- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
"Landlord " is a derogatory term. Try saying "person of land" next time.
person
lord
These pretentious failsons literally think they're gods, well lets give their divinity a test
Thank god someone finally said it! I've been in the closet about how I earn my living because I felt I might be ostracized by fellow leftists, but it looks like I'm not alone. Together we are strong.
My first suggestion is that we should add a subscription fee to the /c/ to keep out the trolls and disgruntled tenants, maybe even a proof of land ownership as a requirement for participation.
My second suggestion is a real life praxis suggestion: we form a landlords union so we can collectively demand higher rents and more favourable contracts from our tenants.
My flatmate sued our landlord and the court finally decided the case today. Our rent got lowered by half!!!! I'm still buzzing. All for c/landlordadvice, they clearly need all the help they can get smh
:mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining: :mao-shining:
What are the best hiding spots for landlords? Just curious will do nothing malicious with this info.
Gotta love being characterized as "pro-landlord" for saying, "Housing is a human right and ideally we'd have a system where there are no landlords, but in the system that currently exists, taking on a roommate to help split your mortgage doesn't make you a bad person."
Just like when the site decided I was a transphobe for suggesting that some people might not feel comfortable setting their pronouns, this is one of those allegations I didn't expect to have to address. But of course now that it's its own thread, I get to be the heel that everyone hates.
Oh, see, I thought the parasite part came from settler-colonizers murdering people and stealing large swaths of land that their descendents hoard and monopolize, taking in everyone's money and leaving them with no alternative but homelessness. But I guess the guy who owns 5% of a house getting a roommate to split the payment he has to send to the other guy is the real problem.
It literally doesn't matter what sort of arrangement you get into when the rich control so much of the housing market. If you have less than, like, $100k to your name then you could hardly exploit someone if you tried. You don't move up in class just because you took out a loan.
Like, in your worldview, do you think that renting is exploitative, but that buying is not? Do you think the millions of people who could get a loan and buy a house but instead choose to rent are just dumb and don't have valid reasons for preferring that arrangement? Do you think the system that's set up to exploit you left this big gap where you can just not get exploited if you choose door number one instead of door number two? I don't understand this worldview at all. They've got you every way you turn. As I explained in my first post on the topic, buying in practice is really just another form of renting with a different set of responsibilities, and with the bank as your landlord.
And yeah like I presented a couple real life possibilities I've considered like moving with my roommates and having one of us deal with the down payment and the debt and all that so the rest of us can just rent and not have to worry about it, or a friend offering to let me move in in exchange for free labor, and you didn't have any kind of response to that except retreating into memeland and posting Mao. Which reminds me, have you gone outside, once, like I asked?
Edit: The downbear says no.
Like, in your worldview, mortgage is the same as rent. Lib shit. I agree that we need to figure out alternatives to living situations like you mention, but I’d rather people stop bs’ing themselves with the drawn out arguments in an attempt to separate the ends from the means.
Mortgage is essentially the same as rent. You've got a couple differences, like, you have more autonomy over the property, you are responsible for fixing your own stuff when it breaks, it requires a down payment and you can't walk away from the monthly payments without finding someone to buy the house, and if you stick with it for a very long time, eventually you can actually own it. I don't see how those differences change anything fundamental, essentially, they own it because their ancestors stole it or bought it from someone who stole it, and you need it to survive, so you gotta pay them. They're just different payment plans, when it comes down to it. Would you rather pay for Spotify or buy music? It's a matter of preference.
And the solution is not for proles to find some fancy new arrangement that makes to most of the scraps we're left with, the solution is redistribute what they stole.
Advocating for scenarios in which it's okay to be a landlord is literally being pro-landlord lol what's with the victim complex?
This conversation began with someone who was asking for advice on whether it was acceptable to buy a house and have a roommate to help with the mortgage, and I argued that it was, because I wanted to give serious and practical advice. I don't have a victim complex, this post was a response to an argument between myself and OP, and I just think it's pretty cheeky to paint me as "pro-landlord" when I oppose the existence of landlords and advocate for redistribution. However if someone is looking for practical, real life advice, I will tell them that they can't solve the problem individually and that the house always wins regardless, and that if they're treating them as a roommate and respecting them as an equal, then in that specific situation it's fine. Of course like I said since OP made a separate post, you don't get that context and I'm just the heel, which is frankly probably why OP made the post but I digress. I should clarify that I am not a landlord, nor do I have any desire to be one, I rent a house with three roommates.
question, what about rooms like motel 6? are those ok in a leftist world
ok how about if you own a room to sell to people for short stays at not price gouging rates? like in a touristy area or something? im wondering about the ethics here. cause i dont think its as bad as typical landlording, though i guess it can be quite bad if you buy a place in a big city and turn it into an airbnb or something
only if it's a redirect to a nice juicy picture of :mao-shining:
If youre gonna landlord, go commercial so you can exploit bussinesses instead of people who need shelter. But even if you do do that, put the proceeds towards revolutionary causes so that in the future hopefully nobody will have to landlord. Like with most things though, there are levels: ie. Renting out the other half of your dwelling is much better than seeking out extra property for the sole purpose of rent extraction.
I still have to ask tho, is this a bit?
