Yup

Because they don't see you as a person ... they see you as either a benefit or detriment to their wealth. You are an extension of their wealth and their only interest is in watching to see if that wealth increases or decreases.

You needing something is fair as it "should" be part of the agreement you have with the landlord. Even if unspecified, the landlord agreed to provide a place that is fully functioning and comfortable livable. So they can't removed if you need something.

On the other hand, you are renting their property and you agreed, even if unspecified, to care for their property during your stay and return it in the same state as you received it. You fucking up their shit in any way gives them the right to removed. Both scenarios are a breach of agreement, written or not.

PS: Landlords require tenants to get credit checks etc. in order to ensure that the tenant can pay. Tenants should have the right to require landlords to hold adequate insurance that would protect and accommodate the tenant.

landlord is just living within the system he was put in.

if you wanna hate someone stop hating the individual and hate the system that forces this behavior.

except THIS IS AMERICA we cant have beneficial economic decisions

And because of that, you made less money. A bastard landlord would make more money and be able to invest that money into buying more properties. Those properties would bring even more money, allowing them to buy even more property and so forth. This dynamic is why the vast majority of landlords (and capitalists in general) are bastards.

I remember people like you. It's always appreciated but eventually a corporation gets every building.

You did it right, but the only thing keeping most people honest is regulation. Until pro-tenant behavior is properly incentivized for landlords, most will remain shitty and selfish.

Sincerely thank you for being a good person in a harmfully flawed system. You probably won't get rewarded for it. Most likely you'll be punished for it. But someone out there probably thinks you're pretty cool for doing it.

People/people made worse by the system. The system that created the landlord/tenant roles.

Socialists

Context matters. Would you choose to go make a little bit of money or help someone who was about to be killed?

In any of the systems we've tried since the species got agrarian—especially Capitalism whenever it's Fascism Hammer Time—not the average person that's for a certainty.

They're too busy surviving.

In a proper society where we (the collective We, but really ~2k dragons) used the same tools we used to separate us to instead expand the sense of the tribal umbrella so that the species innate selfish altruism could shine?

A whole lot more folks whose part would be exactly like in the fabric of society, comfortable and without a thought of want for they know We got their backs too.

Yeah if we're both in the same situation maybe but my income Vs your well-being is a different thing isn't it?

I can accept to be a bit less comfortable to help you live in less horrible conditions.

That's true. However.

The owning class has interests directly opposed to the working class, which makes that "natural" trait toxic to the working class. In addition, the owning class has a lot more power.

Your landlord wants to make as much money as possible for as long as possible. (fair enough right?) The problem is that for that to happen

• demand needs to stay high or go higher which means that
• supply needs to stay low which means that (at the level of class interests, not personal belief)
  Your landlord doesn't want new affordable housing to be built in your area. They want you to never own a house, never have any cheaper rent options. They don't want to have to keep renting to you at the price you are paying now.
  They don't want to have to invest money in making your apartment/house safe or comfortable.

The problem is not that people will put their own wellbeing above yours, it's that their wellbeing is in conflict with yours. A conflict of interests between classes... class conflict... class warfare. And they have all the guns.
It doesn't have to be this way.

Wouldn't the leak cause more damage to their property over time?

I love lemmy, but these titles make it feel like everything is posted by bots

Didn't see anything in the about section requiring a descriptive title, mighy want to put something there if a descriptive title is required for posting on this instance...

Yeah. It also pretends like a landlords income isn't related to their wellbeing. In some cases it might not be, but for most mom and pop landlords it directly is.

That's a useless observation. Think further.

If you want people to put you first, you just need to make it so that having you in their life makes their life better.

Be a better friend, coworker, team member, etc.

And stand up for yourself, so that people don't try to take advantage of you.

Know your worth and demand it from people.

history of what

In my country it's bad in a different way - there are no single owner landlords that actually manage their lads, they all hand it over to a management company.

I miss the days where you could find a landlord who was an old Italian dude who would manage it all himself. My parents had multiple rentals that was like that. One of them the landlord lived across the street. And all of them the properties were well maintained and we could actually get stuff fixed. And half the time we'd end up staying there 2-6 years longer than the lease agreement.

Now you can't find that to save your life, our current house, sure rent is comparatively low as we got in before the rental crisis. But they don't fix shit and when they do, it's half assed and dad ends up having to fix the fix.

The lack of communication and human connection between tenant and landlord results in problematic treatment and negligence. That connection honestly keept the landlord honest. We were friends with all our single owner self managed landlords, and any inspections we had usually meant cracking a beer in the backyard.

Marxists.org has tons of great resources

Your missing the point, this is about structural incentives and class interests not individuals. The structural incentives of landlords are to keep or even raise rents, even during times of hardship. You are incentivised to take her half rent or even charge ther full rent and put her in debt because you can and it would give you the most money. You chose not to act on those incentives because your not evil but relying on people to not be horrible for an issue as crucial as housing is not a good system. We need to remake the system so these perverse incentives don't exist, and that will require getting rid of landlords because they as a class, not individuals, have bad incentives tied to their place in the system.

You are a terrible landlord. I would have evicted and found somebody who could pay full price, and kept her security deposit to cover the transition. I doubt you are as successful of a landlord as me because you make foolish business decisions.

You are a landlord, you have to be evil /s

That's why having a good relationship with the landlord or your renter is just good for everyone.

How is it a dumb argument? The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that's a problem with the system.

"Job"

Collecting rent as an income is different than having a job.

Landlords individually may not be evil, but the landlording class is opposed to the working class. Like you said landlording is a business and they will try to get as much rent out of you as possible, and in turn the tenant will try and pay as little rent as possible. This is class conflict. Any person, or structure or system your in conflict with over basic necessities like housing you may call evil, if your inclined to the good and evil morality view.

The critique of landlords is that they are a small, wealthy and powerful class extracting wealth from a larger and poorer class while not actually producing anything. They don't produce housing, they just use their capital to buy it and then rent it out. McDonald's may be taking money from the poor but at least they're producing the burgers they sell.

Something like 3/4 of houses are getting bought up by instant cash offer corporations who sell in bundles to venture capitalist backed renting corporations.

So yes. They have an effective monopoly. Oh and they've also been caught working together to raise prices. Nobody is mad at the landlord renting out the second place at cost.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm on the side of the landlords here, but I don't think individuals who own and rent out a few properties are part of the problem. In fact, there should be more people like that.

I think it's the large corporations owning tons of properties across multiple cities or even countries that are the issue. Houses shouldn't be treated as financial products or investment vehicles for massive entities, they are places for people to live. It's insane to have more empty houses than homeless people, there is no justifying that. I think requiring companies to have local offices in the cities they have properties would go a long way to address this.

I'm currently trying to convince the company that manages my current place that yes, they do have our insurance and to please stop charging us fees. They want insurance with both my wife and I 's names on it. I've submitted it 3 times over the last couple of months, and I swear they only read the top name on the paperwork and reject it.

Best comment. Thanks 👍