You’re not wrong. We should get rid of landlords and replace them with housing cooperatives.
How? Please elaborate.
In places that did this, usually a new set of more evil landlords took over after mass killing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement_(China)
"Landlords had their land confiscated and they were subjected mass killing by the CCP and former tenants,[2][3] with the estimated death toll ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions.[4][5][6]"
This should probably be required reading for everyone before they comment on housing:
"Housing Breaks People’s Brains"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...
The problem is a simple lack of supply not evil landlords.
Not convinced?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national...
> In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Edit: And of course, a comment with references is riddled with downvotes with no responses :), so predictable , while the original with an emotional "get rid of a class of people" stays positive.
I think honestly you should look into why you thought that’s what I’m talking about?
Ignoring all other factors, it's quite easy. The landloard-tennant social relation is able to exist because the legal system has a system of laws backed the threat of violence to secure and perpetuate its existence. To deconstruct the social relation as such, one would need to catalog federal, state, and local code to identify which clauses establish houses, apartments, condos, etc as private property and remove them. Voila! the legal construction of landlords no longer exists. without the threat of state violence, landlords cease to become a social category. If this sounds terrible to you, please refer to the first clause of this comment.
So, if no one can own the property, then high rent will be solved with a state monopoly?
I'm not sure where you are going with this, because there really are only a few options, all of which fall into two buckets: private ownership or government/state/tribal ownership.
Zoning limits the competition for property to single households. I can compete and win against a lot of single households for land. I could not compete with 10 households looking to build apartments. It is illegal to build ten apartments on most lots though, so good for me I guess.
Landlords own land and make it available to others to use. They generally want to build more housing because they like money. They are a strong ally in the fight for more housing (which means cheaper housing). Single family homes are the enemy.
We are already at the lower bound. We have already lost human dignity. You either need to afford 1k per month or be homeless. This homelessness is to spare them the indignity of living in a 350 sqft efficiency?
Build more housing. Remove parking minimums. Remove minimum unit sizes. End density restrictions. 8 units on every lot.
1. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/declining-elasticity-us-housi...
>The more inelastic housing supply becomes, the more rising demand translates into rising prices and the less into additional housebuilding.
My argument is that we should remove barriers to building housing so that increases in demand (it is already very high) translate into more houses. Landlords aren't the problem. The single family zoning that constrains supply is.
> a simple regression of the log median rental share on the rental price index, recovering a median expenditure share, sy, of 22.5 percent, and an implied price elasticity, εy,p of -0.83. ... The regression line has slope β1 = −β2 in equation (5b), with β3 = β4 = 0 imposed. Both slopes are positive and statistically significant, indicating demand is price-inelastic
So if I purchased or built a house with my work, then it is not longer mine?
> If this sounds terrible to you, please refer to the first clause of this comment.
Which is "Ignoring all other factors, it's quite easy"
Exactly, this works only in imagination land.
Thanks for ignoring my links to CCP China where they exactly followed what you prescribed and ended up killing landlords.
Summarizing, there is a problem X (= housing), scientists say solution is Y (= more supply). But common folks say solution is Z (= confiscation of other's labor and property).
Z has been attempted in other societies for X and always resulted in bloodshed. I ask how can this not happen again if we follow Z and I get a response that is just a slightly more detailed plan for Z.
The question was how to get rid of landlords, I answered that. What I'm attempting to dispel is the myth that landlords are some fundamental aspect of nature or reality - they aren't. Landlords are a product of a specific form of ownership and the legal structure that supports it. Those two things are choices even if they seem to you they aren't.
> So if I purchased or built a house with my work, then it is not longer mine?
Well, the criterium to become landlord is not "purchased your own home" but "convince bank to give you mortgage" then just charge more than mortgage costs you. It is essentially passive income with little to no effort put once you get above certain level of wealth
which took effort to obtain - either by sacrificing consumption, or by working more or doing more valuable work.
The banks' mortgage is the fact that there's evidence that you have the productivity to service said mortgage.
If you cannot show evidence that such a mortgage can be serviced, the bank will not lend you money. Lending isn't free - there's risk involved.
Calling it passive income with little to no effort is just hiding the work that went on previously. You only see the results, and not the work that went into achieving it.
both can be part of the problem. It's not an one dimensional problem.
> In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Oh, so sad they would have to sell the property that was previously just provided stream of passive income at no (many private landlords use companies to manage their properties) effort to them at all..
I'm also so sad for them to only earn a good amount on their "investment" of "being well off enough to convince bank to give the mortgage for an investment property" /s.
More than that, this absolute disaster might actually lower the housing pricing a bit and we can't have that now can we ?