Not really, believing there should be affordable housing for everyone doesn’t mean all housing should be affordable to anyone.
I believe there should be different levels of density of housing and pricing in different areas, and that the state should subsidise some percent of rent based on income, possibly up to 100% up to a certain cost, if you haven’t had evictions on record; but I also own different properties I rent at market rate because it’s commensurate to the cost of living in the area, and a lower rent would not make living there any more affordable, and would open me up to possible tenant disputes if someone who can’t afford to live there were to move in.
If the cost of living went down in the area I would also adjust accordingly, as I don’t believe in fleecing people and it’s also generally beneficial to be in line with market value to maximise client volume.
Affordability isn’t a “rent is too high” issue only. It’s a “there is no place I can afford to live in that makes sense for the places I need to reach” issue too.
Cost of living is a huge factor, I have friends who work in the service industry who almost had to move completely out of the city due to the 22-23 price hike, despite local laws preventing rent from following inflation.
It’s only hypocritical if you believe no housing should be market controlled, which is a non-serious opinion, to be frank.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to do something and at the same time want a world where it’s no longer a thing.
If you argue against capitalism, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also shop for groceries at a store?
If you argue that we should live in a moneyless utopia and yet you charge money for your services, is it hypocritical?
If you argue for climate change action and yet you drive a car, is it hypocritical?
Of course, owning investment properties contributes to the problem and there is no excuse for that, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to see the problem and want to stop it.
I feel like you are not considering that your examples are necessary to be able to participate in todays society, unless you want to live in a 100% self sustaining homestead. Owning investment properties is not necessary for that.
IMO it largely depends on how the properties are being handled. If it’s just like any other property, and is being handled solely for profit’s sake, I think it is hypocritical to argue for affordable housing for everyone, as it just adds to the problem while you really didn’t need to. If the properties are handled in a way that actually improves the situation, makes no or only little profit, and thus provides affordable housing, it is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, as it is actively working towards the ideological goal you have.
It being unnecessary is what it makes it bad, but it doesn’t make it hypocritical.
It would be hypocritical to own investment properties while telling other people not to.
It wouldn’t be hypocritical to campaign for making it illegal to have them (which would affect you all the same).
In both scenarios your are contributing to the problem, but you aren’t a hypocrite in both.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
Solid prompt question OP. I see 116 votes and 116 comments, that’s a legit conversation stater.
Thanks 😄
I’m stoked by the engagement; I initially found the question following some article posted on bluesky. Replying there resulted in crickets. I thought to ask here on a hunch, and it’s been wonderful to read all the responses.
Back in the day people would claim that what was good about reddit was that it was a community. Well it’s not that anymore.
This is pretty good though!
I believe in a baseline level of food, shelter, healthcare, and education being provided to all regardless of means. Plus things like parks, infrastructure, physical safety and security, etc.
But just because I believe that everyone should have enough to eat doesn’t mean that I don’t believe there is a qualitative difference between that baseline level of sustenance and all sorts of enjoyment I can get from food above that level. A person has a right to food, but that doesn’t change the fact I might be able to farm for profit. Or go up the value/luxury chain and run an ice cream parlor, or produce expensive meals, or buy and sell expensive food ingredients. I want schools to provide universal free lunch but I also know that there will always be a market for other types of food, including by for-profit producers (from farmers/ranchers to grocers to butchers to restaurateurs).
The existence of public parks shouldn’t threaten the existence of profitable private spaces like theme parks, wedding venues, other private spaces.
So where do real estate investors sit in all this? I’m all for developers turning a profit in creating new housing. And don’t mind if profit incentives provide liquidity so that people can freely buy and sell homes based on their own needs.
I don’t personally invest in real estate because I think it’s a bad category of investment, but I don’t think those who do are necessarily ideologically opposed to universal affordable housing. It’s so far removed from the problems in affordable housing that you can’t solve the problems simply by eliminating the profit.
Can you morally take part in capitalism?
No.
Can you morally take part in (moral) market economies? Sure.
So then it’s just about where to draw the line.
Was it hypocritical of RATM to spread anti-establishment messages via a major record label? No, of course not. Systemic change being somehow at odds with doing what you can within the existing system has always been a false dichotomy propagated by those who benefit from division.
I feel like it kind of is. There are surely other investment possibilities. Why choose the one you’re against?
Because (historically speaking) its arguably the safest and highest yield form of investment that the working class can make. That being said obviously theres a tipping point in regards to the amount of income you’re generating at which it becomes predatory.
Funding a nice retirement? Ok. Making it so only one parent has to work? Fine. Jacking up the rent to cover the insurance on the new Lambo? Fuck you.
The line you’re trying to draw is very arbitrary, so it still feels a bit hypocritical.
You are assuming they were against it at the time they bought it, if they even bought it and not for example inherited it.
I work in residential construction, but I make sure to tell colleagues that we are all parasites on the backs of other parasites.
I’m doing my part!
Yes, that is like being a pacifist but investing in weapon manufacturers. It is easy money and it is attractive, but it is wrong and by making money off of it you become part of it.
“If you want peace, prepare for war” is literally a 2500 year-old sentiment. If you were a mugger, whom would you rob, a guy who walks around saying how he has no means to defend himself, or a guy who is armed to the teeth?
Okay Smartypants, I’m talking about the USA, not some peaceful country that only defends itself.
No country just defends itself. Look at history. Not the worlds fault USA tries to catch up with EU history with speedrun tactics ( we are currently in dark middle ages - Jerusalem, Crusading, Plague ( soon ) and fall of education )
Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
It would be hypocritical to tell others not to own investment properties while you do.
What other things would you invest in?
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
I have investment properties because of a variety of reasons, I need them for my retirement or I’ll end up a homeless
I don’t think that having a few properties is a problem anyway, I have a problem with the guy owning tens of thousands of properties
I know Lemmy is gonna bring out the pitchforks, but honestly, if we had UBI, socialized universal healthcare, free college, well funded retirement system, childcare, fair wages, then people would never need to do things like leasing out property. Its not your fault, its a systemic issue.
Not much of a difference if you’re a landlord. I don’t entirely disagree, but Lemmy hates landlords even if you’re a good one.
This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:
- Supply of housing influencing its cost
- Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
- Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
- Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)
The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.
The price to buy housing is influenced by how many people want to buy. People who want to live there are competing with landlords who want to rent out the housing. So it drives up the buying price.
A landlord buying for a higher price will likely try to charge a higher rent as to recoup the investment.
More potential landlords means higher rent prices. Every single landlord is increasing the problem.
This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.
That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.
This is the same logic that fossil fuel companies do to shift blame from themselves onto consumers.
Unless you are by extension making those properties affordable for whomever is leasing or renting, then absolutely it is, yes.
You can make them affordable by screening for high income.
If the property is giving you any kind of return, you’re extracting profit, so the property is less “affordable” than it would be if the resident owned it.
Not everyone is in a position to be buying a house at any given time, though. Providing housing at a less-than-the-very-top-of-the-market-value is still a necessary service that can benefit both parties.
The issue is the hoarding of that resource in certain areas, and the psuedo/full-on price fixing to max out returns
It’s true that it everyone is in a cash position to buy a house, but that’s made worse by housing being so expensive. And housing is expensive in part because of the hoarding and rent-seeking behaviors of landlords and investors. So renting is a “solution” to a problem it partly makes itself.
If people don’t have cash to buy houses, I’d look at that as a problem for lenders. Someone else renting out the house doesn’t necessarily have to be the only solution. I don’t think it’s possible to eliminate renting because we need some very flexible housing / short term housing.
But if we imagine a world where renting is incredibly restricted, perhaps to 4-unit apartments and up, instead of every single residence on the market, I think we would see a more affordable market where more people COULD be in a position to buy a house.
Interest rates are more of a significant variable. At 7%+ interest, renting will be cheaper.
There are other scenarios besides “not being able to afford to buy” that would make people lean towards renting.
Yeah, that’s why I said we need flexible and short term housing. The trick is to make renting serve the needs of renters, because those needs do exist. Today it’s more about serving the profit margin of owners.
When I rented out my property, for example, I felt it was my responsibility, my job, to offer a residence where everything worked. I maintained the place meticulously and paid for every repair. However if you simply scan reddit you’ll see thousands of posts from renters who, for example, have a broken down refrigerator and will have to pay to fix it themselves. I find that disgusting - the landlord holds the renter responsible for anything that happens while they are there. So the landlord gets their monthly debt service paid for by the rent, plus profit, plus they enjoy to market appreciation, PLUS the renter is on the hook for all maintenance? Fuck that.
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Most people can’t buy a property, because they don’t have enough money. In order to go around that problem, they either borrow money or rent the property. Either way, some extra money always goes somewhere.
Some of it is justified, because you need to go around the problem not having enough money to buy a house. However, there are many cases where that extra expense is absolutely wild and rooted in greed.
Actually, if you happen to own the property, some extra money will go to periodic maintenance and miscellaneous expenses you never even think of if you just rent the place. You just don’t pay for those things every month a little bit at a time. Instead, you pay a large bill once a year or an enormous bill every 10 years.
I’ve been a landlord and I know how it works. The liquidity problem you mention is real, but so is rent seeking. Landlords may help make housing available, but they absolutely do not help make it affordable. Quite the opposite.
Think about payday loans services. They help make money more available, but they make it as expensive as they can. No one believes they are providing a valued service at affordable. rates.
It’s possible to offer loans and rental housing at really reasonable rates, but that’s not what we have in our society. Investors and the wealthy buy up all the property, creating scarcity, this causes a price bubble which shuts out many buyers who get priced out. Then the renting begins, and I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but I couldn’t afford to rent the house I own.
It’s not hypocritical if you are providing affordable housing for someone.
Despite the kneejerk hate towards landlords lately, which is largely justified due to the extreme levels of rent-seeking behavior evident in today’s completely unaffordable rental market, affordable rental housing is actually a legitimate market and there needs to be availability to meet that demand. Renting on its own is not a crime. Some people even prefer it. It can provide significantly more flexibility and less responsibility, stress and hassle, at a lower monthly cost than home ownership IF (and ONLY IF) you have a good landlord, either because they choose to be or because the laws require them to be, which is not so much the case with most of the laws.
So for me those are the dividing lines. If you are not:
- A slumlord providing “affordable” rental housing by leaving your tenants in unsafe, unsanitary, and unmaintained properties.
- Demanding luxury-priced rents for an extremely modest property with no features that can be considered a luxury and no intention of maintaining anything to luxurious standards.
Then maybe it’s not hypocritical. And I don’t mean just taking the highest price you can find on rentfaster and posting your property for that price because “that’s what the market price is” I mean actually thinking about whether that price you’re asking is actually affordable for real human beings living in your area.
Basically, if you treat your tenants like actual human beings with the understanding they may be struggling to get by, trying to raise a family, working as much as they can even when work is not reliable, and dealing with all life throws at them, and you don’t treat these things as immediately evictable offenses like a battleaxe over their head just waiting to drop, then yes, you absolutely can argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone – because you are helping provide it.
If, after contributing to legitimate maintenance expenses and reserves, you are making a tiny profit, barely breaking even or even losing money renting, good. If you are treating it as a cash cow that funds your entire life, fuck you.
Maybe it is different elsewhere but according to my calculations, renting property is not very profitable. Investing in stocks is better if you only want to make money and do not care about the apartment otherwise.
You can’t easily get your money out of the property and if loan rates go up, you pay more and the property value goes down.
The real parasite is the bank who takes a cut but has little risk as the money it lends out is created from thin air.
Even if your costs only break even, you’re building equity
Often the difference in profitability is whether you pay for a property manager or do the work yourself
I know a couple people who did it and made money, fwiw. They gave up so they didn’t have to deal with people
That’s not at all how interest rates work on homes… They’re fixed and yes while fluctuations in interest rates can have an effect on the home value, that won’t change how much your mortgage payments are, and can only effect your property taxes by at most 2% per year
Rent doesn’t have to fluctuate with interest rates at all as it’s up to the home owner
Edit: unless you’re in a variable rate interest loan in which case, yeah your lender is screwing you
You are part of the society. You cannot escape it.
It’s not because you own property (which, if you can, is a wise investment) that you can’t see how messed up the system is at the expense of the working poor.
I think it’s one thing to not be willing to go live as a hermit to avoid unethical consumption and another thing to simply… not participate in rent seeking behavior like this.
