How is this weird, whoever has the power in a transaction is able to make their demands. Goes for anything that involves an exchange. Labour, housing, goods. This isn't insightful.
Yes, and I guess I took the post you responded to be aware of that, whilst expressing frustration with the initial post regardless - presumably because it phrased this as an action of class warfare rather than a feature common to all value-for-money exchanges where demand exceeds supply...
Wait, you only have to give a reference for a place to rent? Here in Ireland (Dublin) you need a scan of your passport, government id, work reference, housing reference, and at least bank statements from the last three months.
I'm going through the process right now in Kansas City Missouri and it seems like it varies from place to place. Leasing agencies seem to be the worst. One of these required everything you mention above except the passport scan, and it was 1.5 months of paycheck stubs from your employer.
Depends on the market. Like New York City is competitive, I think they demand references because they have plenty of options for tenants. Other places maybe not so much. Whatever people can get away with they will do.
Can confirm, had a friend rent a room in a house I was staying in (privately rented from the owner) after months of issues, he was given a glowing referee from myself and the owner, and swiftly ejected from the house. Guarantee it got him out the door a shitload quicker.
One guy I bothered every day about his other tenant stomping across my ceiling. That landlord gave me a fantastic recommendation because he was tired of having to do any effort whatsoever instead of just receiving money for doing nothing.
I saw that tenant as I was moving out, "I don't understand the problem, I always wore my indoor boots?" Fuck apartments lol.
Huh. Here we have registries for people who habitually don't pay on time, with a cooldown once they're caught up. If you're not in the registry it's assumed that you're good.
I'm having to do that now. Three years prior renting needs to be accounted for. I left on very bad terms with my previous landlord but I had to give the information over because it showed up on my history check and they refused to let my application be complete without it. So we'll see wtf is gonna happen...
It went full-on, lawyers-involved horseshit from her freaking out about trivial shit. So it's a guarantee that her response to any inquiry will be negative. Fun!
Thanks for the kind words, I should find out later today whether she's blocked me from getting a place.
I had a disagreement with my previous landlord. He included power in the rent (not uncommon here) and I have a home lab.
He was not happy with the electrical bill and accused me of mining Bitcoin.
Sir, this hardware is from 2010, and couldn't possibly mine a single Bitcoin in the time it has remaining to run before it dies.
He threatened to evict me, I took his eviction threat documentation to a lawyer who basically told me that "this is not sufficient grounds to evict" (more or less he just laughed at how dumb it was), and I promptly ignored it. Moved out when my lease was up. There were a ton of other problems I won't get into. When he showed it to new potential renters some showed up before the agent who was showing the place and we gave them a warning about the landlord. I'm sure someone rented it eventually, but hopefully we saved a couple of people from going through all that.
I actually like the idea of landlords covering electricity or at least a portion of it. It incentives them to install things like heat pumps which have a high up front cost but long term savings. If they aren't sweating the long term loss then why would they upgrade?
Most places here pay for heating, not cooling. Heating is usually natural gas or similar, cooling by AC is up to the tenant, and there's usually a premium in the summer paid to run AC when electricity is included.
Oh. I know. I'm just saying that since it heats and cools, it's not a priority.
Where I am there's no legal requirement to provide AC to tenants, so whatever heating system is cheap, that's what landlords will install. Natural gas is usually cheaper per unit of heat output than anything based on electricity, mainly in up front costs. A forced air furnace with no AC which is heated by natural gas is so common and therefore ridiculously cheap by comparison. For larger apartment systems, it's usually a central boiler that heats dozens of units. It's difficult and certainly not cheaper to cool the same amount of space.
Electricity being included is usually for smaller rentals, like rental homes or multi-rental properties, which haven't been outfitted with the required energy meters to individually separate electricity per rental, so, because doing that would require rewiring the property and adding several new service panels/electrical meters, which would easily be thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more), most smaller landlords just don't bother. Since they can't differentiate power usage between tenants, they just charge a bit more and include it in the rent.
That was my situation.
I moved to a larger apartment building, that was built from the ground up to be exactly that, and each unit had its own power meter and service panel. I paid my own electricity there. Heat was brought in from a boiler, but air conditioning was up to the renter. No HVAC system was built into the unit. Newer apartment builds and especially condos here can have air handlers installed per unit (though, not always), which may or may not have AC.
It's very hit and miss, but the vast majority of portable AC sales is to renters, since they don't have another option if they want to stay cool.
Presently, I live in a house (we're not renting it), and this house has central AC. I'm planning to move to a heat pump eventually, and hopefully also install solar to offset electricity costs around the same time; probably in a few years when the roofing needs to be redone. Once the roofing is done, install solar, and then, hopefully in the same project, upgrade the forced air furnace to a heat pump system. Right now it's natural gas. I'm not keen on that.
not a thing i've ever heard of in sweden, either apartments are just expensive or you need to sign up for a waiting list and maintain your spot for like 7 years until you have the queue points needed for the apartment you want to rent
it's usually not that extreme, but that's how it is in the large cities.
More normal for an average city is probably like 3 years waiting, you're expected to sign up before you have any intentions of moving out from your parents.
it's usually not that extreme, but that's how it is in the large cities.
More normal for an average city is probably like 3 years waiting, you're expected to sign up before you have any intentions of moving out from your parents.
One apartment I lived in was rented out by a private landlord, and there we had the option to write a personal letter/application which would allow us to skip the queue if we matched what they were looking for. We had just become a family of three and they wanted more families with children so we were approved. That was completely voluntary though. In honesty, I think it's kind of weird that we could jump the queue but we were no longer allowed to live in my student apartment so we jumped on it.
I know. That's why I said it's a bit weird that we could skip the queue. On the other hand, the fact that decades long queue times are necessary instead of more, affordable housing being built is also a problem.
It is an asymmetric relationship. The landlord only cares if a tenant can be trusted to pay rent and not trash the place. On the other hand, the tenant is getting a service (shelter and upkeep) from the landlord.
Like other service providers, an aggregate rating is probably more appropriate. Some people are fine as long as they have a roof and indoor plumbing while others rate 1-star if the water takes a minute to warm up. Some tenants care about kitchen appliances while others care about an updated bathroom. Some like to be woken up by the first rays of sun while others want a dark room to sleep in. It is important for tenants to both get a good aggregate of a landlord's quality but also understand if the landlord's faults are ones that they care about.
Being a landlord is morally wrong. Shelter is a human right, not a service. The service that they provide is not calling the cops to evict you so long as you pay them. They don't otherwise provide you with anything.
I agree with you by principle but there are those who have no interest in ever having a house of their own, either by personal or professional reasons.
Maintaining a house entails expenses, from current maintenance, to taxes and the eventual full overhaul because someone decided to trash the place.
I don't want to see people exploited to have a roof over their head and I'm a hairs width away from starting to actively trolling stupid people that think their busted places are gold plated to ask fortunes. But I don't want to see people be deprived of what is theirs and/or see it trashed by others that consider because they are there just for a limited time frame any concern for consequences is out the window.
Where are you writing from? Tenants have pretty strong protections where I live and an eviction is not a trivial matter here. And if people actually knew how to read, the law is pretty explicit on what is licit, both for tenants and owners (the word "landlord" sounds too much like feudalism to me to use it). Rent prices are high here but a poorly kept place can backfire so badly to the owners that they can see the rent not being paid in place of having work done on the house by the tenants.
I agree with you by principle but there are those who have no interest in ever having a house of their own, either by personal or professional reasons.
A landlord-tenant relationship isn't the only way to solve this, though. A more humane way would be housing coops.
Maintaining a house entails expenses, from current maintenance, to taxes and the eventual full overhaul because someone decided to trash the place.
The primary purpose of rent isn't maintenance, though; it's profit. The concept of making profit by mere ownership is even called "rent-seeking".
But I don't want to see people be deprived of what is theirs
Well, I'm deprived of 30% of my wages. Why does my landlord need two houses, anyway?
And if people actually knew how to read, the law is pretty explicit on what is licit, both for tenants and owners
Wow, what a classist statement. Not everyone has the time/ability/resources to take advantage of laws protecting the tenants (guess who usually has more resources for lawyers; it's the one with more capital).
Also, you ignore the inherent power dynamics. My current landlord demands more rent than what is actually legal where I live. I didn't bring it up, because if I did, I would have risked having to look for a different appartment.
the word "landlord" sounds too much like feudalism to me to use it
It fits the congept of a feudal society quite nicely, though.
I wonder how much of the concept of tenants "trashing" the place is actually occuring. It seems to me like the occurence is highly exaggerated.
the fact that most of the rent goes to pure landlord profit becomes obvious with municipal housing here in sweden, where we basically only pay for maintenance.
suddenly the rent is so cheap that the americans i've told it to just wanted to cry, 400€/month for a small apartment that's plenty big enough for a single person, and full on family apartments can be had for as low as 600€/month if you look around for a while.
You're awfully lucky then. That's a form of socialism, assuming that your government is intervening and ensuring affordable rent even for homeless and those on assistance. And what are the quality of those rentals? Have you lived in one personally?
Lived, no. Went there a few times and have coworkers that grew up there and their parents still live there.
The housing was purpose built to house a wave of immigrants that returned to the country in the 70's. It was built with money from a state-funded development initiative to foment building of new houses in the very early 80's, by the municipality, and was overhauled to add external insulation and improved windows somewhere between two or three years ago.
The rents are reviewed yearly by the city hall. On average, rents are around €10. Central government does not interfere.
But homeless people can't be forced to live there. We have had cases in our country where homeless people were housed and simply left some time after. Where I live, to my knowledge, there has been no such cases.
We also have a program - nation wide in this case - where extremely vulnerable people can resort to our Social Security to get aid in finding housing. I know a few cases of single mothers, elderly and even entire families being housed, with the rent being assured by social services, either by directly sourcing a house and paying the rent or providing the monetary support for the people to find one by themselves.
Lately, these programs have even started to relocate these cases inside the country to move population from high density urbam areas, more problematic usually, to low density areas. This creates a flow of people and money to less populated areas.
The reason we don't have federally funded municipal housing in the US is that the Clinton Administration capped the number of units the federal government is allowed to fund
A landlord-tenant relationship isn't the only way to solve this, though. A more humane way would be housing coops.
Co-ops? How do those work? I've known co-ops for building purposes, not for renting.
The primary purpose of rent isn't maintenance, though; it's profit. The concept of making profit by mere ownership is even called "rent-seeking".
Wasn't aware such concept existed.
Well, I'm deprived of 30% of my wages. Why does my landlord need two houses, anyway?
I'm deprived of my income through various means as well and don't like it but I have to trade my money for other things I require to live. Hopefully, we can shed this system but I risk with a good amount of certainty I won't be alive to see it.
Why can't you own more than one house? Let's state, for the purpose of the argument, you inherit a house. You already have one. Do you sell the other? For what reason? And for what price?
Wow, what a classist statement.
This is a self appointed criticism. I had to read the law to explain it to others and it is not hard to understand.
Not everyone has the time/ability/resources to take advantage of laws protecting the tenants (guess who usually has more resources for lawyers; it's the one with more capital).
Again, I speak based on my reality; this applies to my country. A quick search on the internet gave me pointers to which articles to read and then it was just a question of time (think of two bathroom breaks for a relaxing #2) to read and relate law with specific questions.
Also, you ignore the inherent power dynamics. My current landlord demands more rent than what is actually legal where I live. I didn't bring it up, because if I did, I would have risked having to look for a different appartment.
There are no legal limits in my country; if one part asks and the other accepts, it's legitimate. What exists is the notion of fair rental values, which are established by the government.
It fits the congept of a feudal society quite nicely, though.
Does not imply I have to like and abide the use of the word.
I wonder how much of the concept of tenants "trashing" the place is actually occuring. It seems to me like the occurence is highly exaggerated.
It's a hard thing to gauge. I've seen my share of houses completely destroyed by occupants: destroyed kitchens, bathrooms, walls covered in filth, tobbacco smoke and whatever it may have been, besides other damage.
On one, I helped the person move out and I was horrified. On others, I helped cleaning.
I'm deprived of my income through various means as well and don't like it but I have to trade my money for other things I require to live.
I'm against wage slavery in any form.
Hopefully, we can shed this system but I risk with a good amount of certainty I won't be alive to see it.
Just because you're pessimistic, doesn't mean we should stop criticising currently occurring injustice.
Why can't you own more than one house? Let's state, for the purpose of the argument, you inherit a house. You already have one. Do you sell the other? For what reason? And for what price?
Because I don't need more than one house for shelter. The other house could enter a usufruct property relation with the community. The accumulation of generational capital is one of the main drivers of economic injustice in the world.
This is a self appointed criticism. I had to read the law to explain it to others and it is not hard to understand.
Let's ignore the fact that you can't make that statement for every juristiction and that not every country has as good tenant protections as yours. Doubling down on the classism, are we? The whole power imbalance is unjust (the whole "justice" system is).
You also didn't understand what I meant with power imbalance.
Does not imply I have to like and abide the use of the word.
Then you have a problem with accurate descriptions. That's your problem, though.
It's a hard thing to gauge. I've seen my share of houses completely destroyed by occupants: destroyed kitchens, bathrooms, walls covered in filth, tobbacco smoke and whatever it may have been, besides other damage.
Yeah, sure. I'm guessing: selection bias.
Edit: you weren't aware that landlords seek profits? O.o
I work for a salary, like anyone else. The same way I like to earn my money, others do as well. Do I earn enough to live? Yes. Could I earn more? Yes. Are salaries too low for a decent living? Most. But that sentence as been reduced to a non sequitur and I won't engage it beyond this.
Just because you're pessimistic, doesn't mean we should stop criticising currently occurring injustice.
Allow me my pragmatism; a deep systemic change to completely upturn the current operating societal norms would only be achieveable through a massive uprising, which would probably lead to serious conflict. I prefer to never see it but make my best efforts to foment change for others to enjoy it.
Because I don't need more than one house for shelter. The other house could enter a usufruct property relation with the community. The accumulation of generational capital is one of the main drivers of economic injustice in the world.
I'm starting to get a sinking feeling. You have two houses. You decide to start a family. You have a child, maybe two. Each child gets one. Where is the generational wealth? At best, you give the next generation an easier entry into adulthood. Is that wrong?
Let's ignore the fact that you can't make that statement for every juristiction and that not every country has as good tenant protections as yours. Doubling down on the classism, are we? The whole power imbalance is unjust (the whole "justice" system is).
I am pretty confident I was speaking from my own experience, which implies it may or may not be transferable.
Then you have a problem with accurate descriptions. That's your problem, though.
Which you seem to be giving more value than it is worth.
Yeah, sure. I'm guessing: selection bias.
What do you need to know? That I worked with a moving company and was inside dozens of houses, in order to make my statement more "valid"? Or that family of mine worked as house cleaners and the things they saw should never be writen?
Try reading Wealth of Nations, and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, both written by the "Father of Capitalism," Adam Smith. Those are where the concept of rent-seeking comes from.
Once you are thoroughly enraged by the fact that we were never supposed to get this far into crony capitalism, then you'll be prepared to read Karl Marx and Trotsky.
We'd all love to live in a socialist utopia where a house to live in is the right of all citizens, but sadly that's just not a reality here on planet earth.
"Shelter" may be a right, as in if you're destitute you'll get food and something to keep the rain off, but a nice house to live in is not a right.
Ultimately landlords are providing capital, which you need to pay for a nice house. Providing said capital is not in itself immoral.
Can you explain your last sentence? I don't see how landlords are providing capital, at all. If anything, landlords are depriving you of capital, and using your money (rent) to gradually gain capital (increase in ownership of property, through mortgage payment) for themselves.
Because if you had the capital to buy a house, you would. A landlord has the capital to purchase the house and rent it to you under more favorable terms. I.e., not putting ~20% down and committing to a 15-30 year loan.
What is the alternative (besides a utopian society where everyone is provided housing for free or near-free)?
Sorry, I know you're not the original poster, but that doesn't actually answer my question. The question is "what capital does a landlord provide?" and the answer is, none, because when we talk about capital in this context, we're talking ownership of money or assets.
The landlord does not provide either of these things, and in fact only takes them in order to increase their own personal wealth.
The question is "what capital does a landlord provide?"
The capital needed to buy the house which the renter either doesn't have, or doesn't want to spend.
and the answer is, none, because when we talk about capital in this context, we're talking ownership of money or assets
I'm not even sure what you mean by this? The capital the landlord provides IS the money to buy the house and the asset (the house).
Just because the landlord makes money off the transaction? It's a transaction. The landlord is providing the risk of using their capital to purchase the home and the renter gains the ability to live there without having to extend their own capital to purchase the house (for whatever reason, maybe they don't have it, maybe they don't plan to live their long, maybe they are adverse to owning property, there's lots of reasons).
Why is it OK for any other business to make a profit from their risk and service they provide, but it's not OK for a landlord? The landlord is providing a service just like any other business.
I get the argument against large corporations buying mass amounts of land and driving up housing prices locking homeowners out of the ability to purchase land, but what is wrong with, if for example I have extra cash, am able to buy a home and rent it to someone who can't purchase a house for whatever reason?
Capital, as in ownership of money or assets that combine to a persons overall wealth -- A landlord does not provide this, and only takes it from the renter in order to increase their own capital. You can make an argument that a landlord provides a service, sure, but not that they provide capital, because they really don't. Maybe you mean they provide a means for a renter to accrue capital? Even then, that's shoddy, because you have to drill down to owners who actually care about their tenants vs those who charge as much as the market allows.
You can bring up risk, and sure, the landlord incurs risk. That risk is losing their property and becoming a renter. The "service" they provide is entirely dependent on their ownership of property, and I don't have much sympathy for a person who uses their ownership of property to exploit another person's need for shelter in the name of accruing more capital.
Those are kinda my quick thoughts, and I'm not totally prepared to defend the absolute shit out of them. My initial point was that landlords do not provide capital, and I stick by that.
To be clear, I don't think being a landlord automatically makes you a bad person, considering the economic system we live in. But I also don't think landlords provide a good, generally, to society. I don't think we need landlords, and I don't think they become landlords out of the kindness of their hearts, or that they wish to provide a home for someone. They just own more, and as such they can use that ownership to further increase their ownership. I don't think your example about you with extra cash is wrong in the context of the society we live in -- hell, I'm pretty much in that exact situation with my roommate, with whom I was renting before I bought a house. Sure, you could say I'm doing him a favor by letting him live in my house for a low cost, but mostly I am the one accruing capital at his expense. It doesn't make me a saint for doing that, it makes me greedy that I'm charging anything at all. That's part of the disgust I personally have for this system, is that we are all compelled to own more more more more. It's really not work hard and you'll succeed. It's own hard.
That totally clarifies it, thank you. I was confused. Still, that does not increase the renter's capital, and puts them at a disadvantage, because as they lose capital, the landlord gains equity. That's where we were disconnected, but I see now how you were using the term.
I wonder why so many people dismiss a better world as imaginary, when the thing that prevents such a world is, in fact, imaginary. We made up money. It is fake, imaginary, not fucking real. I can prove it too. You go into nature, and find me money. You can't. You can find currency, but not money. No animals have a damn mint. We made that shit up, and we can collectively decide that it doesn't matter.
So, grocery stores are morally wrong? I mean, food is a human right, isn't it? What about hotels?
Providing a necessary service in exchange for money isn't morally wrong.
Not everyone wants to own property. It's a huge financial liability, and a pain in the ass, tbh. I actually know people who sold their homes and moved into apartments because they were sick of the time and money required to upkeep a house.
While there are absolutely landlords who are immoral, especially corporate landlords, saying that being a landlord is inherently immoral is just incorrect.
I do agree that grocery stores are morally wrong in some sense yes. People should not have to lend their bodies in order to eat. Hotels aren't morally wrong entirely, because they're only providing a place to stay temporarily. If they did provide long term stay and charged for it than yes that would be morally wrong. You'll note that I'm an anarchist.
There is no such thing as a moral landlord. And the people you're talking about downsized. The landlord does not do repairs, he hires handyman and trades workers to do repairs. The landlord collects a tax from you while giving you nothing in return. My rent is twice the monthly cost of a mortgage for a mini home in my area.
When you have a mortgage the money isn't gone when you spend it, it's used to pay off your loan. When you're done you own the property.
I will never own this property. None of my money is returned to me. It is taken by a person or entity who literally does not provide me anything.
I'll repeat, providing shelter isn't a service. What the landlord is providing you, is not evicting you so long as you provide them a taxation of your wages that goes straight into their pocket. If all landlords died overnight nothing would materially change except for all the people renting could now keep their wages, and hire the handyman to do the work themselves. Housing co-ops also cover the costs of upkeep by pooling money to spend. No, landlords are 100% immoral 100% of the time and your buddy who's a good guy and a landlord might be a good guy but it has nothing to do with his being a landlord. Some cops save dying animals and volunteer at soup kitchens I'm sure, they're all still bastards by participating in a system of militarized state violence.
For the record, I think most people confused about your position do not believe the basic principles your stance is based on, such as profit = wage theft. Would you say so, or am I putting words into your mouth?
You must know nothing about owning a home if you think rent just goes straight into a landlord's pocket.
Also, dealing with contractors is a service that's being provided. Having to hire a contractor is often a pain in the ass.
Having both rented and owned, renting is much less stressful. You apparently don't see any value in not having to worry about maintenance, taxes, massive debt, liability, insurance, etc. which is fine, but that doesn't mean paying for it is a scam.
My rent is 50% of my income I will never get back.
No, renting is literally incomparably more stressful than owning a home would be where I could sell it at any time and get a portion of my invested income back.
If I could opt out of my landlord calling the plumber when I need one, I sure as fuck would if it meant I could keep my money. No, my rent goes straight into his pocket every month and a fraction of a fraction ever comes out to cover upkeep. I'd happily opt out and pay it myself.
You sound like you're probably decently middle class. Which is fine and I'm not saying that you have no experience being a lower class renter. But you probably are not familiar with the same financial pressures we live under today.
Landlords should not exist. Nothing would be lost if we converted every apartment building into a co-op. We would all have much more disposable income and much more control over where we lived.
You must know nothing about owning a home if you think rent just goes straight into a landlord's pocket.
Is the landlord making a profit? That comes from rent going into their pockets.
that doesn't mean paying for it is a scam.
Choosing to pay for it, sure. Most renters would rather own but can't because landlords have bought up a limited supply of a resource in order to profit off it. When scalpers do that they get vilified, but do that with something necessary for survival and for some reason it becomes an investment?
"People with more money than sense would rather pay someone else to do it" is not a good argument for forcing everyone else to also pay someone else to do it.
Oh no it’s worse than that. I have mandatory binding arbitration so I don’t really have rights. Mind you that’s after the application fees and paying for my own background check, commonly used to strong-arm you into accepting horrible terms.
