• EatYouWell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, a lot of people don’t seem to understand that being a landlord means assuming a very large amount of risk.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      “risk” here meaning that maybe you won’t profit off of someone’s basic needs?

            • biddy
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you take this argument (socialism) to the extreme, grocery stores shouldn’t profit either. Only the workers that produce the thing can profit off of it. I’m not sure of the logistics of that, I guess the government has to own the stores?

      • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Tell me Mr. Social Justice Warrior: who will accept to rent properties if they can’t profit from doing it even a little bit? Do you think I’m Mother Theresa and I want to put my appartment up for rent at cost?

        Maybe you want the state to build and own real estate, and rent it at cost for great social justice. It is an option for sure. Just be aware that you’ll pay for it in your taxes, and not a little bit.

        Also, it’s been tried before in a small country called the USSR, and if I recall, it didn’t end too well.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          LOL at these children. I don’t have to imagine what state housing looks like, seen it. We should take all these whiners and throw 'em in a brutalist, Soviet, concrete cube and they won’t have anything to complain about!

          These guys remind me of Lee Harvey Oswald. Staunch communist and activist, went to the Soviet Union, got his ass handed to him, utter failure, came back to Texas with his tail between his legs, continued whining about how awful America was. But hey, he brought home a hot wife!

          I already know how this conversation plays.

          “It doesn’t have to be like that!”

          “No, it doesn’t. But it will be.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      A risk they choose to take on a commodity people have no choice but to need to survive.

      fuck landlords, and fuck anyone defending them.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      LOL, this is the wrong place to make a simple and truthful statement like that. Somehow, someway, everyone deserves a free home. The, uh, “plans” are a little sketchy. OK, no one really knows what that looks like, but we’ll get there! Um. Somehow.

      FFS, studies and real-life experiments, one after the other, show that we can save money by simply housing the homeless. Ask yourself why we’re not doing that. I’m all for taking a hit on NIMBY stuff, but homeless tearing up my hood and shitting on the streets is about the one thing where I’ll say, “NIMBY”.

      Part of my retirement plan is to rent this house out and go camp in an RV, or maybe make my 2.5 acres of swamp livable. Tell me lemmings, do I not deserve to make a few bucks on the deal? Shall I just let people tear my house up for free?

      Yes, we need solid renter protections, but go too far, and the good guys will drop out and leave nothing but sharks who can absorb the risk, and that absorption is going to cost. Already getting there fast.