When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?
When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?
Reason I'm asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say "city" think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn't seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I'm not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don't overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.
I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don't see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.
Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the "landlords are bad" sentinment?
You're viewing part of a thread.
The answer, which should be obvious, is that workers produce housing. How do you insert landlords into that process in a way that isn't parasitic?
Who pays the workers and buys the materials? Whose land does this happen on?
You are referring to private employers and landowners who are also parasitic and non-essential to housing production.
Clearly you don’t have a solution for bringing housing into being except an utterly dangling magical notion that “workers will create it” with no answers to where, out of what, and while eating what.
You just keep calling different economic actors “parasites” without describing exactly what it is you think they are feeding on which could stand on its own.
You can smear paid employment, land ownership, and property ownership all you want but these are pretty big features in our economy and unless you have something better to answer with, sweeping them away does nothing.
So try replying in an affirmative mode where you don’t just call something parasitic but describe how you really think it will work, and be a little more thorough than just one microscopic part of it. Because my dude, workers create housing today.
You won't understand the solution until you understand the problem. I've already explained to you how landlords are parasitic. For similar reasons so are employers and land owners. The wealth they accumulate as owners of private property is not from any labor that they do themselves, but rather the labor of workers. To be clear, I'm not using the term parasitic pejoratively. I'm just being objective. Yes, workers produce housing today because that is how housing is produced, but landlords and their ilk are just overhead to housing production. If you still don't understand, then please explain why you think that landlords are indispensable.
Throwing it back at me to disprove your claim is a declaration of bankruptcy.
I didn't throw anything back at you. I'm checking in with you to see if you're still having trouble and, if so, where.
I’m not having trouble. You have yet to make any case whatsoever.
Your “explanation” is nothing but a string of pejoratives. Here’s how you describe someone offering the use of an object they own, for a price:
the license to withhold or take away housing from people.
They capture it and extort people for temporary permission to live in it.
In other words they offer the use of something for a price. Oh but they’re not offering it! They’re holding a license to take it away! LOL
A landlord owns a home, an object of great value, and they choose not to use it or sell it, but to sell the use of it. You do nothing to argue that this is parasitic except to slather it with pejoratives. Your list of anecdotal bad experiences people have had with landlords is utterly immaterial to the discussion of whether landlording is definitionally unethical.
I believe you exposed the core of your beliefs here:
The rental income that a landlord collects is not a wage based on any labor that they do.
First of all, how is that true? I purchased my home with money I earned from my labor. Am I not permitted to now own it? And am I not permitted to offer the use of the thing I own? Why?
To the core, though, the argument seems to be that labor is the only value that exists. Which is bad news for anyone past working age, I guess.
You need to establish some foundations like you think property ownership itself is unethical and labor is the only value before your case even begins to appear on stage.
Instead of this, you’re claiming that your string of pejoratives is an argument which I simply fail to understand. Which is, again, just a pejorative characterization. You’ve offered nothing but here.