You do realize that whether you rent or own does not change the total number of houses that are occupied, right?
Right
It doesn’t change the supply?
Right
If there weren’t landlords there wouldn’t magically be more houses?
Right
The total number of houses bought and sold wouldn’t change?
Right
Demand wouldn’t change.
Right
Renting versus buying is zero sum in terms of supply.
Right
The cost of houses goes up with inflation and the cost of materials and labour.
Right; but this is the part you’re having trouble with. The cost of houses also increase because people and corporations buy more than they need and offer their now private excess to others at an inflated rate. If they didn’t hoard more than they use and scalp their excess for profit, the cost of houses would be less and more affordable to everybody. It’s literally no different than scalping concert tickets.
The issue isn’t about a landlord selling anything; it’s about the broken system that allows landlords to exist and create the problem we have now.
To summarize: in a system where landlords can’t exist, and our current housing supply does exist, all housing would be more affordable to everybody. If 10 houses are built and you can only buy 1 because you can only live in 1, that leaves 9 houses available for others to buy. Our current system allows you to buy all 10 even though you can only live in 1 and rent your excessive 9 for profit. That’s a problem.
Where in this scenario do the people who are working for poverty wages get the money to buy one of those other 9 houses?
A house doesn’t cost that much to build in materials and labour, the vast majority of middle and even lower class people can easily afford the down payment and mortgage payments on materials and labour instead of paying rent. What they can’t afford is the market rate driven up by the fact that landlords buy houses and rent them back to them at a profit.
They could also instead join a co-op that allows them to collectively purchase and own a smaller section of a larger building.
They could also get this magical thing called financing from either the private sector or government.
Without systemic changes most people will ever be able to afford a house even if we get rid of landlords.
The Ontario Liberals slapped a large tax on second properties in the 1970s and corrected the price of housing by 30% overnight. And that was before the massive boom in real estate speculation and mom and pop landlords and their totally earned and deserved “passive incomes” coming on the backs of people poorer than them.
Are landlords the only systemic issue? No, but they are a massive systemic issue that objectively drives prices higher by depleting supply, and one that is further enriching rich boomers who already have a fucking house to live in. Go outside, give your head a shake, recognize that you are part of the systemic problem keeping housing costs high, and then invest in an index fund and accept your reasonable rate of return like a decent human being.
Welp I hope you recognize that you’re a dumb greedy fuck and learn to shut the fuck up instead of trying to pretend like landlords are noble.
They provide no value to society. They are essentially freeloading scum. They’re capable enough to understand the market, at least at the surface level, but have chosen to waste their life being a leach on society rather than provide any actual value to the useful economy.
As @masterspacewrote, if people and corporations aren’t profiteering, the cost of housing is affordable to everybody. It’s basic supply and demand. Currently the supply is hoarded creating a demand, increasing the cost of housing to everybody. Nobody is homeless waiting for their house to be built. The demand for new homes is for people to be able to not be subjected to a landlord. The supply exists, it’s just already owned by somebody else for profit.
Ok, but if the landlord sells the house to the person that is renting it does the supply change?
Uhhh, yeah. There’s one fewer house to buy, which drives the price of purchasing a house higher. Are you not familiar with the basics of supply and demand?
Buy, yes, but not to occupy. The available inventory of houses does not change.
Yes, they can rent a house where a landlord will take their money and use it to pay off their own mortgage and the tenant gets nothing from it, while the landlord who already owns one house now owns two.
Many of the people who rent couldn’t buy a house at one half or even one quarter of the price because they are working for slave wages.
Categorically and objectively false. A small low cost house only costs ~$120,000 to build at market rates, the vast majority of middle and low income Canadians could get together $12,000 for a downpayment and then make mortgage payments if they weren’t having all their money going into their landlord’s pockets.
deleted by creator
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right; but this is the part you’re having trouble with. The cost of houses also increase because people and corporations buy more than they need and offer their now private excess to others at an inflated rate. If they didn’t hoard more than they use and scalp their excess for profit, the cost of houses would be less and more affordable to everybody. It’s literally no different than scalping concert tickets.
deleted by creator
The issue isn’t about a landlord selling anything; it’s about the broken system that allows landlords to exist and create the problem we have now.
To summarize: in a system where landlords can’t exist, and our current housing supply does exist, all housing would be more affordable to everybody. If 10 houses are built and you can only buy 1 because you can only live in 1, that leaves 9 houses available for others to buy. Our current system allows you to buy all 10 even though you can only live in 1 and rent your excessive 9 for profit. That’s a problem.
deleted by creator
A house doesn’t cost that much to build in materials and labour, the vast majority of middle and even lower class people can easily afford the down payment and mortgage payments on materials and labour instead of paying rent. What they can’t afford is the market rate driven up by the fact that landlords buy houses and rent them back to them at a profit.
They could also instead join a co-op that allows them to collectively purchase and own a smaller section of a larger building.
They could also get this magical thing called financing from either the private sector or government.
The Ontario Liberals slapped a large tax on second properties in the 1970s and corrected the price of housing by 30% overnight. And that was before the massive boom in real estate speculation and mom and pop landlords and their totally earned and deserved “passive incomes” coming on the backs of people poorer than them.
Are landlords the only systemic issue? No, but they are a massive systemic issue that objectively drives prices higher by depleting supply, and one that is further enriching rich boomers who already have a fucking house to live in. Go outside, give your head a shake, recognize that you are part of the systemic problem keeping housing costs high, and then invest in an index fund and accept your reasonable rate of return like a decent human being.
deleted by creator
Welp I hope you recognize that you’re a dumb greedy fuck and learn to shut the fuck up instead of trying to pretend like landlords are noble.
They provide no value to society. They are essentially freeloading scum. They’re capable enough to understand the market, at least at the surface level, but have chosen to waste their life being a leach on society rather than provide any actual value to the useful economy.
deleted by creator
As @masterspace wrote, if people and corporations aren’t profiteering, the cost of housing is affordable to everybody. It’s basic supply and demand. Currently the supply is hoarded creating a demand, increasing the cost of housing to everybody. Nobody is homeless waiting for their house to be built. The demand for new homes is for people to be able to not be subjected to a landlord. The supply exists, it’s just already owned by somebody else for profit.
deleted by creator
Uhhh, yeah. There’s one fewer house to buy, which drives the price of purchasing a house higher. Are you not familiar with the basics of supply and demand?
deleted by creator
Yes, they can rent a house where a landlord will take their money and use it to pay off their own mortgage and the tenant gets nothing from it, while the landlord who already owns one house now owns two.
Categorically and objectively false. A small low cost house only costs ~$120,000 to build at market rates, the vast majority of middle and low income Canadians could get together $12,000 for a downpayment and then make mortgage payments if they weren’t having all their money going into their landlord’s pockets.