Good point. Many people know a landlord personally would be my guess. "But my uncle John is a landlord and he's nice".

Not when we're looking at large groups of people - there's no reason to think the average number of occupants per home would change.

I agree with this, but I've always wondered what the solution is for people that do need short term housing. Like going to college or moving to a city on a temporary job. Neither is a situation where you want to buy a house.

The obvious answer is the revolution happens and property ownership is ended, but I don't see that happening. So what's the solution? And don't say dorms for college students, those regularly charge 2-3x market rates for worse accommodations

Source?

Don't you need a job in order to quit?

Landlords can't quit, it isn't a job.

As I noted:

Sure, some homes will enter the market for private buyers, so those doing quite well might have a slightly cheaper house but a lot are going to be sold to less scrupulous/more corporate landlords who feel they can extract more value, or in packages to developers

that should be the goal. make it pointless to rent and let people buy homes for themselves

However I don’t necessarily see your point, why people giving up on being landlords is necessarily going to result in those properties being sold to other landlords, if they could still make money being landlords then surely they would keep at it.

Think of most commercial properties: usually, when a business closes, another of the same type will occupy that spot. Generally the newcomer feels they can cut the margins enough to make a profit. (Often why you'll see something family owned being replaced by a corpo chain version.)

As I noted, some houses will enter the private market but I'd expect the much more likely buyer to be a developer or corpo landlord.

They could quit being alive. That would be pretty cool.

It means that the landlord can't force you to sign a contract for a year or whatever, you can always give notice and leave.

the source is the general trend in housing industry over the last 20-30 years, hedge funds and private equity trying to monopolize housing.

usually turning them into vacation rentals (airbnb) or luxury rentals (tech bro homes).

it's happening in every rich country (g8, etc), and probably poor countries soon, if not already.

it was put in place under occupation by the western allies after ww2

They... quit? So they're letting people buy the places people should live in without a middleman leech profiting off of them?

Renting can be a good option, especially when you consider the way equity vs interest are structured in the first few years of a mortgage. It's 99% interest at first, and then it slowly inverts year-over-year, which sure feels like renting my house from the bank for the first ten years... but I can't call up the bank and make them fix my electrical, plumbing, or appliances.

It would be nice to see a ban on renters snapping up existing properties, and a limit on how long single family newly constructed homes can be kept as rental properties.

2008 was enough of a crash that it wiped out my family's property value we sold our house at a loss

That's wild. I wish America had something like this! I once signed a two year lease just to get picked over another applicant, because I really needed a place close to work.

Meme stolen

Awww... couldn't happen to a nicer group of blokes, too.

If they did it wouldn't effect the supply because landlords almost without exception look to monetize existing properties. This means that someone else rents out the properties they previously managed. If they all corporate and individual quit at once the value of property would plummet until A) you can afford a house or B) it would make sense for someone else to buy it and rent it to you.

That fucking rules. Expected to job hop to increase your pay but also stay in the same place for 6 - 12 months?

I think there are lots of fair solutions whereby people don't get to profit endlessly off people's fundamental needs for shelter.
Do I think any of them are attainable without any kind of reform that landlords and their apologists would hyperbolise as a "revolution"?
No, I do not.

Pick your poison, but unfettered rentier capitalism is a cancer and it has to stop.

My neighbor has been trying to get their house rented after it didn't sell for 1.3million. Now they're paying the monthly mortgage for several months now. It doesn't seem like anyone is interested at practically $4000/month. Who would pay that mucho wonder. I bet the previous generation felt exactly the same as inflation was swallowing them into homelessness.... I.e. me, I could be underpaid and not know it. CuzI had to pay that rent I would not be able to afford where we live. We would need two incomes over $120,000 each. Crazy.

That's brain dead thinking they can sell any house at 1.3 millie. I hope that house sinks them.

I don't hope bad things on them but that house was definitely a 950k hot potato. Now there's no way they could sell or rent it at any reasonable price that was good for them or the renters. They will just have to take a loss.

prices would go down to affordable if renting was unprofitable. and even if you have to buy in, eventually you own the equity and even now with housing prices and interest rates high, it's still cheaper to pay a mortgage than rent and A LOT of renters are scum that won't even maintain your building.

The population of ethical landlords needs to be massively expanded.

And by ethical, I mean former.

Lol that is standard for a standalone (and even some townhouses) where I live 🥲

You know, if most landlords quit, their property doesn't end up in your hands. It ends up bought by a smaller number of more organized corporate landlords. Do you want an oligopoly? Because that's how you get an oligopoly.

Don't you have to have a job to quit? How would a landlord quit?

Do you have a source showing that it is happening in the UK at a greater rate than former rental properties are being sold to people who will live in them?

They took a place to live so they could make a profit off of it.

Good!

I had my college degree sabotaged by these shitstains. I would have needed an apprenticeship, but couldn't get one in Budapest without a Budapest home address, but every piece of shit needed a Porsche SUV to take their brats to private schools.

Even if it doesn't happening in my home country, I'm happy to see these wastes of oxygen and other resources (especially raw iron and fuel on their luxury SUVs) suffer a bit.

@arrow74@lemmy.zip was this not the response you were looking for?

Edit: just more down voting! It's almost as if you weren't interested in dialogue to begin with!

You can also quit smoking, or heroin

Yeah everyone seems to think the properties will end up in the hands of owner/occupiers. What likely will happen is they will get snapped up by corporates. The bigger they get the worse it will be. There are some shitty individual landlords out there for sure but I can guarantee that EVERY corporate one will be evil incarnate... law of unintended consequences will slam hard here

Parasites detaching after the tiniest amount of medication is used.

Arson.

sell

My brother and sister-in-law were considering renting a house in that price range. The reason is that they were sending their two kids (1st and 3rd grade) to a private school with a $30K (each!) tuition, so paying around $4K per month for a house in a good school district would have actually saved them money. Eventually they came to their senses and just bought a house in a good school district instead.

This is not a reason to not protect renters. Ultimately we will need renters' unions and rent strikes to gain affordable housing, regardless of ownership.

Scalpers only rip you off once. Landlords rip you off every week of the year.

The barnacles on the hull of society might have to get a job

Uhhh, there’s also the ROAD To Housing Act, which punishes corporate ownership of homes; so they’re fighting that too.

“Never fight your oppressor, or a bigger oppressor will beat you harder! Always be thankful for the abusive husband you have because he hasn’t chopped any of your limbs off.”

I didnt mention anything about the average number of occupants per home. What i did say was that, if 100 homes go from being rented to being sold, not all 100 homes will go to previous renters, for the reasons I mentioned above. Doesn't that make sense?

Probably means consolidation

That is happening regardless.

If prices fall enough buyers could negotiate non-amortized mortgages.

Just because something is universal doesn't make it inevitable.