How could this happen?

Yeah this one or the bicycle meme
- He’s not getting hurt like in the bicycle meme though, just hurting others.

I get that it's satire but it makes a good point. It is the government's problem that renting out property is financially incentivized. We can't expect any significant number of landlords to start charging below market rent. Especially because many of those landlords are public corporations who must act in the interest of their shareholders, directly against the interests of their tenants. This is the government's problem to regulate and in absence of the regulation effort is better spent targeting government than individual landlords/corporations imo. Ya the government won't do anything, they are the landlords after all, but at least there's a path to changing the financial incentive through government.

I can walk into a bank today with a mortgage cheaper than rent, and I’ll be denied cause I don’t make enough money, explain that logic to me.

Landlords don't care if your rent is sustainable for you in the long term. They have nothing to lose if at one point you can't afford it anymore, someone else will.
Banks on the other hand care very much if you'll be able to pay your loan in full. Even with the house as collateral, it's much better for them if you just paid your loan instead of them having to deal with all that.
- "they get the house if you don't pay" really isn't so great after you've look at what they actually get for those houses.
  Generally, people don't get foreclosed on when their house looks super fancy and well maintained.
If something were to happen, and you couldn't make rent, you might get evicted, which would be inconvenient.
If something were to happen, and you couldn't make the mortgage, the bank might lose money, which is unconscionable.
- But the bank can take the house as collateral, what are they even losing?
Not sure if you're in America but credit scores are some rigged ass bs. What do you mean paying off a loan made my score lower?? I have more disposable income!
- What do you mean paying off a loan made my score lower??
  It doesn't, you just don't know how it works.
  You're probably seeing that on Credit Karma, which uses a score that stops counting closed loans immediately, whereas the actual credit reporting bureaus' systems have them stay on your credit report for 10 years from the date of closure. While they remain, they do continue to count toward your average age of accounts (AAoA) in most scoring models (including FICO). That means even closed accounts can help keep your average age higher.
  And given that your average account age doesn't need to be anywhere close to 10 for you to have 'perfect' (750 and above puts you in the highest tier in the eyes of every lender) credit (hell, account age is only like 15% of the score), this is actually not an issue, at all. My average account age is less than 8 years and my score's over 800. Just make your payments on time and you're good. You don't even need to accrue any interest—using a credit card and paying it completely off every month works just fine, that's what I do.
  I have more disposable income!
  Having income isn't proof you can be relied on to promptly pay back a loan, having a history of having promptly paid back loans is. A third of people making over $200,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck—just because you're making money doesn't mean you're a responsible borrower.
- You know, I don't even get that. Banks make a decent amount of money on those mortgages, it used to be their bread and butter after all. What is the problem, it doesn't make enough money fast enough? Why are there no other banks filling in the obvious financing hole?
- You're no longer proving continously that you can keep paying reliably (yes it's dumbass logic)
Had that happen a few years ago. Banks are in on the landlord scheme and they can go fuck themselves. Unfortunately it's literally impossible to live without a bank today. At least in my country.
Haha number go up
Thats wild, is your credit scored fucked?
- Income is a massive part of how they determine if you can repay the loan. I personally have an exceptionally high credit score and about double my home's value in investments. Because of my low reported income, it was a total pain getting a loan.
Have you tried lately? Just curious.

Yes, this is a satire account, but I've heard the exact same crap from so-called "small landlords" who think clearly the problem is someone else.

Every small contributor that makes up the bulk of the problem thinks the REAL problem is the one that's bigger than them and they're the small potatoes, or the good one.

This applies to EVERYTHING. Not just property.

There should be nothing wrong with owning multiple houses. But your property tax should be adjusted on every house you own depending on the number of houses that own. It should be completely cost prohibitive at a certain point to own more than 2 or 3 homes. It should kick in after a year or two, so that it gives people more than enough time to purchase a new home, fix it up or renovate, and then time to sell the previous house. Owning houses shouldn't be a profit-making venture.
Societal problems should be solved by the government, not by individual actions.
- At a practical level, I agree with you.
  That DOESN'T mean that if you do shitty things just because they're legal, you get to be exempted from people's judgement.
  For example, shorting stocks and collapsing basically profitable companies for short-term gains is totally legal. Doing it still makes you a piece of trash, and I will judge you, and encourage others to judge you, as such.
It's like... I try to think of what an "ethical landlord" might look like, and I just can't picture it. Realistically the only """service""" they provide is not having to save for a down payment and fixing things that break*(I know they don't, but I'm trying to imagine what it would take for one to be ethical, so they actually would be in this hypothetical)*. The things a land lord will take care the ability of their tenants to build equity. That's the benefit of owning. Pro-landlord people will say landlords take the risk of property values decreasing, but that's pretty rare. Especially considering landlords inherently are taking up stock. So to be generous I'll assume property value is static.
Even in this crazy optimistic, crazy generous hypothetical, land lords still rob tenants of equity because they aren't able to get a down payment together. The only thing I can see making it fair is the landlord gives that equity back, either by charging exactly what the property's mortgage is or transferring a portion of the ownership over every payment and... Now wait a second... This sounds like... BANKS. A MORTGAGE. Seriously. Every time I try to imagine what it would take to really really be an ethical landlord it just comes back to being a bank or mortgage.
Maybe there's some place for folks to act as very very small banks and give a mortgage to someone like this, but like... It's so convoluted.
TLDR: I view them as leeches even when I'm giving them every benefit of the doubt in a favorable hypothetical.
I've had two good small landlords and a few bad ones, and all corporate landlords have been bad except for one that was okay aside from the semi annual fire evacuations for the laundry room
the good landlords were renting at fair prices and doing honest work. the bad ones were overcharging for students and not doing a fucking thing, including several months where the basement was slowly flooding through the foundation and I had half my carpet pulled up
I don't have a problem with the good landlords who rented out their long since paid off crappy but maintained place for students at fair prices. it's the hoarding, price gouging, and not putting a fucking cent back into it that pisses me off.

Lots of people seem to be missing this - Chase Passive Income is a satirical account.

I don't know how they could miss that. It is very clearly a satirical post. No rich people are either that self aware or interested in outing themselves as greedy useless pieces of shit.
Its real like the goldmen Sachs elevator
Yeah, lots of people on Lemmy are so sanctimonious while simultaneously falling for the most obvious satire/ragebait imaginable, lol.

Is this satire?

Yes.
The fact that we have to ask this is the point I think.. Hilarious post btw! 🤣

This isn't small timers, it's corporations buying up all of the housing, building only "luxury" apartments and price fixing the fuck out of the rent.

Then they spout "Trickle Down Housing" where the "luxury" apartments will be available in 30 years.

The guy said "these houses, ...each" so he could own the whole area and jack up the rents, not be a small timer. But yeah, it's not the person renting out Grandma's old place to help pay for her nursing home.
I might be wrong but the % of homes owned by corporations is really tiny. low single digits if I remember correctly.
- Yeah, I don't think so, lol. You're going to have to produce the source. This is from September of last year and doesn't include rental apartment buildings.
  GAO reported that there were 450,000 single-family rental homes owned by institutional investors as of 2022. However, in a report by the Urban Institute, they estimated that large institutional investors owned **574,000 **single-family homes as of June 2022 and their report was also based on 32 institutional investors. But, the Urban Institute actually aggregated data on all legal entities of the parent company because these institutional owners often use other names as the owner. They based their report on large investors owning a minimum of 100 single-family homes and they pulled data from a national property records database. The 574,000 figure is likely more accurate than GAO’s and the difference is most likely due to aggregating all of the legal entities under the parent companies.
  https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/who-really-owns-the-u-s-housing-market-the-complete-roadmap/
  This says the housing inventory is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS
- With all the profiteering by corporations since covid, the cost to build a house has gone up substantially. That narrows the consumer base and forces builders to reduce margins. Unless of course they build a "luxury" home or apt. Then you have large investors battling it out and snapping them up. So, it is more profitable to build luxury homes rather than homes for peasants. The investors can afford to set on the empty house and hold them if they can't get the rent they want. In fact, many large investors don't even bother to try to rent and just hold the property to have secure investments during market fluctuations. So they are building like crazy, but the homes they're building can't be afforded by the people that actually need them.
  So, it doesn't take a ton of housing being owned by big investors to fuck the market, they just have to be buying up all the new stock in what is already a limited market.
If they built luxury apartments, rich people would stop renting regular apartments, and the prices would go down
- Rich people like cheap apartments too, lol.
- A lot of places in the us are experiencing a gluten in high end housing... https://archive.is/20250110182457/https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-has-more-fancy-apartments-than-it-is-able-to-fill-f7bca968

A) This is a hoax account

B) You can still get cheaper housing if you don't live in the whitest, red-lined-ass, suburban enclaves in your state

C) Even then, it doesn't matter, because landlords primarily benefit from very low borrowing costs rather than low housing costs. A $300k house was still functionally unaffordable to anyone earning $45k/year, unless your credit score got you one of those sweet sub-3% ZIRP era loans. Renting was effectively paying a vig to a guy with a better interest rate than you.

D) ZIRP also flooded the market with the excess cash that made $300k basic bitch housing possible. And then turned those $300k homes into $600k homes 15 years later.

E) Build Public Housing

F) And municipal mass transit, so you don't have to sit in traffic for a hour every day

This is a hoax account
I hope so. The dissonance and lack of self-awareness in the post was so profound, my head is still ringing.
- I saw quite a few Chase Passive Income posts and all of them feel like satire
Just pass a law taxing the shit out of single family homes used for income and a bigger tax on empty houses. Use the revenue to help people who go upside down on their mortgages due their primary residence due to the crash in housing prices.
- Just pass a law taxing the shit out of single family homes used for income and a bigger tax on empty houses.
  A simple reform in theory, but incredibly difficult to pass through a legislature that's stuffed to the brim with real estate lobbyists and their clients.

This is the, “If I don’t do it, someone else will,” argument. Which is true.

There is always all least one other ass hole out there.

Exactly why no social ism works. Capitalism, communism, Georgism, liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, socialism. They're mostly all good on paper but awful when put into effect because they don't factor human nature. So long as there is the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1, we can never have good ideas play out how they were thought to. Instead we have we have those always looking for advantage to be number 1 of the number 1s. Psychopaths love power and personal security.
- Arthur C. Clarke said something along the lines of “communism could’ve worked if only they had microchips” meaning that communism had problems with humans. An algorithmic socialism that requires everything to be fair is the only way to do it.
- what is "the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1"?
  i think the thing that made the difference was helping the "less fit" so that they could keep and transfer knowledge, do thinking and make tools
- Communism tends to work pretty well until the US shows up with their military, and stamp it out.

That's very nice. Now please face the wall.

This has to be satire. TELL ME IT'S SATIRE!

Guillotines could give them purpose. Or is it the other way around?

It's easy guys, if nobody would rent, everyone could be a landlord, and we could let the rent rise to 10k a month or more even, and we all get rich on rent. How does nobody realize this? It's irl infinite money glitch!

The problem tellimg the country to… remove him? Thats a first

That is more then my entire monthly pay check.i want to die.

Yeah about twice as much :(
That is more than my quarter year pay check

im just waiting on 3d printed houses to become cheaper (than it already is now) and mainstream.

Those can be an alternative, but aren't great for longevity. They're almost always essentially entirely concrete, which means if you want to get to, say, a pipe in the wall, be ready to smash through rock and then have to fill in a vertical hole in the wall with concrete again. This weakens structural integrity over time any time you've gotta do repairs, and makes them more expensive to do.
The more sane alternative for most people will be prefab housing, where either the entire house is sent in as either a single prefab unit, or a unit for each room that's simply connected and stacked, or where just each wall is a pre-made unit that's then assembled. The latter has become much more common in construction already, and the former is growing market share rapidly right now, to the point you can, right now, literally order a prefab house from Amazon.
- As someone who lives in a prefab, I really have to disagree with them being the answer. Unless they stop using vinyl-on-gypsum and the cheapest materials possible..
  Water damage is a major issue in these kinds of homes. They're not made with actual wood or conventional building materials, and fall apart so easily. Replacement parts are not standard, making it extra costly and difficult to repair.
  Adding, when I walk into an actual house, I can feel the difference as I walk through.
- You mean manufactured or mobile homes? They're built like shit by companies that mostly just take advantage of people knowing it's all they can afford. It's pretty much impossible to return the house once it's delivered, and getting HUD to enforce standards takes years of constant work.
- while theyre typically worse for repair if you need an immediate one, theyre significantly better when it comes to insulation, thus leading to lower hvac costs, in particularly cold or hot regions.
  the 3d printing process itself also doesnt dictate that the entire build has to be concrete. its just there to minimize the cost of production in the spots that needs it.
Man Ive seen those videos online.. just amazing.
Can't wait.
3d printing a house doesnt seem to provide any benefits over current construction methods. Prefabbing is the most efficient way at the moment. You can basically drop in all the walls and roof with everything hooked up and ready to go.

Who rents that for 72'000 $ per year? At that point you are throwing away your money and most definitely have enough to actually buy a home.

have you seen how this works? i know this is a parody post but it’s real. Rent starts “ok” then the “market” (which is just this guy with 6 props) says rent can be higher. So it bumps. Then inflation. Then covid. Then “market” again.
While the owner know how his tenants salary is tracking, keeping sure to raise the rent by enough to keep him there but not so much he bails.
it’s not the renters fault they need a place, even if one says “yeah but they overspent.” Not initially, no. Maybe some. Tough nuts. But often it’s not initially overspending.
Then again capitalism itself relies on and markets for people thinking they “need” more than they do; the owner of the props is counting on it.
Landlords are scum and deserve nothing.
Who rents that for 72’000 $ per year?
Andrew Cuomo bragged about renting for $96k/year
At that point you are throwing away your money and most definitely have enough to actually buy a home.
You don't need a 20% down payment to rent a home. That's the big hurdle, as housing prices have ballooned
- Trying to save up 20% was the biggest mistake of my home buying experience.
  My whole fucking life my parents insisted that you had to have 20% down, so that's what I aimed for. Both my siblings just YOLOed and bought houses between 5-10% down, but I had a better paying job, so continued to save. As I saved, the cost of housing out grew my rate of savings.
  When I finally did get a mortgage I only put 15% down and it was at that point I realized that the only thing the 20% down would do for me was save me something like .75% for the first 5-8 years. That is still a lot of money, but compared to just buying a house at $175,000 10 years ago and selling it for double when I ended up moving anyway--it's nothing.
  The whole system is fucked. There's no reason only those making 6 figures or more should be the only ones with the privilege of trying to own the place you live someday. There's no reason a company should own a place to live. There's no reason minimum wage shouldn't cover a reasonable lifestyle for a family. There's no reason housing in general shouldn't be available to everyone.
- Pre covid, I was pre approved for a home. I had lied and told them I had $3K for a down payment.
  I couldn't save three grand. Rent was 40% my income, as was childcare. I made $20/hr in a "grown up" job, the type of work my uncles and aunts and parents bought houses with.
  The gorgeous $167K dollar house (2016) who's only down side was it was 45mins from work, .. is now worth nearly $600K. I'm jealous of whoever ended up buying it that year.
- You don’t need to put 20% down to buy a home, either.
  Homebuyers can get a conventional mortgage for 5% down (technically as low as 3% down, but that would limit their options for lenders and require a much better credit score) or an FHA loan for as low as 3.5% down.
  There are USDA loans that require 0% down, though they have income maximums and for homes in rural areas. I read that they also have square footage maximums (1800 square feet?), but the USDA property requirements doc I read didn’t list them.
  For veterans, VA loans can also be 0% down.