• bunchberry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    25 minutes ago

    It always impresses me how much people worship landlords, even Canada up there is having a housing crisis but nobody dares question the sanctity of landlords. You can watch both the major parties arguing for hours and nobody ever brings up landlordism once. A lot of them choose to instead become hostile to immigrants, both parties moving further right on immigration because stopping immigration or potentially even kicking out immigrants to them is more acceptable than questioning the sanctity of landlords. You also saw a similar thing here in the USA, I remember after the Trump/Kamala debate when they revealed the plans for bringing housing prices down and Trump was “mass deportation” and Kamala was “a tax credit.” Not sure about every country definitely here in US and Canada, people here treat landlords like unquestionable deities, the idea that their right to rule should even be called into question is not even something that passes through most people’s heads.

  • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The worst thing about this is that housing is essential, while all the other things aren’t. Scalpers only take advantage of other people’s shopping addiction, while these so-called “investors” take advantage of other people’s basic needs.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      People with lots of money shouldn’t be allowed to make other people suffer.

      If I punched you in the face, I’d be in trouble. But if I drive up housing process so you become homeless, well that’s your fault.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        What the hell does that have to do with luxury goods? The house is the only thing you Might not consider a luxury good because you need housing but, owning your own property and not sharing walls with a neighbor is in fact, a luxury.

        • aim_at_me@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 minutes ago

          Shelter is a basic right. And private landlords have been disastrous for the price of housing.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 minutes ago

          Maybe I missed it, but I think the OP is about how home “investors” are also scalpers. So the topic is home investors.

  • icdmize@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    All that shit’s gone to garbage except for houses, don’t ask me how I know. <_<

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    There should be a hard limit of houses you can buy. Two by default (the one you live in and one you can rent to someone, maybe with a requirement that you need to live there occasionally) and an additional one for each child if he or she doesn’t have one yet.

    • bunchberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      25 minutes ago

      In Cuba they have a law that requires you to sell your house if you buy a new one. That also means you can’t be a landlord or else you yourself would be homeless. They also have a law that guarantees that if you don’t own your own home, you at least get public housing guaranteed, which has rent capped at 10% of income so it can never exceed that. They have the lowest homelessness rate in all of the Americas.

      • eatCasserole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        And they’re guaranteeing this super affordable public housing all while under a comprehensive trade embargo for 60+ years imposed by the most powerful nation there is, who also happens to be their neighbor.

        Never believe that housing “needs” to be expensive, it’s 100% a decision made by people who profit from it.

      • OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        They are using advanced algorithms to find the best prices for in demand properties based on profit percentages. Its become so ridiculous corpos are buying houses before individuals can even bid or have access. They buy them in lots at a time. Even using the same algos to place offers on existing properties where people live. Its ludicrous.

      • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        We should really start by limiting that. If we start treating housing as a basic right, which we should, there’s zero reason a company should be allowed to own housing to profit off of. It’s a far bigger problem than my landlady who owns five flats. We can talk about limits for people like her later.

        • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 hours ago

          For sure. But we don’t even consider water a basic right and concede unlimited water rights to mega corporations before reserving water access to the local population. So I have no hope for that to happen with housing…

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      First 5 investment properties should carry a 1% property income tax that is directly funneled into a housing development program, then a 5% property income tax on the next 5, 10% on the next 10…

      Realestate is the safest and highest yield investment working people can make to build generational wealth. Dont cut the throat of the guy who can afford a brand new Audi to spite the guy who has to decide between wether his driver fetches the Rolls or the Bentley.

      People should be able to aspire to being rich, just not filthy rich.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        The problem is the taking beyond their need, not if it’s many doing a little bit each or a few doing a lot each.

        A swarm of locusts still leaves you with nothing to eat, even if each one only takes a bit (and unlike people buying a handful of houses to profit from merely owning them, the locusts only eat what they need).

  • slaacaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Housing is a basic human need, it shouldn’t be allowed to be only an investment. With the other items, you can just say “so don’t buy it”, which is not possible with housing, you have to pay for it, even of you wouldn’t like to.

      • Hyperlon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        An Important want for sure, but not a necessity in any way shape or form. You won’t die or get sick by not attending a concert or a guitar would be listed in survival guildes

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I’d bet if you were a lego fan you’d say the same about legos.

        Housing and concerts are orders of magnitude apart in “importantness”. All of the items above are not needed to live. A home is needed.

          • yeather@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            It’s scalping if you have a quick turn around, it’s investing if you take care if it to sell farther into the future. Seeing a recently released limited set for double the price on ebay is scalping, seeing a 20-30 year old mint set for double the price is investing.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              47 minutes ago

              If it’s a limited edition and someone buying it to “invest” denies another person’s ability to purchase and enjoy it then fuck the “investor”.

              If enough are available at the time that anyone who wants it can acquire it then I have no problem with someone keeping a copy in good condition to sell later.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            52 minutes ago

            You haven’t paid enough attention to notice that the tropic of conversation is that scalping is bad and property scalping is worse, which you seem to agree with, so I don’t know why you’re arguing with people.

      • killingspark@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I agree that “just don’t buy it” is not that easy for culture in general, it could be applied to hypermonetized events.

        I’m not sure I get your second point. How is Ticketmaster enabled by people boycotting events that get scalped?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          How is Ticketmaster enabled by people boycotting events that get scalped?

          They aren’t by that specifically, but they are by transferring the blame to scalpers and the victims of both scalpers and Ticketmaster…

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

          Yeah. Not to mention that a lot of people’s social identity, social activities and sense of community are all tied up in going to concerts together…

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    They’re all pieces of shit and deserve to be kicked out an airlock into deep space.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        When scalpers buy all the tickets to a concert in milliseconds, and the only way to buy a ticket is through a scalper, why are you blaming the person who wants to go to the concert instead of the scalper?

        • killingspark@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          If we all collectively agreed to not buy from scalpers the ticket sellers would have a real incentive to do something against the scalpers. Right now they don’t have to care.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            That “solution” suffers from the problem that requiring hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to get informed about and agree to do something all in the same time period (it won’t work if some do it now and others only later) is incredibly more hard than it is for a few tens of people or maybe a couple hundred to as individuals swarm the sales venues and take all the tickets to resell them for more money.

            Or putting things another way, it’s a mountain to climb for large numbers of people to organise and stop scalpers (and that, only for a while, since if people stop doing it the scalpers will return), whilst in the current commercial environment scalpers appearing is a natural outcome.

            This kind of thing usually requires changing the structures that make scalping so easy, rather than hoping that somehow (magic?) hundreds of thousands or miliions of people agree to do something.

            PS: Yeah, a cultural change would be it, but expecting it to just happen and all at the same time (given that early adopters of that practice won’t actually see any upside until a large enough mass of people have adopted it and they’ll start giving up if too much time goes by whilst they’re refraining from buying from scalpers and yet scalpers keep going because so many others are still doing it) is highly unrealistic.

            • killingspark@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              I’m all for changing the structures that enable scalpers in the first place but that too requires agreement and action of many many people. So if we can’t even do that for something relatively small like tickets to concerts I doubt we’ll be able to change the system in general

          • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Would thry?

            The ticket seller doesn’t care if there’s an empty hall, he got paid early on.

            You’re hoping that the scalpers don’t get enough return to be able to justify continuing to play their role.

            • killingspark@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 hours ago

              You’re hoping that the scalpers don’t get enough return to be able to justify continuing to play their role.

              Yes, that’s what “If we all collectively agreed to not buy from scalpers” would achieve. I get that that isn’t going to happen but it is still our collective fault.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        You could, but they aren’t the ones causing the issue, they’re just enabling profits to be made from it.

      • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        6 as well. Imagine if nobody would buy houses and just expand their parents house by a floor for their own family.

        If that doesn’t work - make the neighborhood criminal by yourself right after those “people” bought houses.

        If that doesn’t work, just purge them.

          • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            If my assumptions are correct, there should be a crash of something within the next 4-6 months. My problem is that a new president always means a new unknown variable, like Bitcoin did nearly double its value after Trump won, there will be a still unknown thing once he gets into office.

  • 211
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    I think most of you are underestimating the cost of housing maintenance. We had some bad luck and a couple of structurally necessary renos were bigger than initially thought, or didn’t address the issue as well as we hoped, requiring new renos. In the last 20 years we’ve paid the cost of our townhouse apartment once over, easy. And now the bathroom, kitchen, and flooring could use an upgrade (25-50 years old), which is again expensive. In that time its value has risen maybe 50%, not quite keeping pace with local inflation.

    Not complaining, we bought it for living in and it’s been great for that, and now that everything is at the end of its lifespan is a good time to really make it ours. But house prices aren’t rising insanely everywhere, house upkeep isn’t free (there are always “modifications”), and at least here the average ROI for being a landlord is abt 4-6%, same as stocks lately, and that’s assuming no major surprises.

    • bunchberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      Not sure I see the relevance. Yes, housing maintenance costs money, what’s the relevance? Who says housing upkeep is free? What’s the relevance to anything at all?

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If you only own one house, it sucks to have luck like that. But, it’s like the dips in stock prices - overall, the value of the whole market goes up over time. Those treating homes as investments tend to buy in the demand areas, where a few lofty renovations don’t dent their bottom line.