I’m someone who believes landlording (and investing in property outside of just the one you live in) is immoral, because it makes it harder for other people to afford a home, and takes what should be a human right, and turns it into an investment.

At the same time, It’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever be able to own a home without investing my money.

And just investing in stocks means I won’t have a diversified portfolio that could resist a financial crash as much as real estate can.

If I were to invest fractionally in real estate, say, through REITs, would it not be as immoral as landlording if I were to later sell all my shares of the REIT in order to buy my own home?

I personally think investing in general is usually immoral to some degree, since it relies on the exploitation of other’s labour, but at the same time, it feels more like I’m buying back my own lost labour value, rather than solely exploiting others.

I’m curious how any of you might see this as it applies to real estate, so feel free to discuss :)

  • Thavron@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    IMO there’s nothing wrong with a landlord that charges fair rent (mortgage + well reasoned maintenance costs + a reasonable profit, they do need to live themselves after all) and keeps up with maintenance in a good manner. Remember that not everyone is able to get a mortgage but is able to afford the same amount in rent.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is close to my belief. Someone has to own the home and they’re worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (I’m not getting into the overblown values right now, one step at a time). Since most people don’t have $300k+ in cash (US non-metro), then they’re not buying it outright. What’s the difference between paying rent to a landlord or mortgage to a bank? Both are making a profit and both can kick you out for non-payment (again, one problem at a time). So, given the current state of housing, you can legitimately provide housing at a reasonable price that doesn’t require a 50k+ down payment first. I am not a landlord sympathizer, I am not a landlord. I’m just someone still putting 60% of my monthly mortgage payment into the interest accrued just in the last 30 days (read: new homeowner).

      Don’t be a dick corpo fuck that buys blocks of houses and let’s them sit vacant to drive up scarcity. Don’t be a flipper that does a cheap reno to turn $30k of improvements into a $150k upsell. Don’t do the cheapest repairs to meet code for your tenants.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Someone has to own the home and they’re worth hundreds of thousands of dollars

        Public housing. Look at what Finland has done with regards to this topic, and how much it has benefited them.

        I look forward to the comments explaining to me why this is impossible in America as if Finland is some magical alternate universe where a mixed-economy works incredibly well.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      IMO owning property for investment only becomes unethical once you are profiting beyond a “good living”

      Property is the safest and largest growth investment that real people can make and the most likely to create generational wealth. Demonising that only advantages the multi-billion dollar conglomerates who have absolutely no ethics.