Girlwithpen t1_ispo6vs wrote
There is frequently confusion that people who own properties to rent are doing this out of their interest in providing housing to strangers at a minimal profit or weakest investment for them. They are not. Unless renters are renting from a relative, you will pay market price. People put emotion into the rent filter. No different than buying groceries in a volatile economy.
Dogmeat411 t1_isprqtf wrote
The problem is that too many people/huge investment firms are trying to squeeze every penny out of an industry people rely on for their lives. If you want to squeeze profits and don't care about the impact, sell drugs.
free_to_muse t1_isqhf4i wrote
What? You rely on food, clothing, transportation, medical care, etc for your life. In all of those industries, huge investment firms are trying to squeeze every every penny out of the market. Why is housing any different?
Dogmeat411 t1_isqo608 wrote
Huge investment firms' involvement in renting properties is like their involvement in buying up old drug patents. Is it legal to buy a patent for a life saving drug and increase the price 500% because the market will bear it? Yes. Is it ethical? No. Does it contribute anything? No. Same with the synthetic price increases we've seen as huge companies buy up housing stock. I'm not a marxist, but this is just pure parasite behavior. You want to make money ethicaly, contribute. You want to make quick money and don't care about contributing or upending lives? Sell drugs.
free_to_muse t1_isskfov wrote
Huge investment firms involvement in renting properties is no different, in principle, than buying up cars, or tuxedos, or furniture. The difference is that the government, with perhaps good intentions, has created an environment in which nobody can increase the supply of new housing without cutting through years of red tape, fending off abutters, and conducting review after review and study after study, at exorbitant cost. What you have done is put billions of dollars on a silver platter in front of huge investment firms and then you get outraged when they reach out and grab it. “It’s unethical!” What’s unethical, and downright wrong, is continuing to maintain the perverse environment in which these firms operate. And this is only on the supply side! On the demand side we have had decades of Federal Reserve policy that has let these firms borrow money at artificially and historically low interest rates. How is that ethical?
Same story with drug patents. You cannot create a system where firms can make billions of dollars with minimal risk and minimal effort, and be shocked when they go out and do so. All this misdirected outrage amounts to nothing. End drug patents now, replace them with a system of subsidies and prizes, and do something constructive to improve this failed system.
Cersad t1_isq0cqt wrote
Who believes that? Absolutely no one.
The difference is: like food or water, housing is a fundamental human need and we have millenia of history showing how easy it is to monopolize and then abuse a housing market.
It goes back to serfs, and then even earlier history than that.
Girlwithpen t1_isqn20d wrote
Yes, housing is fundamental but it is not the responsibility of a home owner to house you. Especially in Massachusetts, people who can't afford housing have oodles of funding help available through the government. Many, many rental units are owned by a mom and pop landlord who has the property as an investment. Should this landlord go into debt or risk their investment to provide housing someone can't otherwise afford? If you can't afford rent you get a roommate or rent in a less desirable city or suburb. Also. Life choices. With the exception of a very small percentage, people who own a home rental or single family made a significant series of life choices and sacrifices to get there.
Cersad t1_isrecej wrote
Nah, the responsibility is on the city and state government. Land is a finite resource, and cities and states seem to have a legitimate interest in preventing property monopolies from forming.
Also there's legitimate interest in preventing price cartels from forming, like what that software tool is creating.
Everything else you said isn't really that relevant; owners gonna own. Regulators gotta regulate.
nyold t1_isqd0w9 wrote
I wanna say welcome to the free market, but seems like broke SJW downvoters are out in full force tonight
Girlwithpen t1_isqm3nt wrote
Exactly, renters who want emotional landlord response, ie, down voters. It is worse in the suburbs. People cannot believe a mom and pop landlord with one or maybe two rental properties would actually increase their rent simply because the cost of living went up and they are paying more for taxes, water, community space electricity, snow plowing, maintenance, unit revamping after a tenants dog scratches floors. They'll pay the COL increase for daily Starbucks and at the salon and whatever else is enjoyable but f the landlord. I think the software is a great idea because it takes emotion out of the equation. Family? You bet, my own lives rent free. Life. Choices.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments