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 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 5 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 1 points 5 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.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 5 months ago

"If you're homeless, just buy yourself a home"