…is this image tilted slightly to the left or am I having a stroke?
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
212 points (100.0% liked)
Memes of Production
1699 readers
667 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
Now I can't unsee it
ThEy PrOvIdE tHe UpKeEp! (They don't)
people who provide housing are known as "construction workers"
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets.
This doesn't apply to a landlord who buys an agricultural field on the edge of the city and then pays out of pocket for all the construction costs and the costs of connecting utilities there. Then that landlord provides housing that literally would not exist without them.
Then the landlord puts the cost to other people who do not get their share of the property
You can live 30 years in that building and pay twice the apartment's value in rents, and you can still get evicted whenever the landlord gets tired of you
Technically in the process driving up prices of farmlands at the edge of cities, utility contractors, building materials, etc...
I don't buy this argument. The farmers I speak to who are close to cities enjoy the increased value of farmland as that allows them to take out very cheap loans with the farmland as collateral. Aspiring farmers don't want to buy farmland close to cities anyway as it's risky and expensive. So it benefits existing farmers and doesn't really damage aspiring farmers. And regarding utility contractors and building materials. Those going to building housing is what we want no? Or do you prefer we stop building housing so that building materials for building data centers and mega mansions is cheaper instead? I'm guessing that's not what you want.
The farmers I speak to who are close to cities enjoy the increased value of farmland as that allows them to take out very cheap loans with the farmland as collateral.
No farmer has a hard time getting sweet heart loans from the USDA FSA and it's extremely rare to have to put up your land as collateral. They are the most coddles class in American society.
And regarding utility contractors and building materials. Those going to building housing is what we want no? Or do you prefer we stop building housing so that building materials for building data centers and mega mansions is cheaper instead?
You can still want more housing without wanting more landlords...... They could always sell the houses instead of taking people's money without providing them any long term rights or equity.
No matter what scenario, being a landlord is inherently predatory. You are building equity on the backs of other people's hard work. Even home loans with "fair" interest rates are predatory in the same way, but at least the person taking the loan is building some equity and have more rights based on that fact.
USDA FSA
I work in Swedish agriculture and here putting up land as collateral is very common. Of course it may be different where you live.
You can still want more housing without wanting more landlords... They could always sell the houses
That's true but some housing always has to exist as rental properties as there will always be some people who can't pay for a house upfront especially young people who can't be expected to have saved up for one. I think we both agree that exorbitant rents are bad. But I would argue against the notion that every landlord is bad for society. However if you were to say that maybe only the state or the local city should be allowed to be a landlord I would say that's totally fair as long as that's managed in a good way and leads to enough housing getting built. I myself used to live in social housing owned by the municipality for 8 years and thought it was great.
I work in Swedish agriculture and here putting up land as collateral is very common. Of course it may be different where you live.
Ahh, here farmers can get subsidized loans that do not require collateral with only 2-5% interest rates. Farmers have a lot of unearned good will here and get treated better than just about any other industry by both political parties.
That's true but some housing always has to exist as rental properties as there will always be some people who can't pay for a house upfront especially young people who can't be expected to have saved up for one. I think we both agree that exorbitant rents are bad. But I would argue against the notion that every landlord is bad for society.
I would disagree about any landlord being good for society, as they represent the privitization of a service that should be fulfilled by the government. To me that is like saying there are private healthcare insurance companies that are good for society.
Yes, my argument would be that the government should be in control of housing for those who cannot afford private mortgages to own their own housing.
Are you saying that it's impossible to build housing without paying the people that build the housing with making them landlords? Then why are 99% of the people that work in the construction industry not landlords? How do they get paid?
No it's not impossible. The state can go in and build houses and rent them out and because it's the state there doesn't have to be a profit motive. I used to live in social housing for 8 years and thought it was great. However if there is no social housing construction and private investment is needed to get more housing built then there has to be a profit motive else no one will be motivated to build. However I'm against exorbitant rents. There has to be a balance. No profit at all (+no current social housing program) simply leads to no housing. At least not rental housing. People are of course free to build their own homes but that's not the solution either as not everyone has the money to do so.
That landlord was equally a victim of the system paying inflated prices to develop the property requiring perpetually higher rents.
If the capital required to build the apartments wasn’t heavily levered then they also participated in financial exploitation elsewhere either direct or indirect
Yup. Rent needs to go up so as the monthly rent needs to be 1/100 of the purchase price. (A general rough guide on rent prices.)
Not going to escape this until we have free places to live and store some stuff.