• karlhungus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are providing a house for people to rent, people who may not be able or willing to by a house. That house is (presumably occupied) reducing the demand.

    That ONLY raises the prices

    There is still a market for renters, you could make the exact same argument in the opposite direction, by not renting you are only rising the costs of rents.

    Now if this was the case, I’d be more in agreement with you, but we simply don’t know.

    • BedSharkPal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The VAST majority would rather buy a house. The idea that landlords are helping our people who would like to rent a home is tone deaf given the current state of affairs. I would wager 1% or less would rather rent a home vs buy if they had the option - for what I thought were very obvious reasons.

      They aren’t “providing a home to rent”. They removed a home for sale from the market, making buying a new home more expensive, and then rent at a rate that makes you money. So you’re simply adding a middleman to pay. Rents are set based off the sale prices, as sale prices go up, rental prices go up, because that’s the alternative.

      Hey, if landlords are creating purpose built rentals, great. But buying up SFH and renting them out as an investment? You’re a parasite.

      • karlhungus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not a landlord. Ive rented in the past. Ive definitely preferred renting in the past. I don’t view owning a home as an investment, because even if I sell I very likely have to buy in the same market.

        I’m not a parasite by your definition.

        Maybe since we’ve both provided zero data to back up these speculations we both don’t really know. I’m really not going to go do research.