hampering your life. It makes total sense to continue driving a car while advocating for better climate policy.
Similarly, owning a handful of rental properties has no impact on the housing market, but choosing to eschew this potential source of revenue could severely hamper your future finances. If you don’t buy these properties as rentals, odds are, someone else will. Your noble intentions will lead to exactly the same result, except you are worse off. On the other hand, if you do take action and buy these rental properties and rent them out at a fair market rate, you can be a good landlord - someone who is communicative about issues and prompt about fixing things when they break. And you are stopping a corporate buyer from owning the property and being a shitty landlord. While you do this, you can also advocate for better housing policy, which is the lever to pull to actually solve the problem.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
You could make a lot of these same arguments for owning slaves. If you don’t buy them then someone else will, and they may be a worse master then you. Better that you buy them and treat them right, provide them good food and housing, while at the same time advocating for the abolition of slavery.
In both secenarios you may say you want what’s best for them, but that desire is in direct conflict with your desire for profit so either you become a bad investor or a bad slave master / landlord. Why bring yourself into that conflict instead of investing in something without those moral implications?
blarghly@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I feel like this is a reasonable counterargument. My response is that you can reasonably and ethically seek a profit with real estate investment because pieces of land are not people. And any harm you do to people is going to be extremely distributed across the population. Like, if you went around to everyone in your city and whistled an annoyingly saccharine tune next to them while they walked to work on a Monday morning, maybe the total negative utils would add up to a single human life of slavery - but I still think distributed harm is far more justifiable.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
If you argue that others should not own investment property for whatever reason but you are a valid exception it’s one thing.
If you say that “look at how much money I’m making, tax me harder daddy” it’s another.
bluGill@fedia.io 16 hours ago
If you say that "look at how much money I'm making, tax me harder daddy" it's another.
That is a bad thing for affordable housing. For affordable housing you need profits from investment property just enough to be worth doing. Any taxes a property owner pays needs to come from the rent they charge so high taxes mean they are charging more rent to cover it. So if taxes are high that means that rents are higher than they could be. You should get rich - to the extent you do - in property ownership by owning a lot of property for a long time, not charging high rents.
devfuuu@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
No, it’s just having basic empathy for other humans.
lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
I would make the argument that it could actually be a means to align with affordable housing (although that would likely be very difficult in this current housing market). Managing a property is a service, you have to manage vacancies, repairs, rent collection, etc.
If you don’t offload this to a management company and do it all yourself it is technically feasible to make a profit from the labor of managing the property even when charging below market rate for the property (difficult to do right now, but after owning the property for a period of time definitely possible).
If you were to do this you would be directly combatting the affordable housing problem by introducing competition at a lower price (it would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be fighting for affordable housing).
masterspace@lemmy.ca 18 hours ago
I think it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation.
Did you buy a single family home / house that you’re living in, and renting out part of to help pay your mortgage? Then it depends on the rent you charge.
If you charge market rates and you can afford to charge less than market rates, or if you hire contractors and maintenance people for the unit that are cheaper / worse than the ones you use for your own unit, then yes, you are being exploitative and hypocritical.
If, however, you treat the unit like your own and charge below market rates then no, you’re not.
If you build an addition on your house, or build a laneway house or something, then it’s more reasonable to charge market rates for rent because you’ve actually added new housing to the area, an act that in itself should help to slightly drop rents. Same thing if you buy vacant property and build rental units on it. However, if you continue charging the most you possibly can long after you’ve made your money back then you’re back into the territory of being an exploitative hypocrite.
And if you’re just in a hot market and buying up houses / condos, and renting them back to people as is, or just doing the cheapest and shittiest job you can turning them into apartments, then yes you are being a hypocrite. At that point you’re just using your capital to buy up a limited quantity item and sell it back to people at exploitative rates. It would be like being stranded in the desert and buying up the remaining water and then selling it back to people for a profit. You’re providing no value to society, just using past success to force people into a corner where they have to pay you for a necessity that’s in limited supply.
nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 17 hours ago
Don’t hate the player, hate the game
MTK@lemmy.world 20 minutes ago
Yes, that is like being a pacifist but investing in weapon manufacturers. It is easy money and it is attractive, but it is wrong and by making money off of it you become part of it.