You're viewing a single thread.
I don't want to own, I'm happy to rent. Landlords provide a service I want, just like my butcher, my dentist, my hairdresser, etc.
Ticket scalpers don't provide tickets, GPU scalpers don't provide GPUs, and landlords don't provide housing. Owning isn't providing a service
A non-market co-op would better suit you. It's still renting, just without the leech on your paycheck.
Here is an example in practice:
All housing should be like this, or outright owned by the user.
they do provide all those things, but they dont produce them. with this logic, grocery stores also do not provide food.
Correct. Grocery stores do not provide food. They instead provide a service, moving and storing food until such time as you buy it. They are a buffer, a cache in the food transportion network.
Farmers produce food.
Landlords do not produce or provide housing. Construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc provide housing.
That same logic applies to landlords though. They don't provide housing, they provide a service. They provided the capital for the construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc.
Insurance and taxes are forced as part of typical mortgage payments because otherwise people wouldn't pay them. Coordinating repairs and hiring out those jobs is also part of the service.
Part of the problem is that rent is more expensive than a mortgage. Another problem is that a majority of rentals are owned by corporations that cartel to have ever increasing rental rates. Rent increases aren't tied to anything except they can raise the price on a whim.
If you mortgaged $200k at 3% in 2020 you had a house note of $850. That same house would require a $350k mortgage at 7.5% is $1400. The landlord has the same house note on the same property but is charging rent like they just bought the house last week.
They don’t provide housing, they provide a service.
Owning isn't a service.
They provided the capital for the construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc.
No, the bank did that when they gave the landlord a mortgage.
Coordinating repairs and hiring out those jobs is also part of the service.
That's a property manager, not a landlord. Nine times out of ten, that property management is being handled by a low level worker, while the rich company owner owns everything and extracts the wealth for themselves.
Another problem is that a majority of rentals are owned by corporations that cartel to have ever increasing rental rates. Rent increases aren’t tied to anything except they can raise the price on a whim.
Exactly, they're leeches.
Owning isn’t providing a service
Yeah, you would be a crappy landlord, and if you wouldn't provide any service to me I would have somebody else do it and would sue you to get my expenses back.
Yeah, you would be a crappy landlord
"Yeah, you would be a crappy leech"
I ain't got a problem with that. I have no desire to exploit others.
and if you wouldn’t provide any service to me
You seem to be confusing maintenance, utilitiy management, and other actual services and therefore actual jobs with landlording, which is not a service.
You seem to be confusing maintenance, utilitiy management, and other actual services
I guess in your fantasy world all of those jobs happen because the service providers are benevolent clairvoyants and don't need to be vetted, managed, or need oversight.
No, those jobs are still managed and overseen in a co-op.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative
The system is identical, but instead of the owner profiting for their own sake, there is no owner other than the collection themselves, and no profit.
Hurr durr, so in your fantasy world everybody lives in a coop, and people like me who don't want to are forced into it. No, thanks, I don't want that totalitarian shit.
It's just as "totalitarian" either way. It's esentially the same system without the surplus being taken out of your pocket.
In a landlord system:
-
You pay $2000 a month. Of that, $1500 goes towards mortgage. Another $200 goes to maintenance, utilities, etc. The landlord pockets $300 for himself.
-
You have no choice but to rent from a landlord, buy housing yourself, or be homeless
-
Eventually the landlord pays off the mortgage, and pockets the additional $1500 for themselves because it's "market rate". Your rent remains at $2000/month.
-
The landlord dictates the rules of the building. You cannot get rid of a tyrant landlord except for moving, which isn't free, easy, or time convenient
In a co-op:
-
You pay $1000 a month. Of that, $800 goes towards mortgage, far less because it is no longer a speculative investment. The remaining $200 goes to maintenance, utilities, etc. There is no landlord, the collective collectively owns the housing. Nobody pockets any money for themselves.
-
You have no choice but to rent from a co-op, buy housing yourself, or be homeless
-
Eventually the co-op pays off the mortgage and your rent then drops to $200/month.
-
You vote for who is the manager/council of the building(s), which is almost always a tenant themselves. It's generally not a full time job usually single digit hours, and they are compensated. If the manager/council become tyrannical, you vote them out.
You have a clearly better system available, both in terms of your freedom and your wallet. And the better option isn't the landlord. They're all too happy to use your paycheck to buy another yacht or private jet.
And this isn't fantasy, non-market co-ops do exist. Look at the above link about Pittsburgh.
That's a lot of mental gymanstics to justify forcing me into a lifestyle I don't want.
You have a clearly better system available, both in terms of your freedom and your wallet
That's my decision, not yours.
Why do you not want a system of cheaper housing, with more power/freedom in your hands?
You pay $1000 a month. Of that, $800 goes towards mortgage, far less because it is no longer a speculative investment.
It is bizarre that you think that housing is used as a "speculative" investment. Housing and stocks were monetized because our money is centrally planned and devalues through excessive money creation, and people simply need a place where they can store wealth without having it destroyed. If people could use money to store their wealth housing would be demonetized and prices would go down, then your coop model could naturally outcompete renting if it truly is superior. Fix the money, fix the world.
-
that would be an apt comparison if your "butcher" was just a space where you would bring your own cow and butcher it with your own blade, and pay for the privilege of doing all that yourself. but unlike landlords butchers do provide a service.
unlike landlords butchers do provide a service
I guess you live in a ruin if your landlord provides no services. Must be some shithole country, that would be illegal here.
services are provided by service people. plummers, electricians etc. landlords don't do shit themselves.