[branchless]

Try explaining rent to kids. We have to pay to exist? We have to pay how much? And they are right! I don't have a problem doing nothing. I don't care what others think. But I have to work far more than necessary because of the labour skiming rentiers. They are living off my back.

Edit: landlords of HN unite to downvote!

[Tenhundfeld]

I'm sure it's different in different markets, different countries, etc.

That said, I know several people who own multiple homes and lease them out. They often barely break even with mortgage payments, maintenance, dealing with deadbeat tenants, etc. Sure, once a house is paid off, they have a nice source of income, but they're taking a decent amount of risk having so much of their money tied up in such a limited number of investments. Some of them are still under water on rental property mortgages after the 2008 crash.

They're not skimming labour off of their tenants. They're providing a service for a fee.

And if you're talking about large apartment complexes, that's not some landlord "rentier" class. That's a corporation, just like any other.

You don't have to pay to exist; just ask any homeless person. If you want to live in a home or any type of shelter, you have to make it yourself or obtain access to one that has been built. It has always been so. There are various ways to obtain access: squat, pay rent, perform services in exchange, couchsurf, join a commune, convince friends or family to accept you, buy, etc.

[branchless]

> They often barely break even with mortgage payments, maintenance, dealing with deadbeat tenants, etc. Sure, once a house is paid off, they have a nice source of income

So they get several hundred K for very little work that anyone could do.

There is no risk with the central bank land ramping. In urban areas they are limiting supply, forcing up prices and taking labour.

If someone does very little work and gets several hundred K that comes from somewhere.

[Programmatic]

If it was free money, everybody would be doing it. If it has no downsides, what's stopping you?

[branchless]

I don't want to exploit working people. Weird, eh?

[Tenhundfeld]

Why is it necessarily exploiting people to charge a market rate for a good or service?

That makes no sense, unless you just don't believe in private property – which is a different argument and not one I'm super interested in having.

And honestly, if you think it's so easy to be a landlord, you should try it. It's not. It can be fairly easy, until you have:

- a tenant who won't pay but also refuses to leave, necessitating legal action to evict, which is doubly expensive due to the legal fees and lost income

- a tenant who wrecks the property, e.g., letting their cat pee all over the wood floor, but refuses to provide any additional money to remedy

- a tenant who falls in the yard and initiates a frivolous lawsuit against you

- squatters who refuse to leave and require police action

- a roof that needs replacing, new HVAC, new appliances, etc.

Investing in rental properties often performs no better than just investing in the general stock market. Is that exploiting people? Is it exploiting people to have a savings account that pays interest? Anybody can do that and gets free money.

[branchless]

Wrong. Here is why most "invest" in exploitation. Banks lend you several times your salary. You are not appreciating the dynamics my dear rentier.

[lgieron]

That's just how the world is, you know. Back in prehistoric times, you didn't just happen to find a free shack and live in it - you needed to build it and maintain it. Right now, landlords take care of that for you - for a price.

[sapphireblue]

Building a shack isn't that hard, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P73REgj-3UE

Try building it in the forest though - it is most likely illegal due to some rentier (or government) already owning it. I think the grandparent has some truth to their words.

Existing outside the dwelling is illegal. Dwellings are owned by the elite rentier class, so you need some money just to exist (unless you are a rentier).

[branchless]

It's called "land enclosure". There is no common land and you must pay someone to stand anywhere.

I don't expect to exist for free given all the services the state supplies, such as healthcare, policing, roads etc. I also don't expect someone to own some land forever and derive rent from it as the workers pay taxes to build up infrastructure which augments the land value.

[lgieron]

Yeah, the land is not free, but, outside of metro areas, the land can be dirt cheap. You certainly don't have to toil for years to buy a piece of it. Plus, in places like Siberia or Northern Canada perhaps, you can live for decades in a public forest without anyone noticing.

[ghaff]

In all fairness, you can't build a shack or pitch a tent just anywhere and live off the land. (Though, in practice, there's a lot of empty space in Western US and unimproved land can be very cheap. On the other hand, I don't suppose the parent poster would seriously live in a shack with no utilities, transportation, food supply, etc.)

[branchless]

The land is the price. Maintenance is not much. They exploit the system, no way do most add the value they derive. They are parasites forcing up costs.

[cortesoft]

Ok, so we do away with private property ownership... How do you determine who gets to live where? Can I just build my house wherever I want? Can I block your doorway with a house I build right in front of yours?

[branchless]

No you have land value tax instead of income tax to redistribute gains from land.

[randomdata]

> Try explaining rent to kids.

When it comes to kids, we often call it sharing. Billy has a toy truck you want to play with. You have a action figure he wants to play with. If you each share what you have, then everyone is happy.

That is all rent is. Billy has a house, you have cash. He wants to play with cash, and you want play house. If you each share what you have with each other, everyone is happy. Pretty simple.

[kesselvon]

Sharing is a two-way transaction with the object being returned. Rent is one way, as the landlord isn't giving you your rent back.

[randomdata]

Why aren't you getting your money back? The only reason why you would want to occupy someone else's space is precisely because you see an opportunity to get all your money back.

[branchless]

Also rent is a proxy for labour. You are labouring and then handing it over via a medium of exchange to your landlord who does very little work. He doesn't have to because our banks and govt allow exploitation through land.

[branchless]

It's a very simple analogy that in no way reflects the real world complexity of fiat money and limited land supply.

[randomdata]

You're right. If we're explaining this to adults, it is even simpler: Create something of value and you can exchange it for things other people have created of value.

[branchless]

and the landlord creates nothing

[randomdata]

The landlord either created the house, or the landlord created someone else of value and traded it for the house that someone else created. Houses don't appear out of thin air.

[branchless]

No they got it in the main on credit which they and the bank then use to share the labour of a working person.

Also the house is often worth far less than the land.

[grondilu]

> We have to pay to exist?

No. Existing is free. You have to pay in order to live in a dwelling you could not afford.

[logfromblammo]

You also have to pay for the bounded, mappable area around that dwelling, unless you live in a ship on international waters or a perpetually-aloft aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.

In many places, homelessness, squatting, and camping without explicit permission are illegal. You might not have to continuously pay for the spot on which you stand, but if you stay on it for too long, eventually someone will come to collect or make you move on.

[grondilu]

> In many places, homelessness, squatting, and camping without explicit permission are illegal.

And in just as many places, if not many more, it's not. After all, shanty towns do exist.

[denim_chicken]

While raw "existence" is free, a sheltered existence is most certainly not. In many areas it is illegal to live in a tent or in a car, for example. It is also illegal to camp in a national forest for longer than 2 weeks.

[grondilu]

> While raw "existence" is free, a sheltered existence is most certainly not.

I was replying to "We have to pay to exist?", not "We have to pay for a shelter?".

Being free to do something does not mean the means to accomplish it should be free of charge. I know lots of people think otherwise and therefore believe things like food, healthcare or accommodation should be given to them somehow for free, fortunately most people don't agree.

[branchless]

And we can't afford it because fiat money issuance by the banks is unconstrained and therefore trends towards saturation of all excess labour above basic needs such as food and clothing.

And the banks and the landlords mop it all up using the state to guard their property whilst the workers pay the taxes.

The system stinks.

[gluggymug]

Easy. "Kids, it's time you started paying me rent. Got no money? No problem. I got a lot of chores: cleaning the house, dishwashing, laundry, cooking, etc. Mummy and Daddy are off to catch some Pokemon or whatever."

[branchless]

Nope, totally wrong. The service you deliver to your children will far outweigh that rendered by them, at least in their youth. Inverse for renter / landlord.

[gluggymug]

You asked how to explain rent to kids. They can't learn if you are a horrible landlord.

[branchless]

All landlords reap far less than they sow. They are rentiers, they do not create wealth rather they exploit our regressive property laws to extract labour.

[bbcbasic]

Upvoted you. You make a good point.

[gjm11]

I am not a landlord, but I downvoted you for complaining about being downvoted.

[branchless]

Ah well at least I don't have to pay you.