[maxmamis]

why do you think it is one?

[endisneigh]

There's obviously work in maintaining an inherently depreciating, heavily worn asset. This is true of both landlords and anyone who loans out physical goods as a service.

[symlinkk]

Depreciating? That’s not how real estate works in the US

[maxmamis]

that work is done by maintenance workers — unless the landlord is personally out performing all the repairs, in which case they deserve to be compensated for their labor like anyone else. as mentioned below, the maintenance workers mysteriously aren't the ones entitled to a third of my paycheck...

secondly, ask anyone who's ever rented — landlords are notoriously awful at keeping up with maintenance. so if we're considering it a job, then they get paid far more for doing far worse work than any other occupation i can think of. does that not make you angry?

[endisneigh]

> that work is done by maintenance workers — unless the landlord is personally out performing all the repairs, in which case they deserve to be compensated for their labor like anyone else. as mentioned below, the maintenance workers mysteriously aren't the ones entitled to a third of my paycheck...

I'm not really following what you're saying here. It doesn't really make any difference whether or not the landlord does the work themselves. Either there's risk, and work to manage that risk, in renting out, or not. If there's not, then why wouldn't everyone be a landlord?

> secondly, ask anyone who's ever rented — landlords are notoriously awful at keeping up with maintenance. so if we're considering it a job, then they get paid far more for doing far worse work than any other occupation i can think of. does that not make you angry?

Some landlords are awful, yes I agree. Some people are bad at their jobs, you must also acknowledge. You vastly, vastly overestimate how much money an average landlord actually makes.

> does that not make you angry?

Why would it? If being a landlord is so easy, why wouldn't everyone do it? I like the flexibility of being able to move and not having to necessarily put down hundreds of thousands of dollars up front for property

[maxmamis]

> If being a landlord is so easy, why wouldn't everyone do it?

maybe just sit and think about this one for a minute?

the answer is that they don't have the capital, which is why it's a relationship of exploitation. by virtue of owning more capital than me, my landlord feels entitled to the fruit of my own labor. it's just feudalism in a new garb, as reflected in the terms we use (landlord/lady)

[endisneigh]

You don’t need much capital to be a landlord, hence mortgages. If you’ve never owned a house you can put literally 0% down.

The reasons to not be a landlord are plenty:

- potential downturn in the area

- tenants ruining your property

- inability to do maintenance affordably

- provide basic amenities and keep up with legal obligations can and do change unexpectedly

- potential eviction expense and risk

- rent collection, as we’ve seen from the pandemic

- dealing with people

People who think being a landlord is a slam dunk as long as you have the capital and it’s no work don’t know what they’re talking about.

Reminds me of people who think running a website is free money because the computer does everything.

[maxmamis]

I never said it was “free money,” i said it was exploitation. just because it takes some effort to extract money from me doesn’t make it justifiable.

In other words, here’s the world’s smallest violin for my landlord’s “potential eviction expense and risk”

as for mortgages, please show me a worker living paycheck to paycheck who’s been approved for a mortgage for a twelve unit building

[hedgehog]

Maintenance work is a job, owning real estate is an investment. Sometimes done by the same people, sometimes not.

[endisneigh]

Yes, I agree that owning real estate is an investment - renting it out is a job.

[hedgehog]

True, the parent commenter's concern is about the returns on their investment though.