And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn't moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially "downsizing" to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?

Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young'uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren't in a position to buy a house and wouldn't want to.

This whole "no good landlords" reeks of the same mentality as "no good lawyers." Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

This whole "no good landlords" reeks of the same mentality as "no good lawyers."

Not the same at all, as lawyers do work to get paid.

Landlords rent-seek by charging access to important and scarce property that they themselves don't use. They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn't do for themselves.

If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?

What gives you the right to these people's paychecks? If you're not using it, then sell it, and don't rent-seek.

There is nothing defensible about being a landlord. Its not exactly the same as owning slaves or owning capital, but all three are based on absentee ownership and extracting value from working people.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn’t do for themselves.

What about landlords that do repairs themselves though? Is that not by definition labor or am I missing something here?

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The tenants can do upkeep themselves, or pay people to do that. Rent-seeking can still exist even if the rent-seekers promise to do maintenance (which in reality they don't have much interest in doing, especially if it doesn't add value to the property). Tenants often have to live for months with broken ACs, appliances, because their landlords have no desire to upkeep temporary items. The yearly lease is signed, and they're getting their money.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

My first landlord sucked, my second landlord was ok, but I suspect most wouldn't be. They repaired everything in a timely fashion, and waived my rent for three months when I got laid off to let me get back on my feet. Still only made sense because I was in college and wasn't sticking around that area long enough to justify buying then selling a property, but for the context acceptable landlords can exist.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 0 points 5 days ago

add no labor value of their own to the process

Huh? Do you think it's not labor when they fix broken doors, outlets, change locks, upgrade toilets, fridges, etc.? Some landlords even do it themselves without hiring subcontractors.

[–] tankfox@midwest.social -4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What gives those people a right to a paycheck? Why aren't they just making things and selling them.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

if people could just make things and sell them without having to go through a capitalist...