Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
What other things would you invest in?
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
It would be hypocritical to tell others not to own investment properties while you do.
Nah. It’s bad. Landowners are parasites. Do and contribute nothing. They are incentivized to peddle in misery.
Housing should not be a commodity. It is a human right.
What does that have to do with my comment? Again, the question is not whether it’s bad. It is bad, but it’s totally besides the point. Housing was just an example anyway.
OP is asking if it’s hypocritical to argue against a bad thing being commonplace, while doing the bad thing yourself. Another example could be campaigning for stricter car emission laws while owning a car that wouldn’t meet them.
Should you shoot the innocents because everyone else is doing it?
No. You’re either aligned with your values or a hypocrite.
I agree. And I think that not in all of such situations you would be misaligned with your values.
For example you may argue for making cars illegal, while you yourself own a car. You are not being a hypocrite, you are hoping that if cars were illegal, society would become more bike-friendly which is your ultimate goal, enabling you to stop needing a car.
Key point being that you are not telling others not to own car, or not to buy investment properties while you yourself do. That would be hypocritical. Arguing for these things being illegal is not hypocritical, because it would affect you all the same.
Your feelings don’t change the world.
If you use a car. You are okay using cars.
Whatever you say to yourself to justify it is meaningless.
It is normalized hypocrisy.
You are still missing the point, judging by the “to justify it”, since I never said anything is trying to justify anything. I just recognize the difference between “bad” and “hypocritical”. You can do a bad thing and not be a hypocrite, you can do a good thing and be a hypocrite.
If you use a car. You are okay using cars.
Correct. Which doesn’t conflict with my point at all. The person in that example is okay using cars. Where they are legal. And wants to make them legal in less places. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Solid prompt question OP. I see 116 votes and 116 comments, that’s a legit conversation stater.
Thanks 😄
I’m stoked by the engagement; I initially found the question following some article posted on bluesky. Replying there resulted in crickets. I thought to ask here on a hunch, and it’s been wonderful to read all the responses.
Back in the day people would claim that what was good about reddit was that it was a community. Well it’s not that anymore.
This is pretty good though!
This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:
- Supply of housing influencing its cost
- Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
- Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
- Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)
The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.
The price to buy housing is influenced by how many people want to buy. People who want to live there are competing with landlords who want to rent out the housing. So it drives up the buying price.
A landlord buying for a higher price will likely try to charge a higher rent as to recoup the investment.
More potential landlords means higher rent prices. Every single landlord is increasing the problem.
This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.
That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.
This is the same logic that fossil fuel companies do to shift blame from themselves onto consumers.
Nah fuck that.
Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?
OP: constructive addition to thread You: nah
Was it hypocritical of RATM to spread anti-establishment messages via a major record label? No, of course not. Systemic change being somehow at odds with doing what you can within the existing system has always been a false dichotomy propagated by those who benefit from division.
I believe in a baseline level of food, shelter, healthcare, and education being provided to all regardless of means. Plus things like parks, infrastructure, physical safety and security, etc.
But just because I believe that everyone should have enough to eat doesn’t mean that I don’t believe there is a qualitative difference between that baseline level of sustenance and all sorts of enjoyment I can get from food above that level. A person has a right to food, but that doesn’t change the fact I might be able to farm for profit. Or go up the value/luxury chain and run an ice cream parlor, or produce expensive meals, or buy and sell expensive food ingredients. I want schools to provide universal free lunch but I also know that there will always be a market for other types of food, including by for-profit producers (from farmers/ranchers to grocers to butchers to restaurateurs).
The existence of public parks shouldn’t threaten the existence of profitable private spaces like theme parks, wedding venues, other private spaces.
So where do real estate investors sit in all this? I’m all for developers turning a profit in creating new housing. And don’t mind if profit incentives provide liquidity so that people can freely buy and sell homes based on their own needs.
I don’t personally invest in real estate because I think it’s a bad category of investment, but I don’t think those who do are necessarily ideologically opposed to universal affordable housing. It’s so far removed from the problems in affordable housing that you can’t solve the problems simply by eliminating the profit.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to do something and at the same time want a world where it’s no longer a thing.
If you argue against capitalism, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also shop for groceries at a store?
If you argue that we should live in a moneyless utopia and yet you charge money for your services, is it hypocritical?
If you argue for climate change action and yet you drive a car, is it hypocritical?
Of course, owning investment properties contributes to the problem and there is no excuse for that, but I don’t think it’s hypocritical to see the problem and want to stop it.
I feel like you are not considering that your examples are necessary to be able to participate in todays society, unless you want to live in a 100% self sustaining homestead. Owning investment properties is not necessary for that.
IMO it largely depends on how the properties are being handled. If it’s just like any other property, and is being handled solely for profit’s sake, I think it is hypocritical to argue for affordable housing for everyone, as it just adds to the problem while you really didn’t need to. If the properties are handled in a way that actually improves the situation, makes no or only little profit, and thus provides affordable housing, it is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, as it is actively working towards the ideological goal you have.
It being unnecessary is what it makes it bad, but it doesn’t make it hypocritical.
It would be hypocritical to own investment properties while telling other people not to.
It wouldn’t be hypocritical to campaign for making it illegal to have them (which would affect you all the same).
In both scenarios your are contributing to the problem, but you aren’t a hypocrite in both.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
Yes, that is like being a pacifist but investing in weapon manufacturers. It is easy money and it is attractive, but it is wrong and by making money off of it you become part of it.
“If you want peace, prepare for war” is literally a 2500 year-old sentiment. If you were a mugger, whom would you rob, a guy who walks around saying how he has no means to defend himself, or a guy who is armed to the teeth?
Okay Smartypants, I’m talking about the USA, not some peaceful country that only defends itself.
No country just defends itself. Look at history. Not the worlds fault USA tries to catch up with EU history with speedrun tactics ( we are currently in dark middle ages - Jerusalem, Crusading, Plague ( soon ) and fall of education )
I feel like it kind of is. There are surely other investment possibilities. Why choose the one you’re against?
Because (historically speaking) its arguably the safest and highest yield form of investment that the working class can make. That being said obviously theres a tipping point in regards to the amount of income you’re generating at which it becomes predatory.
Funding a nice retirement? Ok. Making it so only one parent has to work? Fine. Jacking up the rent to cover the insurance on the new Lambo? Fuck you.
The line you’re trying to draw is very arbitrary, so it still feels a bit hypocritical.
You are assuming they were against it at the time they bought it, if they even bought it and not for example inherited it.
Not really, believing there should be affordable housing for everyone doesn’t mean all housing should be affordable to anyone.
I believe there should be different levels of density of housing and pricing in different areas, and that the state should subsidise some percent of rent based on income, possibly up to 100% up to a certain cost, if you haven’t had evictions on record; but I also own different properties I rent at market rate because it’s commensurate to the cost of living in the area, and a lower rent would not make living there any more affordable, and would open me up to possible tenant disputes if someone who can’t afford to live there were to move in.
If the cost of living went down in the area I would also adjust accordingly, as I don’t believe in fleecing people and it’s also generally beneficial to be in line with market value to maximise client volume.
Affordability isn’t a “rent is too high” issue only. It’s a “there is no place I can afford to live in that makes sense for the places I need to reach” issue too.
Cost of living is a huge factor, I have friends who work in the service industry who almost had to move completely out of the city due to the 22-23 price hike, despite local laws preventing rent from following inflation.
It’s only hypocritical if you believe no housing should be market controlled, which is a non-serious opinion, to be frank.
I have investment properties because of a variety of reasons, I need them for my retirement or I’ll end up a homeless
I don’t think that having a few properties is a problem anyway, I have a problem with the guy owning tens of thousands of properties
Not much of a difference if you’re a landlord. I don’t entirely disagree, but Lemmy hates landlords even if you’re a good one.
I know Lemmy is gonna bring out the pitchforks, but honestly, if we had UBI, socialized universal healthcare, free college, well funded retirement system, childcare, fair wages, then people would never need to do things like leasing out property. Its not your fault, its a systemic issue.
If you make even a penny of profit, then yes. Housing should never be something someone does to make money. Shelter is a basic human need for survival.
Should buying and selling homes be completely removed as a private institution then? What about land ownership entirely?
edit: when land ownership is controlled by a position of authority who decides who gets to live where and move where, congratulations, we’re back in monarchy. We can do this smarter without holding completely delusional values.
Yes. Anything that gives people monetary incentive over basic needs should be removed. Keep that shit to things that don’t matter.
While I get the concept, it’s kind of as realistic as Star Trek. We have a long, long way to go before people will voluntarily want to live in a system where your government owns the land, starting with developing a government that can be trusted and a society that doesn’t feel insecure about where they live or what safety nets they have. I don’t see that happening in the next several thousand years.
If you don’t make profit then either you’re losing money or straddling the line between profit and losing money, neither of which is sustainable. Then someone else will come in and try.
I work in residential construction, but I make sure to tell colleagues that we are all parasites on the backs of other parasites.
I’m doing my part!
It isn’t hypocritical, but I’d question why I would invest in something that I would want to lose value from a moral standpoint.
Yes, there are plenty of other investment opportunities, the fact that you chose the one that profits off of housing insecurity shows you don’t care enough about it to forgo a little bit of extra money.
Like other people have mentioned you would also have to be advocating against your own interest. Yes you can do that but your passion will at least be dulled by your innate desire for profit. You’d have more passion and will for the cause if you didn’t own investment properties, even more if you are renting and are a victim of housing commodification.
Another point is that you’d be adding to the demand of houses and thus raising the price. You could argue it’s a drop in the ocean, but that sort of attitude leads to a million drops in the ocean and rising sea levels. You would also probably be buying it on a mortgage that’s larger then the house was previously on so the floor for rent , the break even point, would be higher.
Eg. If you bought the property for $400,000 on a mortgage for say $2,000 a month from someone who only had a $200,000 mortgage on it for $1,000 a month you’ve now upped the rent floor $1,000.
No, not at all.
A parallel analogy I see here all the time: driving cars is bad for the planet. It contributes to climate change. So should you give up your car for the sake of the climate? No - because if you live in an auto-dependent area (which is a lot of affordable areas), then you need a car to effectively live your life. To have a job, go to the grocery store, spend time with friends, etc. The problem is the structures and incentives which don’t appropriately dissuade people from driving and provide alternatives. You as an individual giving up your ability to transport yourself will have an entirely negligible impact on the climate while severely hampering your life. It makes total sense to continue driving a car while advocating for better climate policy.
Similarly, owning a handful of rental properties has no impact on the housing market, but choosing to eschew this potential source of revenue could severely hamper your future finances. If you don’t buy these properties as rentals, odds are, someone else will. Your noble intentions will lead to exactly the same result, except you are worse off. On the other hand, if you do take action and buy these rental properties and rent them out at a fair market rate, you can be a good landlord - someone who is communicative about issues and prompt about fixing things when they break. And you are stopping a corporate buyer from owning the property and being a shitty landlord. While you do this, you can also advocate for better housing policy, which is the lever to pull to actually solve the problem.
You could make a lot of these same arguments for owning slaves. If you don’t buy them then someone else will, and they may be a worse master then you. Better that you buy them and treat them right, provide them good food and housing, while at the same time advocating for the abolition of slavery.
In both secenarios you may say you want what’s best for them, but that desire is in direct conflict with your desire for profit so either you become a bad investor or a bad slave master / landlord. Why bring yourself into that conflict instead of investing in something without those moral implications?
It’s a gradient of more or less unethical things. You could also use the slavery analogy to less and less unethical investments, to reach the conclusion that you shouldn’t invest in anything that you have even the most miniscule ethical issues with.
I feel like this is a reasonable counterargument. My response is that you can reasonably and ethically seek a profit with real estate investment because pieces of land are not people. And any harm you do to people is going to be extremely distributed across the population. Like, if you went around to everyone in your city and whistled an annoyingly saccharine tune next to them while they walked to work on a Monday morning, maybe the total negative utils would add up to a single human life of slavery - but I still think distributed harm is far more justifiable.
