You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
6 points

Just a reminder, they’re just better at being landlords. All landlords, every single one, is responsible for this, they were just too inefficient to raise rents this high this fast before becoming conglomerates.

permalink
report
reply
10 points
*

I think this is such a dangerous misunderstanding, that abets financialization establishing itself in more Canadian industries, increasing the cost of living and wealth inequality. Your argument - explained analogically in a simpler context - is basically that the best boss and the most exploitative boss are essentially the same, from a worker’s perspective, except the most exploitative boss should be regarded as better at their job. Unless you’re in the oligarch class, why would you think this way?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The way I understood his point was more like saying that serial killers are the best and most efficient murderers, and all other murderers just went good at their “job”. It doesn’t mean they’re good for society, infact the better they are the worse it is for everyone else. But being a societal leech is inherently part of being a landlord and some are better at leeching than others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But being a societal leech is inherently part of being a landlord and some are better at leeching than others.

Being a landlord does not inherently make one a leech (in a discussion with any nuance). And when you have millions of dollars to put towards gaming the system to extract as much money as possible out of tenants every year, lobby regulators, divert properties from live-in to short-term accommodation to increase demand, etc., you can be a leech on a much, much larger scale. You can screw over not just individual renters, but entire populations of people seeking apartments. Not all landlords are the same ffs. Also “better at leeching than others”?! You make it sound like you admire leeching

When your rental is owned by an individual with a second property versus when your rental is owned by a multinational company and is part of investment vehicle that pays (untaxed) dividends to investors and has mandates to extract as much money out of you is very different things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You have to remember, when capitalists discuss “efficiency”, what they actually mean is the efficiency with which they capture other peoples’ money. The most efficient system is one that provides guaranteed revenue and incurs no costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

from a worker’s perspective

This is the opposite of what OP meant. The most exploitative boss is regarded as the best boss by their boss, whose opinion is the only one that matters under capitalism. Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth creation, and landlords have innovated and streamlined the process in order to squeeze their more ethical competition out of business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth extraction and accumulation. What the workers are doing is the actual wealth creation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Exploitation of workers is a necessary part of wealth creation, and landlords have innovated and streamlined the process in order to squeeze their more ethical competition out of business.

Thank you for providing the 1% to .0000001% perspective. We should never lose sight of worshiping that. How silly of me to centre the perspective of the 99% on a grassroots non-corporate social media platform /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Right. Some bosses are good and decent people. Some people don’t want to run their own business. Some bosses are evil incarnate.

Let’s say someone has to work somewhere for a few months or so, or go to school somewhere, or whatever other reason people may have to be somewhere temporarily.

I’m obviously not going to purchase a home.

Landlords and rentals do have a needed space in society.

It’s those who exploit and who concentrate and consolidate their powers and properties at the expense of everything other than profit that are the problem.

That could be a single person with 1 or 30 properties or a corporate parasite with thousands of units.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s those who exploit and who concentrate and consolidate their powers and properties at the expense of everything other than profit that are the problem.

Yes.

That could be a single person with 1 or 30 properties or a corporate parasite with thousands of units.

No. A single person with one property or any entity with 30 properties, never mind 3000, tend to exploit on my different scales.

Being a landlord does not inherently make one a leech (in a discussion with any nuance). And when you have millions of dollars to put towards gaming the system to extract as much money as possible out of tenants every year, lobby regulators, divert properties from live-in to short-term accommodation to increase demand, etc., you can be a leech on a much, much larger scale. You can screw over not just individual renters, but entire populations of people seeking apartments. Not all landlords are the same ffs. Also “better at leeching than others”?! You make it sound like you admire leeching

When your rental is owned by an individual with a second property versus when your rental is owned by a multinational company and is part of investment vehicle that pays (untaxed)* dividends to investors and has mandates to extract as much money out of you is very different things. *The people benefiting from rental properties being an investment vehicle (REITs) also want to keep this untaxed income (for being societal parasites) untaxed and thus perpetuate the housing affordability crisis for profit

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Just a reminder, they’re just better at being landlords.

Having more capital to invest in numerous properties that can be listed at whatever price they want, with the ability to leave them empty if no one is willing to rent them, is not “better at being a landlord”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It quite literally is. That’s the purpose of being a landlord, exclusively, is to lord over land and expand your domain with the profits.

All landlords are leeches, all landlords would rather leave homes empty than rent them as long as the line goes up, all landlords exist still lely to make money from having money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It quite literally is. That’s the purpose of being a landlord, exclusively, is to lord over land and expand your domain with the profits.

All landlords are leeches, all landlords would rather leave homes empty than rent them as long as the line goes up, all landlords exist still lely to make money from having money.

You should work on the binary thinking pattern displayed here because “quite literally” one does not need to invest in numerous properties to be a landlord, and not all landlords are mega corporations looking to sheer every sheep they can see.

In fact, some run Inns.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Canada

!canada@lemmy.ca

Create post

What’s going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


Community stats

  • 3.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.4K

    Posts

  • 4.9K

    Comments

Community moderators