[pixelatedindex]

> IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing.

They don’t create supply in any way, the only ones who do that are builders. But sure they maintain houses. Although just the bare minimum, they will never fix it nicely - just enough to rent it out.

[jjav]

> They don’t create supply in any way, the only ones who do that are builders.

For a house to be available for me to rent, both things need to happen.

Someone had to build it, obviously. But just as necessary, someone needs to offer it up for a rental.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

One of these things precedes the other in time, however, which may be significant.

[aoeusnth1]

But not in the causal chain. The building happened because someone was willing to pay for a fungible asset. An asset is only fungible if there are buyers.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> The building happened because someone was willing to pay for a fungible asset.

Building often happens because a developer believes someone will buy the homes they build. A lot of the time, they are right; some of the time they are wrong. Some developers will get buyers lined up first, to minimize the risks of being wrong; many do not. In the latter case, there's no inherent connection between the building and subsequent buyers.

[rascul]

> But sure they maintain houses. Although just the bare minimum, they will never fix it nicely - just enough to rent it out.

Depends a lot on the landlord. Many will fix it up nicely because they can charge a higher rent. Much of my work is repairing rental properties and I've seen all types of landlords. I try not to work for the cheap ones if I can help it because I don't want my name associated with the crap they want me to do.

[tpmoney]

How does one propose to supply the market for temporary housing without landlords? Students, travelers, new residents to an area, people early in their careers switching jobs frequently, all of these people have a need for temporary housing. If the only people who own buildings live in them, where do these people find their housing?

I spent over a decade living in various rentals after I moved to a new state. I didn't have the money to buy when I first moved, and even if I had, I didn't know the area well enough to know whether I would want to buy where I first lived. And having the ability to just pick up and move meant I had a lot of flexibility for chasing job opportunities. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to love about the home I own now, but it absolutely ties me down and anchors me in ways that renting never did. I for one am glad to have had people willing to rent property to me.

[pixelatedindex]

All fair and valid points. I agree. In today’s age with a career in the tech field and a newly first time home owner, I do feel the aspect of being tied down. But I never really got to avail of moving to chase job opportunities since the Bay Area is where they’re the densest. That being said during Covid times I had to move to the PNW due to layoffs (got a great offer, but I didn’t have to accept it and could afford to keep looking). So I really do understand the benefits of renting.

Like I said in another reply, I don’t consider landlords to be inherently bad. But there are a lot who will try to take advantage of you if you let them. You have to be lucky to get a good one - I only had a couple out of the dozen or so and I wish them the best.

[refurb]

Of course landlords create supply.

A renter is someone looking to rent. If someone buys a home then rents it out they just +1 the supply of rental units.

[defrost]

Only if that home wasn't already rented out by the previous owner.

A high proportion of real estate sales are owner churn, not the purchase of brand new never used before properties.

[nerdponx]

The actual value of landlording is offloading financial risk. The tenant pays a stable rent including a premium in exchange for maintenance, repairs, and not having to sell a home in order to move to a new one.

I just can't bring myself to agree with the hard-line socialists who think landlording is fundamentally a bad thing. There are a lot of problems with it, but it does have a legitimate place in the world.

[pixelatedindex]

I don’t think it’s fundamentally a bad thing. It has its place. But it’s an industry that’s easily exploited - I rented over a dozen places and like 80% would try to do things that the tenant handbook would not allow. I sued one of them, and settled out of court for another. And surprise surprise a lot of them don’t want to rent in areas that are pro-tenant rights.

[nerdponx]

Right, it's entirely possible that landlording in practice has so many opportunities for abuse that it's irredeemable despite its potential for benefit in certain cases. I don't know if I agree with that, but at least it's more intelligent than "Marx says landlords bad therefore landlords bad."