I just saw this post about landlords being parasitic. While I agree in some points - mainly that by owning more property than you need for yourself, you’re driving up the price for others who want to buy a property. However, I don’t want to buy property when I move. I don’t have the funds for it, and I’m happy with a rented flat. Sure I want to get my own property at some point, however I’m also sure I want to move at least two more times in my life. Buying and selling each time sounds like a lot of hassle. Also, I live in a shared flat, that just sounds like a legal nightmare if the ownership changed every time someone moved out. How does this fit together? Are there solutions to this that don’t require landlords to exist?
One solution is community housing where the local government is the landlord and by extend the people in the area.
Another is housing cooperatives, which are groups of people pooling their money to build and operate housing. When joining, you acquire part of the ownership and when you leave you have to sell it.
TIL about housing cooperatives, and that about 6% in Germany live in one. Thanks!
Coops already exist. Basically they’re already set up so that when people move in, they own part of it, and when they move out, they don’t. The technical legal details of it varies from your country, region, municipality, etc, but from my basic understanding, when you sign your contract, it includes saying “you own this building with us until you move out. We might ask you to move out if you poop in the communal garden.”
Edit: re-reading your post, I realize I’m not sure if you mean the entire building or a single unit, but either way you can have similar arrangements.
Yup. I used to live next to a housing coop. It
wasis (It’s still there, I just don’t live in that city anymore, hence my predispositionfor past tense) the “experimental” neighborhood of the city, so it attracted some rather interesting people as well, but the place was nice and it seemed to work pretty well. I used to walk via there twice a day between daycare and the most convenient bus stop.
A part of the solution is “government owned housing” rented at fair price. Most countries have such housing for “poor people” but not enough for everyone. Let alone the whole “cut-down in welfare budget” means that these building are badly maintained and that even if you’re poor enough but not homeless (e.g. full time minimal wage) you still need years for your application to be accepted. I believe that Denmark and Austria are the few countries where this model is common even for middle class. It may-be a model to follow, at least for lower middle class
Driving up the price is good for builders which is then good for buyers and renters. Nothing wrong with owning and renting homes.
What kind of mental gymnastics are you doing to come to the conclusion that higher prices are good for renters lol
Well, you see, when rich people get richer, the wealth, like, trickles down or something.
It’s already explained. More builders, more homes, more choices.
You forgot the most important thing for you, “more boots to lick.”
Not my kink but we don’t kink shame.
Bootlicker- noun someone who seeks favor or goodwill in a servile, degraded way; toady: He comes across as a facile bootlicker, someone who would do anything like a lapdog to please somebody in the chain of command.
Can you give us an example of a country where this is happening?
More builders. More homes being given the “contractor special” no renter asked for to justify raising the price. I added a Ring doorbell and Nest thermostats so it’s a SMART home now, please up!
Driving up the price is good for builders which is then good for
buyersinvestors andrenterscorporate owners . Nothing wrong with owningand rentinghomes.No worries, fam, I got you fixed up.
Clearly that’s not how the real world works lol
