I didn’t say ownership is labor. I said maintenance is labor.
Seriously. Have you tried: re-painting a house, replacing drywall, installing new floor boards, replacing light fixtures, redoing baseboards, hooking up new washer/dryers, replacing doors knobs, fixing broken ceiling fans, installing security cameras, vetting and hiring handymen, plumbers, electricians, HVAC technicians, getting permits with the city, installing a new faucet, cleaning up sewer leaks, cleaning up mold, fixing stucco, dealing with bedbugs and termite extermination, get HERS testing, spec out a new electrical panel, debug for nuisance tripping, and so much more shit that I don’t have time to list them all.
This stuff doesn’t do it self. I live in my own home now and I had to learn how to do most of these things, at least the ones that don’t require certification. Handymen are expensive, and right fully so because doing maintenance well is not an easy job. If I can’t learn to do it right, I’ll need to pay someone else to do it.
My point is that owning a home is kind of like owning a pet. You need to be fully prepared for shit over the house and know how to deal with it when it happens. Unless you’re some property conglomerate, owning a house isn’t just a deed transfer, it’s practically a living thing that you need to take care of.
Maintenance is labor, and you don’t need ownership to perform maintenance. There will always be plumbers, but you don’t need a landlord to hire a Worker to do work.
Owning a home doesn’t need to be like owning a pet, again, you can have robust and nice public housing or personal ownership and contract maintenance yourself. Neither option necessitates neofeudal landlords.
Already answered. Exactly none of that requires a Capitalist landlord, you can accomplish every bit of that either publicly or with a worker-owned maintenance firm that can oversee all of that.
That’s an absolute dodge. I answered, contracting complex maintenance in no way requires having a Capitalist own your home. You can either have publicly owned housing, or you can personally own it, and choose to contract a maintenance firm or do it yourself.
All of these are superior to having a Capitalist landlord, designed to extract as much profit from you as possible for as little maintenance as possible. The closest to a Capitalist landlord would be public housing, except public housing isn’t concerned with extracting profits but getting results and covering costs.
Why exactly do you think some dude needs to own your house in order for them to coordinate maintenance? It’s nonsense.
I grew up abroad and lived in high density public housing with walkable neighborhoods and universal healthcare care. That is as good as it can get and how it should be.
When I moved to the US I accepted that this country is fucked in ways that can’t be fixed by just deleting landlords. The system that you have in mind isn’t functional for the low density urban sprawl that is vastly separated by inhospitable zoning, high ways, and red lining.
You can’t copy what works in some places and expect it to work the same way in others. Publicly own and co-owned housing needs constant attention and that can only work when it is high density because you can’t expect a single property manager to walk a hundred miles taking care of the concerns of each house hold. You can’t hire a property manager for each household because that would be insanely expensive. Not to mention how much more the upkeep is for single family housing compared to apartments.
People on Reddit and Lemmy have a visceral reaction towards landlords with an absurd understanding of how property management, the housing market, urban planning, and zoning works.
There are systemic barriers beyond just landlords that make widespread publicly owned housing non-viable. When you start out with an impossible goal, you get nothing done. Actually advocate for things that make a difference like increasing mixed used and high density zones in your local area. Saying ‘get rid of landlords’ is about as lackadaisical as saying ‘abolish jobs’. As nice as that would be, it’s not realistic in this economy and you’re not getting anywhere by sounding like a nut job to the socially regression crowd.
People on Lemmy and Reddit are young and quixotic. I get it, it’s great to dream big. But when all you do is dream, nothing will come out of it. Be realistic and make a difference. Visit the countries that you see these ideal housing situations in, understand the history, the culture, and how they got to where they are. The economy and housing market is path dependent. You can’t jump from A-Z and expect the same outcome.
I’ll be honest, skimmed that wall of text, and frankly none of it much matters.
The fact is, Capitalist landlords are entirely unnecessary and housing for the profit motive inevitably leads to enshittification. Good public housing and personal ownership are great non-Capitalist options.
You’re doing a great deal of intentionally misrepresenting what I’m saying, by pretending I want to just press the big Landlord Delete button and walk away. It’s pathetic and cowardly.
All in all, it’s hilarious that you take the high road and call me a young, naive dreamer when you can’t articulate a point beyond sticking your head in the sand.
That’s rich coming from someone who unironically says ‘L + ratio’. Nothing is being misrepresented here because there’s nothing to misrepresent. All I’ve heard so far are regurgitated catch phrases from Lemmy and Reddit, and that alone doesn’t make for a housing proposal that’s grounded in reality.
The vast majority of landlords doesn’t do any of that. They just pay for it to professional people from the revenue that they get from renting the house. The only labor that they perform is maximizing rent and minimizing maintenance costs (usually at the expense of the renters) and having to find new tenants from time to time.
The majority of the revenue is simply achieved by having the asset or capital to acquire said asset. They don’t really provide any service that wouldn’t exist without them, they are simply exploiting an asset and people that need a place to live.
I didn’t say ownership is labor. I said maintenance is labor.
Seriously. Have you tried: re-painting a house, replacing drywall, installing new floor boards, replacing light fixtures, redoing baseboards, hooking up new washer/dryers, replacing doors knobs, fixing broken ceiling fans, installing security cameras, vetting and hiring handymen, plumbers, electricians, HVAC technicians, getting permits with the city, installing a new faucet, cleaning up sewer leaks, cleaning up mold, fixing stucco, dealing with bedbugs and termite extermination, get HERS testing, spec out a new electrical panel, debug for nuisance tripping, and so much more shit that I don’t have time to list them all.
This stuff doesn’t do it self. I live in my own home now and I had to learn how to do most of these things, at least the ones that don’t require certification. Handymen are expensive, and right fully so because doing maintenance well is not an easy job. If I can’t learn to do it right, I’ll need to pay someone else to do it.
My point is that owning a home is kind of like owning a pet. You need to be fully prepared for shit over the house and know how to deal with it when it happens. Unless you’re some property conglomerate, owning a house isn’t just a deed transfer, it’s practically a living thing that you need to take care of.
Maintenance is labor, and you don’t need ownership to perform maintenance. There will always be plumbers, but you don’t need a landlord to hire a Worker to do work.
Owning a home doesn’t need to be like owning a pet, again, you can have robust and nice public housing or personal ownership and contract maintenance yourself. Neither option necessitates neofeudal landlords.
See comment
Already answered. Exactly none of that requires a Capitalist landlord, you can accomplish every bit of that either publicly or with a worker-owned maintenance firm that can oversee all of that.
Capitalism is entirely unnecessary.
That’s an absolute dodge. I answered, contracting complex maintenance in no way requires having a Capitalist own your home. You can either have publicly owned housing, or you can personally own it, and choose to contract a maintenance firm or do it yourself.
All of these are superior to having a Capitalist landlord, designed to extract as much profit from you as possible for as little maintenance as possible. The closest to a Capitalist landlord would be public housing, except public housing isn’t concerned with extracting profits but getting results and covering costs.
Why exactly do you think some dude needs to own your house in order for them to coordinate maintenance? It’s nonsense.
I grew up abroad and lived in high density public housing with walkable neighborhoods and universal healthcare care. That is as good as it can get and how it should be.
When I moved to the US I accepted that this country is fucked in ways that can’t be fixed by just deleting landlords. The system that you have in mind isn’t functional for the low density urban sprawl that is vastly separated by inhospitable zoning, high ways, and red lining.
You can’t copy what works in some places and expect it to work the same way in others. Publicly own and co-owned housing needs constant attention and that can only work when it is high density because you can’t expect a single property manager to walk a hundred miles taking care of the concerns of each house hold. You can’t hire a property manager for each household because that would be insanely expensive. Not to mention how much more the upkeep is for single family housing compared to apartments.
People on Reddit and Lemmy have a visceral reaction towards landlords with an absurd understanding of how property management, the housing market, urban planning, and zoning works.
There are systemic barriers beyond just landlords that make widespread publicly owned housing non-viable. When you start out with an impossible goal, you get nothing done. Actually advocate for things that make a difference like increasing mixed used and high density zones in your local area. Saying ‘get rid of landlords’ is about as lackadaisical as saying ‘abolish jobs’. As nice as that would be, it’s not realistic in this economy and you’re not getting anywhere by sounding like a nut job to the socially regression crowd.
People on Lemmy and Reddit are young and quixotic. I get it, it’s great to dream big. But when all you do is dream, nothing will come out of it. Be realistic and make a difference. Visit the countries that you see these ideal housing situations in, understand the history, the culture, and how they got to where they are. The economy and housing market is path dependent. You can’t jump from A-Z and expect the same outcome.
I’ll be honest, skimmed that wall of text, and frankly none of it much matters.
The fact is, Capitalist landlords are entirely unnecessary and housing for the profit motive inevitably leads to enshittification. Good public housing and personal ownership are great non-Capitalist options.
You’re doing a great deal of intentionally misrepresenting what I’m saying, by pretending I want to just press the big Landlord Delete button and walk away. It’s pathetic and cowardly.
All in all, it’s hilarious that you take the high road and call me a young, naive dreamer when you can’t articulate a point beyond sticking your head in the sand.
L + ratio.
That’s rich coming from someone who unironically says ‘L + ratio’. Nothing is being misrepresented here because there’s nothing to misrepresent. All I’ve heard so far are regurgitated catch phrases from Lemmy and Reddit, and that alone doesn’t make for a housing proposal that’s grounded in reality.
Sounds more like a home warranty company. Which works pretty nicely in practice.
I’ve never had First American tell me what color I can paint my walls.
The vast majority of landlords doesn’t do any of that. They just pay for it to professional people from the revenue that they get from renting the house. The only labor that they perform is maximizing rent and minimizing maintenance costs (usually at the expense of the renters) and having to find new tenants from time to time.
The majority of the revenue is simply achieved by having the asset or capital to acquire said asset. They don’t really provide any service that wouldn’t exist without them, they are simply exploiting an asset and people that need a place to live.