• SUPAVILLAIN@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I want to say an unequivocal no, but I’ve lived just north of section 8 literally all my life. If I came into the means and could actively suppress my nausea reflex long enough to go through with it, I’d still feel practically obligated to Engels it somehow. I like the idea of a landlord themselves organizing a tenant’s union-- I almost feel like a landlord doing that needs a different title, 'cause by that point you’re getting away from lord-ery-- but I also don’t think that’s ever happened irl in the west

  • CliffordBigRedDog [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    I will become a landlord but i will only rent to white expats because they are the only ones i want to exploit

    My “whites only” rental policy is woke and based actually

  • Assian_Candor [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    There’s no state of the world in which yes is an acceptable answer. If you had enough housing to live off the rents, you would always have the option to work and give housing away for free.

  • mkultrawide [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The only way I would consider it is if it were like actual luxury condominiums in some building that working class people could never afford, but still probably no.

    I have been thinking for a while about if it would be possible to leverage the cash from such a scenario into buying and leasing out more affordable condos in a “rent-to-own” scheme for working class people, but I’m not sure if it would work. Obviously that is a very controversial topic in and of itself.

  • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    kind of wild that some landlords dont even do that. talkin about the bastards who “need” the rent to cover the mortgages on properties—they’re still doing something else for their personal expenses, i think. just immiserating strangers on the side to maybe in a decade be able to rent a property they would own.

    the not working a real job is the only proposition for landlordism that remotely makes sense “yes im doing evil, but it enables me to have such fun!” or whatever. certifiably insane to imagine doing that vile shit and not seeing the actual dividends for years and years. ought to be illegal to rent something which you only “own” through a loan

  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    The only way I’d be a landlord is for the exact opposite reason: it ended up being a way for me to lose money but ensure housing for folks that were struggling. I’d start the process of making it a co-op where rent built equity until they purchased it at a low rate (in this scenario I’m not rich enough to buy it and give it away but I am rich enough to buy it and have “renters” buy it for half price or something over a period of time).

    Or maybe some weird commercial real estate thing where I’m an owner of an org’s meeting space on some technicality but still not making money from it.

  • ChaosMaterialist [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Landlording is a trap. Sure, you aren’t selling your labor, but now you are functionally ruled by others who do; your renters. You are also responsible for any repairs, must follow all applicable laws, the process and expense of evictions, insurance and taxes, as well as all the other shit involving owning property. You are also exposed to the greater economy through your renters who sell their labor. All of this is worse if you took out a loan. Congratulations, you are now the (unpaid) property manager for the Bank, and you won’t see any equity until you’re 25% through your loan repayment schedule. To end with a fiery exclamation point, all of this machinery assumes housing prices go up. Ask Japan how their property bubble went…

    lowkey seize the means of production so you stop selling your labor and working so hard. It turns all of the machines and productivity of the world away from being menaces to the working class into allies and assets. The Falling Rate of Profit is at the same time The Attenuation of Necessary Labor needed to make commodities, giving us more of that free time to explore being human. It’s also dis-alienating, as you are no longer a single Sisyphean automation rolling the stone of Work everyday, but deciding what Goal, and thus what Work, is necessary to achieve that Goal.

    Friendly reminder that Friedrich Engels was a Capitalist and a Class Traitor. Go form a tenant’s union and take over your landlord’s rental property.

  • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Most of the reason why I have to work is to pay rent!

    To cover utilities, property taxes, transportation, food, clothing, and entertainment would cost me maybe $1000 a month, possibly less if I had even better sharing arrangements. I would have no issue working for that amount, and never retiring.

  • iie [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    No. Even charging at cost, where they pay the same as if they owned the place, is still dubious to me. It feels wrong to have power over someone else’s house, to be in a position where in theory I could raise their rent or throw them out on the street. I don’t think it would be healthy.

  • Russian_Bot_6969 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Probably. I’d justify it by not evicting people who can’t pay rent until my savings is exhausted. Or in other words, being less evil than most landlords. Not the pure answer, but truthful.

  • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Kinda, if setting up transfer of partial property rights every month was easy. Then, when i die people will have fun with 10 partial ownerships of my place.

    Sitting with 300 k or whatever my imaginary property cost otherwise is enough so why be a piggie. Don’t have kids tho.

          • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Taking a broad view on history of unions and communist parties, they more than likely to set small bureaucracy dealing with properties which will survive active party politics by 50 years.

            And again, being a piggy is warping to the soul, i can’t deal with nonpaying tenants. Just flat out, i can’t throw people on the street. If i were to rent a property, that situation would come up sooner or later, and then doing moral calculus “well, i’ll make someone homeless, but thats okay cause i fund charity communist party” is bullshit