You can either rent seek or suffer

There is a grain of truth that renting for a very long time is a kind of slavery, you're just paying someone else to occupy space and time. You should be paying yourself to occupy space and time.

Those if you with brains figure this out, and do it. Those of you without brains, do not figure it out, you belong in India with the other street shitters, because at your core, you are a street shitter.

own your own living arrangement.

checked
trips of truth
fpbp

Why do you hate those who wish to acquire wealth? Is it because you are poor and stupid?

There should be a steep financial penalty for corporations to buy houses that resident individual homeowners don't have to pay.

You should be facefucked in front of your mom by your dad

None of this was ever an issue in the boomer's time when both rent and mortgages were a much smaller proportion of people's income.

In Australia's case it wouldnt help.

Australia has built around 130,000 new homes annually, while letting in almost a MILLION Jeets in a single year.

Prices are expensive because of MASS IMMIGRATION.
But a retard leftist will never acknowledge this truth.

Why do incompetent failures like you always pretend that your failure is someone elses fault?

How is engaging in self delusion going to make your life better?

leftists actually believe this to avoid blaming immigration and investment funds

I'll say something to them

and here comes coldsteel the hedgehog!

People on Pol are all young incels, but if you can think ahead to when you are 70- do you want to be working or fishing?

If you don't find a way to create passive income or at least a shitload of savings, you will wage until you die.
t. Landlord

I can see why you are what we in the biz call a "forever-renter"

It's important to be precise with criticism. My issue has never been with the idea of having to pay to live somewhere temporarily. If I did, I wouldn't go on holiday and pay for a hotel.

My issue is that the average person who has to live in a city is paying like a third or more of their salary just to have a place to live. Which then wouldn't be that bad if it was actually a really nice place, that's spacious and well maintained. You could say that you're paying a premium in this case. However, in my experience has been with "boomer types", that merely want to collect the rent and have zero interest in even doing basic and absolutely essential maintenance on the property.

So you're in a position where there's a leak that's causing mould or the shower doesn't work and so on. And they just don't give a shit. The decor is the same from when they bought it, which could be 30+ years ago and you don't really have much of a choice because all the other landlords have the same attitude. And if you want to have a decent standard of living while you rent you're talking at least half your salary.

Sometimes decay is inevitable, like the husband who passes away and leaves behind a widow on a pension that has no means to pay to keep the property looking really well. But in my experience, the vast majority of the cases (the lions share of the owners of second properties) are still owned by selfish "boomers" that just flat out refuse to pay for it. Despite having the money, they believe they have the right to let the property decay in order to pocket said money. Just like they believe they have the right to pocket from the young to pay for their public pension. Something is very wrong in our society when we get things backwards like this.

who has to live in a city

Has to?
Just NEED to be around all that hustle and bustle CULCHA? Love me multiculturalism and rabbit warren living

So dont live in a high population density city. Its not fucking rocket science anon

mass scale revolution where the renting class violently and successfully overthrows the ownership class

totally feasible

saving up for a down payment on a home

unpossible

Treating the symptoms

It's simple supply and demand.
By reducing demand, the profit from being a landlord would reduce greatly (lower rent and slower capital gain) and, thus, less people would use that path to make money.
Therefore, reducing immigration and increasing deportation (deporting every dual citizenship and people without your country's citizenship) would fix the problem.
But, again, that's just another symptom.
Real illness: kikes.
Solution? Final.

It wouldn't be a problem if we started executing landlords in the street.

(((landlords)))

We call em foreskin eaters

Impotent rage doesnt translate into effective action. Its why you are still failing at life

he says this all with the confederate memeflag

Sometimes I wonder about you retards.

Anyone who enriches himself at the expense of others without contributing to society is a subhuman. Holding homes for rent instead of selling prevents people from being able to own their own homes

Seethe and butthurt duly note however its not an argument and yet another failure. This is exactly why you keep losing at life and why you lose this argument every single day

This isn't even the correct usage of the term "rent seeking", even though there is a literal landlord-renter relantionship.

The term comes from when the wealthiest people in Britain were aristocrats with large land holdings with many tennet farmers living on that land. The rents weren't particually high but there were so many renters the income was huge. The crucial part is the renters paid their rent and then acted like they owned the land, maintaining and improving it for their own benefit. The landlord had few responsibilities in return for the rent. This isn't true of landlords in the modern day.

Because everyone can magically afford a vehicle, a ranch and a herd of cattle. Let's slap on twenty acres and go with that. Because that's cheap, easy living. You'll definitely find work in rural locations I'd you can't drive because you can't afford to. But it's your fault because trucks and cars grow on trees, apparently. You're just a lazy bum with no fucking drive.

Gtfo Derrick.

Still applicable for landlords of single family homes.

Making a profit from someone else living there is a use for one's self.

LMFAO...
Here we go...
I'm just going to sit here and laugh at all the asshats that have no idea what it takes to actually own multiple properties, improve them, keep a business plan without getting greedy and most of all developing a relationship with your tenets. Its a two ways street. I'd rather have happy business partners than disgruntled assholes in MY property.
OK, proceed to call me names.

truth

This word does not mean what you think it means.
Kamala Harris had a plan to build a million new affordable housing units to relieve some of the pressure on the housing market in the US and cause existing home prices to drop sharply. I work as an economist for the state, and that's the primary reason I voted for her.

nah, just ban corporations and businesses from owning residential properties; also ban "real estate managment" firms too

A private citizen who owns a bunch of properties can rent them out as he pleases - but he has to deal with all the paperwork and horseshit PERSONALLY.

Wanna get a business involved to "do it for you"? No can do, you lazy parasitic faggot. Either do the job right or don't rent out your properties. Or do the job like an asshole and get sued, that's always an option too. Point is, you do it yourself or you don't do it at all. And you don't get to create a business entity to manage your holdings either - it HAS to stay under your private name making you PERSONALLY liable for any bullshit that might or might not happen

This is exactly the sort of delusional strawman that causes you to lose this argument every single day. Nobody said anything about needing a vehicle, a ranch and a herd of cattle. Though everybody should have their own vehicle regardless

Many people work remotely from towns and small cities and benefit from hugely reduced living costs. Most towns and small cities have their own industries. They might not pay as well as LA or NYC but the cheaper living costs and higher quality of life more than make up for it

The simple fact is that you clowns make consistently bad decisions and dont have either the IQ or self awareness to correct that bad decision making. Instead you cry like little faggots and blame imaginary enemies that you fabricate to help your self delusions

who has to live in a city

Well look who was pushing for "return to the office" BS the most. Those are the people who are fighting for this idea that you need to be in a city. I personally don't agree with it. I worked in the corporate world for a long time. Those jobs that pay very well are all located in cities. You can live outside and then commute to reduce your rent and it's basically a necessity to try to maximise your take home pay after expenses. In those places though (think commuter town/suburbia) it is boomer landlords mostly. You can take a job in a small town, sure. But even with the saving on rent the salary is going to mean it will take you a lot longer to do things like buy your first property or start to build up a nestegg and so on.

But the very idea that you "need to" go to some office in the city is retarded alright. At the end of the day I was travelling to a place where I would be having conference calls with people in multiple timezones and countries anyway and the job could be done from anywhere. And there would've been times where it would've made sense for me to leave at 4pm, commute home and then take conference calls at home after 6pm that were in American timezones. But a lot of people play the game of "office presence", i.e. stay in the office late and wait for the boss to leave so it looks like you're busy and get the raise. Combine this with the fact that a lot of managers just fall into the job and feel they have to rely on things like shoulder surfing at the office to try to figure out who is working or not. Personally I don't think these people belong in management. It will be a good day when a lot people like this either finally retire or are laid off for being the deadweight they are but unfortunately with very large organisations there's so much inertia behind them that it can take a long time for them to die or turn around. Nokia is still a thing. So is Groupon. When's the last time you even heard these names?

They don't have to do any maintaince?

I don't think that's true!

Then millions of poeople in every country would have nowhere to live.
Retard.
There's already a shortage of rentals.

It's just teenagers who have no fucking clue how the world/economics/personal property rights and law work