ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    The main driving factor is this “down payment” shit. A person who has a bunch of money can just go get a house and not actually pay for it fully. They can still loose all that money, there’s risk there if they can’t pay. And that’s the difference. Everyone else can’t put down that much money. So they can pay a landlord more money than the landlord pays monthly, but they don’t have 2 or $300,000 bucks at risk each and every day. I mean, the landlord is payed for the risk they incur.

    So a renter only loses a small amount of money if they fail to keep paying rent. However, they pay more each month and also, they loose relatively more when they loose housing and become homeless. So the situation is fucked up. You could for example barely own a house and then stretch and buy a second house with not much left in savings. If you’re in that situation, you’re a different landlord than a bank who basically only incurs a monetary risk and not a loosing everything you got risk.

    Because of this. Maybe we should bring down the “down payment” bar shit. I mean the house could be destroyed by a renter or an owner, but the house will still be there. Banks literally can only lose a little bit of time between ownerships. So if you could purchase a house with just $5000, for example, that would be pretty easy to do for most people who have a job. At least relatively much easier to $300k. You can sell your house to the bank and get yourself a new house. Literally nobody loses if the down payment level is lowered to something reasonable. Ultimately, the banks will always own houses. So why not just state it clearly…you don’t own this house but if you had 3 lifetimes, you could. And bring down the payments accordingly to people’s income. Keep it locked at 10%. If we did this, what would prevent you from owning a mansion? Okay limit housing to reasonable sizes? Control traffic by only allowing people to own near where they work? So you live 1 mile from work and then you find a new job, congratulations! Now you can be part of the people who can buy near that area.

    I don’t know nothing. I’m just posting some stupid ass ideas.

    • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      13 days ago

      Housing is still wildly speculative in pricing: detangle housing from investment, and people could actually afford to own homes

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 days ago

        Youre right and, to add insult to injury, everyone, including those who do not own property, ensures that house prices always rise.

        We’re all paying for the increase in value but fewer and fewer are enjoying the rewards.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      13 days ago

      And the main factor driving down payments is housing prices, which are driven by landlords. Less landlords > less scarcity > lower prices > lower down payments.

      On top of that, housing cooperatives exist, which can provide the benefits of renting (lower monthly payments than a mortgage, economy of scale for repairs & construction, less financial liability for the individual) without the negative effects of a for-profit landlord. (you progressively own more of your unit over time instead of never owning any of it, you pay lower monthly rates than you would to a for-profit entity)

      They even have different ownership models, which could give more choice for pricing. For instance, the non-ownership model means you pay a lower rate, just the cost of continuing the providing and upkeep of the housing, with no additional profit margin, but you don’t end up owning any of the unit you live in. But the ownership model means often paying a bit higher pricing, but in turn, getting to actually own the unit you live in, and later sell it off if you wish to move. (some cooperatives have caps on how much higher you can sell it for compared to your purchase price, others do not)

      But in the end, the one thing that makes housing more expensive, that outbids cooperatives for housing, and that increases the scarcity of the market, is for-profit landlords.

      The only way you get any true positive change on down payments, housing prices, or housing availability, is to completely ban all for-profit landlording.

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        If we could ban the for profit landlording that still leaves one big ass hole…asshole if you will. People keep making more people, so who builds their houses? Who pays for their land so they can start their own progressive path to ownership? And I totally agree with this. You should only make enough money to re-paint or re-roof etc. Maybe these things could be a type of insurance like the insurance you buy when you purchase a house with a low down payment.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 days ago

          People keep making more people

          Eventually, people stop needing housing, or their housing needs can be met by a ceramic pot on a shelf. The house they used to need becomes available for someone else.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 days ago

          People keep making more people, so who builds their houses?

          Developers. If there is more demand in a market, they will build property, then sell it to whoever is willing to buy, or, will seek funding from an existing institution, which if it’s not landlords, will be housing cooperatives, then use that funding to finance new buildings. Traditionally, when we’re talking high-density housing, the buyer of these properties is a landlord. Without that landlord, the demand still exists, and someone, or some group of people, will inevitably fund the cost of the housing. In a world with no for-profit landlords, housing cooperatives fill in the gaps. (primarily for high-density housing specifically)

          Either existing cooperative members come to an agreement to pay slightly higher rents in order to build up a fund used to later purchase and expand their pool of housing, (which later increases the benefit they receive from economies of scale, and reduces risk of a major issue in one building causing a lack of revenue altogether) or a new cooperative is formed with money pooled from members, and once a specific threshold is met, they collectively purchase the property.

          Housing is a good with inelastic demand. Everyone needs housing. There will always be someone, or some group of people willing to buy. And if you don’t have landlords to artificially increase the price of housing, which only goes up so quickly because of its commodification, and further purchasing by for-profit landlords, then the overall cost for a cooperative to outright buy a new property, or for a new cooperative to raise the funds required, is substantially lowered.