I know this will be downvoted to hell, but this whole let’s rally against landlords is kind of stupid in my opinion.
You can say the exact same thing about a bank that gives you a lone, they do zero work and get money.
Or a company that leases or rents out cars.
For a landlord you can make the argument that a home is a primary life necessity. But when you borrow money from a bank it’s pretty much the same thing.
Some people don’t want to stay in a place too long and like the option to rent. Also it’s not like a landlord hard zero risks, you can get tenants that are horrible and trash a place.
Just to be clear I’m not a landlord myself, but also not someone that just hates them because it’s a thing now.
Maybe but there is a market for it. To me it’s crazy people (students) in the Netherlands pay 15 euros a month for a bicycle, while you can find a working second hand one for about 100 euros.
Same goes for cars, I always save and buy second hand, I would never even consider borrowing for a car. Rather have an older model than debt.
But some people are different and don’t mind to pay extra for less hassle, like the bicycle thing. They replace it when you get a flat tire for example.
For some people that’s also what they like about renting a house, roof has a leak? Landlord has to fix it.
The utility of being able to borrow a use-value rather than needing to own it is a real thing, the form under capitalism is the problem, and is where exploitation and usury comes in. Better to have public transit, bikes included, at non-profit rates or even subsized to be free at point of service.
I mean you can always find cheaper, but 100 euros on markplaats will definitely get you a decent bike. I tried to sell my old one (we where moving and I didn’t want to take it with me). It still worked even the brakes and gears, although it was a bit rusty, anyway even for 15 euros almost no one showed up. Maybe it was too cheap.
I would go for the cheaper one and just bring it to the Ns bike repair for a checkup and let a specialist make it very good again. But a 100 bike on marktplaats will indeed net you a very decent and potentially even great bike
Nobody likes renting. Nobody likes moving. If there wasn’t the premium cost from renting, there would be less pressure on these people to change their life arrangements.
When I was in college, renting made sense. I wasn’t going to be there but like two years. I wouldn’t have hardly accumulated any equity and had the pain of trying to sell at the end.
I’ve known people with like two year work assignments where renting made sense.
I cannot fathom it, but I have a coworker who swears by renting even though he hasn’t moved in years and has no intention to move ever. I think the ‘mantaining your own house is scary’ articles hit him hard and he’s now convinced that owning a household means you are somehow constantly having to fix things yourself for lots of money. So he may have been bamboozled, but certainly limited term living makes sense.
That’s not really true, one of my friends rented an apartment for about 2 years specifically because he didn’t knew if he wanted to live abroad or in a different city. Same goes for my sister she really didn’t want any long term commitments to have the freedom to go anywhere. She didn’t even wanted a 1 year phone contract.
Lots of young people rent because it gives them more freedom and less burden when they want to move.
Also about the premium cost, it really depends on the laws, like in the Netherlands after you have rented a house for over 1 year, the landlord can only raise the rent a certain percentage. Some people have been renting the same apartment for 30+ years and pay a ridiculous low rent.
It’s really interesting that rent can only raise by a small amount each year there. I’m rolling around in my head whether that would work in the US. What happens when the assessed value of the property raises over the years and causes the taxes to skyrocket? Do the landlords just sell the place in that case? I could see that being a good way to keep the market moving and give people a chance to enter owner-occupied homeownership.
You can sell, but you’ll get way less for a house that has a tenant, because the new owner can’t kick them out. I know someone that bought a house for a really great price, because it had a tenant that had lived there for 50 years or so. It was basically a 10 year waiting game until the tenant died (he was old when this person bought his place). But after that he sold the place for almost double what he paid. I do have to add that in those 10 years the housing market also went up a lot.
I want to add it might seem I like landlords, I don’t, but if we want to get mad at someone it should be the system we accepted as a people.
I know this will be downvoted to hell, but this whole let’s rally against landlords is kind of stupid in my opinion.
You can say the exact same thing about a bank that gives you a lone, they do zero work and get money.
Or a company that leases or rents out cars.
For a landlord you can make the argument that a home is a primary life necessity. But when you borrow money from a bank it’s pretty much the same thing.
Some people don’t want to stay in a place too long and like the option to rent. Also it’s not like a landlord hard zero risks, you can get tenants that are horrible and trash a place.
Just to be clear I’m not a landlord myself, but also not someone that just hates them because it’s a thing now.
I think we should make the same argument against banks, leasing, and other highly financialized capital.
Maybe but there is a market for it. To me it’s crazy people (students) in the Netherlands pay 15 euros a month for a bicycle, while you can find a working second hand one for about 100 euros.
Same goes for cars, I always save and buy second hand, I would never even consider borrowing for a car. Rather have an older model than debt.
But some people are different and don’t mind to pay extra for less hassle, like the bicycle thing. They replace it when you get a flat tire for example.
For some people that’s also what they like about renting a house, roof has a leak? Landlord has to fix it.
The utility of being able to borrow a use-value rather than needing to own it is a real thing, the form under capitalism is the problem, and is where exploitation and usury comes in. Better to have public transit, bikes included, at non-profit rates or even subsized to be free at point of service.
As a fellow Dutch, you’re overpaying your secondhand bikes ;)
I mean you can always find cheaper, but 100 euros on markplaats will definitely get you a decent bike. I tried to sell my old one (we where moving and I didn’t want to take it with me). It still worked even the brakes and gears, although it was a bit rusty, anyway even for 15 euros almost no one showed up. Maybe it was too cheap.
I would go for the cheaper one and just bring it to the Ns bike repair for a checkup and let a specialist make it very good again. But a 100 bike on marktplaats will indeed net you a very decent and potentially even great bike
Then they should sell instead of renting.
Nobody likes renting. Nobody likes moving. If there wasn’t the premium cost from renting, there would be less pressure on these people to change their life arrangements.
When I was in college, renting made sense. I wasn’t going to be there but like two years. I wouldn’t have hardly accumulated any equity and had the pain of trying to sell at the end.
I’ve known people with like two year work assignments where renting made sense.
I cannot fathom it, but I have a coworker who swears by renting even though he hasn’t moved in years and has no intention to move ever. I think the ‘mantaining your own house is scary’ articles hit him hard and he’s now convinced that owning a household means you are somehow constantly having to fix things yourself for lots of money. So he may have been bamboozled, but certainly limited term living makes sense.
That’s not really true, one of my friends rented an apartment for about 2 years specifically because he didn’t knew if he wanted to live abroad or in a different city. Same goes for my sister she really didn’t want any long term commitments to have the freedom to go anywhere. She didn’t even wanted a 1 year phone contract.
Lots of young people rent because it gives them more freedom and less burden when they want to move.
Also about the premium cost, it really depends on the laws, like in the Netherlands after you have rented a house for over 1 year, the landlord can only raise the rent a certain percentage. Some people have been renting the same apartment for 30+ years and pay a ridiculous low rent.
It’s really interesting that rent can only raise by a small amount each year there. I’m rolling around in my head whether that would work in the US. What happens when the assessed value of the property raises over the years and causes the taxes to skyrocket? Do the landlords just sell the place in that case? I could see that being a good way to keep the market moving and give people a chance to enter owner-occupied homeownership.
You can sell, but you’ll get way less for a house that has a tenant, because the new owner can’t kick them out. I know someone that bought a house for a really great price, because it had a tenant that had lived there for 50 years or so. It was basically a 10 year waiting game until the tenant died (he was old when this person bought his place). But after that he sold the place for almost double what he paid. I do have to add that in those 10 years the housing market also went up a lot.
I want to add it might seem I like landlords, I don’t, but if we want to get mad at someone it should be the system we accepted as a people.
Brother, what Lemmy instance do you think this community is on? You aren’t going to get a good discussion with this topic here.