• itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    So why don’t you? What motivates you to not take that money to the stock market or start a business, if it’s oh so hard being a landlord?

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Myself, I don’t. Being a landlord has quite a bit of risk from awful tenants as well as quite a bit of effort to make it work well. I have a job, don’t want another, and don’t want the additional risk; my investments are thus elsewhere.

    • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      For us, it’s because work required that we temporarily relocate. But we plan to move back in a couple years and we really like our house.

      For others it usually has to do with the fact that selling a home costs 10% of the home’s value after all fees are accounted for.

      Then there is the other set of people who genuinely think the equity in a property is more lucrative than money in the stock market (depending on the market and timing, it could be, but it’s ultimately a bet).

      But I could ask the same question of every single person bemoaning the existence of landlords. If it’s oh so easy to be a landlord, why don’t they just become a landlord?

      • Saurok@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Probably because they don’t have the capital necessary to become a landlord in the first place. If you have enough money, being a landlord requires literally no work at all.

        • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I guess getting that initial capital required no work at all either.

          Why don’t they just get that initial capital if it’s so easy.

          Unless someone was born with money, the argument against non-corporate landlords (97.5% of single family homes are owned by non-institutional investors) is nonsensical, because those owners had to work for the initial capital.

          • Saurok@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            At the end of the day they’re still using that capital to exploit people by being landlords. Even if they earned that initial capital through hard work, the moment they invest some of it into a down payment on a house and begin to extract profit/equity via someone else’s labor, it becomes exploitation.

        • sharkaccident@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          For single family homes, I disagree. Property management is around 10% and you’re not going to build wealth quickly by giving that much off the top if you only operate a couple rentals.