So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can’t sell it separately.
If you don’t need that space, then you might as well sell it and let another family make use of it instead.
Yours is not a unique situation; a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out, and they have a lot of extra rooms and space they no longer need. Its the right decision anyway, as you’re now free to be more mobile, and get rid of all the years of accumulated junk.
So you’re saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied? What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?
So you’re saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied?
If they can’t afford it, yes? That’s what the rest of us do. We make do with what we have and budget accordingly. If something is too expensive, well tough. The problem is that a lot of people are facing problems like housing, food, and healthcare being too expensive, and all three of those things are required to live. At some point budgeting won’t save you.
I have no sympathy for people whose biggest problem is “I can’t afford this extra room in the house we own.”
But what if they can afford it, but just don’t like seeing reasonable housing go to waste? Not enough to try to exactly right-size their housing and move everything they own, but enough to offer it up for rent.
It’s certainly a niche that isn’t the typical story, but renting out portions of your house is a scenario that could make sense.
What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?
What if their oldest loses their job and now for no fault of their own the renter is suddenly forced to find a new place to live to accommodate the landlords son? But they’ve been spending their money on rent so they don’t have enough savings to find a decent place?
Sure you can argue they dont need that space, but a lot of kids return after college. If I had kids I’d only downsize once they are well established. It’s about ensuring the security of your family and ensuring they have a place to come back to.
Is it better to let that sit space vacant for 4+ years though?
Is there a third option? It’s an unused room in a house that’s being used.
They can rent it out, leave it out, or sell their house and downsize but then what if their oldest is out of work and can’t find a new job and has to come home, but now because they downsized there’s no room for them. How does that help? It seems like there are only two valid options unless I’m missing something.
In this case I understand not downsizing until your kids are established with a job/place to live.
Depending on equity and their mortgage payment it may not even be possible to downsize without paying more per month. That’s the insanity of the current market.
Remember this is an occupied family home with an unoccupied room. Not a whole property.
a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out,
And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn’t moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially “downsizing” to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young’uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren’t in a position to buy a house and wouldn’t want to.
This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.” Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.
This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.”
Not the same at all, as lawyers do work to get paid.
Landlords rent-seek by charging access to important and scarce property that they themselves don’t use. They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn’t do for themselves.
If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
What gives you the right to these people’s paychecks? If you’re not using it, then sell it, and don’t rent-seek.
There is nothing defensible about being a landlord. Its not exactly the same as owning slaves or owning capital, but all three are based on absentee ownership and extracting value from working people.
The tenants can do upkeep themselves, or pay people to do that. Rent-seeking can still exist even if the rent-seekers promise to do maintenance (which in reality they don’t have much interest in doing, especially if it doesn’t add value to the property). Tenants often have to live for months with broken ACs, appliances, because their landlords have no desire to upkeep temporary items. The yearly lease is signed, and they’re getting their money.
My first landlord sucked, my second landlord was ok, but I suspect most wouldn’t be. They repaired everything in a timely fashion, and waived my rent for three months when I got laid off to let me get back on my feet. Still only made sense because I was in college and wasn’t sticking around that area long enough to justify buying then selling a property, but for the context acceptable landlords can exist.
Huh? Do you think it’s not labor when they fix broken doors, outlets, change locks, upgrade toilets, fridges, etc.? Some landlords even do it themselves without hiring subcontractors.
If you don’t need that space, then you might as well sell it and let another family make use of it instead.
Yours is not a unique situation; a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out, and they have a lot of extra rooms and space they no longer need. Its the right decision anyway, as you’re now free to be more mobile, and get rid of all the years of accumulated junk.
So you’re saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied? What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?
I’m not so sure that is a great solution.
If they can’t afford it, yes? That’s what the rest of us do. We make do with what we have and budget accordingly. If something is too expensive, well tough. The problem is that a lot of people are facing problems like housing, food, and healthcare being too expensive, and all three of those things are required to live. At some point budgeting won’t save you.
I have no sympathy for people whose biggest problem is “I can’t afford this extra room in the house we own.”
But what if they can afford it, but just don’t like seeing reasonable housing go to waste? Not enough to try to exactly right-size their housing and move everything they own, but enough to offer it up for rent.
It’s certainly a niche that isn’t the typical story, but renting out portions of your house is a scenario that could make sense.
What if their oldest loses their job and now for no fault of their own the renter is suddenly forced to find a new place to live to accommodate the landlords son? But they’ve been spending their money on rent so they don’t have enough savings to find a decent place?
Sure you can argue they dont need that space, but a lot of kids return after college. If I had kids I’d only downsize once they are well established. It’s about ensuring the security of your family and ensuring they have a place to come back to.
Is it better to let that sit space vacant for 4+ years though?
There are two options? Rent it for profit or leave it empty?
Is there a third option? It’s an unused room in a house that’s being used.
They can rent it out, leave it out, or sell their house and downsize but then what if their oldest is out of work and can’t find a new job and has to come home, but now because they downsized there’s no room for them. How does that help? It seems like there are only two valid options unless I’m missing something.
In this case I understand not downsizing until your kids are established with a job/place to live.
Depending on equity and their mortgage payment it may not even be possible to downsize without paying more per month. That’s the insanity of the current market.
Remember this is an occupied family home with an unoccupied room. Not a whole property.
What would you suggest?
And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn’t moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially “downsizing” to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young’uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren’t in a position to buy a house and wouldn’t want to.
This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.” Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.
Not the same at all, as lawyers do work to get paid.
Landlords rent-seek by charging access to important and scarce property that they themselves don’t use. They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn’t do for themselves.
What gives you the right to these people’s paychecks? If you’re not using it, then sell it, and don’t rent-seek.
There is nothing defensible about being a landlord. Its not exactly the same as owning slaves or owning capital, but all three are based on absentee ownership and extracting value from working people.
What about landlords that do repairs themselves though? Is that not by definition labor or am I missing something here?
The tenants can do upkeep themselves, or pay people to do that. Rent-seeking can still exist even if the rent-seekers promise to do maintenance (which in reality they don’t have much interest in doing, especially if it doesn’t add value to the property). Tenants often have to live for months with broken ACs, appliances, because their landlords have no desire to upkeep temporary items. The yearly lease is signed, and they’re getting their money.
My first landlord sucked, my second landlord was ok, but I suspect most wouldn’t be. They repaired everything in a timely fashion, and waived my rent for three months when I got laid off to let me get back on my feet. Still only made sense because I was in college and wasn’t sticking around that area long enough to justify buying then selling a property, but for the context acceptable landlords can exist.
deleted by creator
Huh? Do you think it’s not labor when they fix broken doors, outlets, change locks, upgrade toilets, fridges, etc.? Some landlords even do it themselves without hiring subcontractors.
What gives those people a right to a paycheck? Why aren’t they just making things and selling them.
if people could just make things and sell them without having to go through a capitalist…
Removed by mod
Commerce != capitalism
Right, you should be building things and giving them away to someone who needs it, for free.
This is such a cool idea, however what if I had needs that weren’t being met through charity?
Removed by mod