Hacker News Reader

> Poverty and housing insecurity are definite societal problems, but does that make it the fault or responsibility of each individual landlord?

I've been living in the SF bay area for nearly 15 years, and in SF itself for half of that. I've watched rent prices go up. The only reason those prices went up was because of higher demand. The higher prices didn't get anyone anything extra: the properties weren't maintained any better, or renovated or upgraded faster or better. On the landlord's side, there were no magical new costs coming into the equation to justify the higher rents.

If a landlord could rent out a place in 2005 for $1500/mo (and cover all costs and make some profit), there's no need for them to rent it out for $4000/mo in 2018. They're doing that because they want to and because they know someone will pay it. I'll absolutely agree that's capitalism in action right there, and in general that's not a bad thing. But we get gentrification and displacement as part of that bargain.

So yes, landlords should accept some of the burden of fault and responsibility. I'm not saying there isn't plenty to spread around, between existing homeowners, the city government, and incoming renters/homebuyers themselves, but... nope, sorry, landlords don't get to pretend they're innocent in all this.

(As an aside: I see you posting a lot on this article, and I want to say that I don't think you're "irredeemable" or greedy or whatever. I'm happy you've chosen to engage and have a productive discussion, at the very least. I just think you might be getting a little caught up in... something... and are missing the point that we're talking about housing and homelessness here, and that's a terrible thing for someone to have to fall into, regardless of reason or fault. Assuming you've been financially responsible on your end, missing rent payments from a tenant for a few months shouldn't put you out on the street, but... you as a landlord do have the power to put someone out on the street, and it'd be nice if you'd be cognizant of the extra power you have.)

How is the price of rent going up the fault of landlords, when terrible urban planning (and NIMBYism) has limited housing in the Bay Area for decades. In the Bay Area, blaming landlords is shooting the messenger. The truth is that in a lot of these places existing homeowners are happy to see people priced out. At the same time, job growth is getting more concentrated in expensive urban environments. Local governments respond to local (property) tax payers, who don't mind gentrification. State and national governments do nothing, because the political pressure is zero. So, yeah blame the landlord.

You might try actually reading my comment. I mentioned exactly those other things as well as being partly at fault. Landlords don't get a free pass, though.

I agree that putting this on individual landlords isn't the right move, but if you want moral absolution, you should consider what you can do to help increase availability and decrease the market rate throughout your metro, particularly politically.

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph is not even necessary given the first sentence of the post. That's not a criticism, and I'm not heartless. It's just true :)

More seriously, what you're supposed to do is undermine yourself. Support efforts to substantially decrease the market rate of housing.

As a very, VERY purposeful non-landlord who has never missed a rent check or mortgage payment, I don't have any sympathy for land lords. I understand your financial and moral viewpoint, but I don't find it redeemable.

So. That's the analog of your viewpoint. Not deadbeats, but your financial equals who don't see anything redeemable about lordship.

The difference is, I’ve been on both sides. I’ve never owned my own residence, always rented. If you had bills to pay for rental properties that you bought, you might understand my side a little more. But maybe not. It kind of sounds like you’re just upset about rent being too high (me too!) and think individual market sellers should charge well below market rates to “do something”.

Sometimes I do that, actually. I have a tenant who has lived in my building since I bought it and I’ve never raised his rent. It’s substantially below market rate but he’s older and a model tenant so I just leave him be.

But your approach doesn’t make sense at a broad level. The cost of tech labor is too high for many startups. Do you negotiate a lower salary to try and do your part to lower the market rate?

But again, I’m irredeemable so not sure why I’m bothering to respond :)

On the contrary, I'm not a landlord precisely because I understand that game, and I prefer a nice game of chess.

People who don't empathize with you aren't always misinformed. Sometimes there are fundamental moral incongruities.

There are apt analogies of "the system is fucked and I'm just working in it" throughout US history.

Ah, but I’d argue that you are playing that game, because it’s just incredibly basic supply and demand. So whether you have a job or provide jobs or own or rent or buy things at the store or sell things online, you’re playing this game too. And you only get to play your side because someone else plays the other side. Seems pretty morally incongruent to call them irredeemable for voluntarily selling or buying from you, doesn’t it?

Edit: for example, if you’ve rented or bought, you’ve contributed to the demand that makes the market price go up. If you were a landlord, at least you’d be helping provide supply that keeps the price in check :)

Not all markets are as susceptible to rent seeking as the... rental... market.

Distinguishing between rental markets and less pathological applications of market mechanisms is not exactly novel economic doctrine. And in fact, you'll have a hard time finding a tradition of economics without its own giant calling out landlords.

> If you were a landlord, at least you’d be helping provide supply that keeps the price in check

Landlords don't provide supply. Homebuilders do. It's pretty rare that those are one in the same in a market like SF.

If there were no landlords to buy and then lease those properties, the rental market would not exist. Just like Ford builds cars, but they don’t create the car rental supply. Enterprise, Hertz, etc do. The cars are the capital asset being rented, not the supply side of the rental market.

I don't think you understand what "supply" means.

I'm not saying landlords don't fulfill a valuable part in the housing puzzle, but saying landlords "supply" housing is absurd.

I didn't say that. I said they supply rental housing, which is a distinction. And that's 100% true. Landlords 100% supply rental housing. To claim otherwise is absurd.

So, where do you live that isn't contributing to gentrification or increasing housing costs? In a tent under a freeway?

>Do you negotiate a lower salary?

Arguably, no. With a salary you are negotiating the value of your productivity against the profit margin of the business.

The stake of the business owner is closer to that of the landlord, who is involved in arbitrage in a system where 'liquidity' (in this case finding another job or home) is difficult, expensive and rare. Prime conditions for rent-seeking behaviour (which is bad).

Now, you as a person may be redeemable ;) but in general, the actions of landlords as a whole use the actual roof over people's heads as bargaining chips to further their un-productive wealth. Which is not to say that landlords cannot be productive in their provision of housing. Just that in general in places like the US, or AU (where I am), this is not the case.

And the thing is, I would surely do the same thing if I had the opportunity to buy up a few rental properties and squeeze the tenants for a few bucks. I would like to think I would at least have the decency to feel a little bad about it.

Which is not to say that landlords cannot be productive in their provision of housing. Just that in general in places like the US, or AU (where I am), this is not the case.

Can you expand upon this? What would that look like, and what are the indications that US and AU landlords aren’t productive?

Well in the UK for instance they have housing coops which exist solely for the purpose of their tenants. Also tenants have greater protections like right of abode, which encourage a longer term view for both tenants and landlords. Basically for a landlord to be productive and not rent-seeking, there has to be some level of symbiosis to the arrangement.

I think this is easier to understand with commercial rents. In my local street a half-dozen or so shops have been closed in the past two months, and sit empty due to excessive rent increases. The landlords have forced an un-productive arrangement due to their rent-seeking.

You can apply this same idea to housing, but instead of a business closing, a tenant is strained to the point they make un-productive life decisions, or to the point they cannot pay rent (or cannot see the point of paying rent).

But in this case there is a much greater supply of new tenants than new businesses to fill the void, so you never see the issue illustrated as graphically.

Housing co-ops exist in the US too. (Famously, in New York, but there's one up the street from me in Seattle too.)

I believe the parent means "productive" in the sense that the higher rents charged are justified by capital improvements and/or the rising costs of being a landlord. That's not the case for the markets cited; landlords are charging more simply because they can.

This is "unproductive" in the sense that it causes negative economic activity. A person becoming homeless usually ends up not contributing to the economy. A person who has to move to a smaller home in a more remote area has less money to spend, and likely has a longer commute, which wastes money.

> Sometimes I do that, actually. I have a tenant who has lived in my building since I bought it and I’ve never raised his rent. It’s substantially below market rate but he’s older and a model tenant so I just leave him be.

That's super great, and I absolutely agree with and love that sort of behavior on the part of landlords.

> Do you negotiate a lower salary to try and do your part to lower the market rate?

This doesn't make much sense from a power imbalance perspective. Both a landlord and an employer have an outsized portion of the power here: the landlord gets to decide whether or not a tenant has a home or is homeless, and the employer gets to decide whether or not an employee has a job. The renter & employee in these situations are the ones who stand to lose the most, and don't have much power or recourse to fix the situation.

It doesn't make sense to me to ask a potential employee to negotiate a lower salary; they're hurting themselves pretty heavily by doing so (and, hilariously, making it so they can't afford their rent and can't pay you, the landlord, what you feel you're due), and asking for a modestly higher salary does not hurt the company that much. On the other hand, a landlord deciding not to raise rent doesn't hurt the landlord much at all[0], and it means a ton to the tenant.

> It kind of sounds like you’re just upset about rent being too high (me too!) and think individual market sellers should charge well below market rates to “do something”.

At the end of the day I will always vote for tenants not being homeless over landlords being able to increase their (already positive) profit margins. Property ownership is not some no-strings-attached right that lets you do whatever you want; it's ownership of a scarce public resource, and it's in the public interest to keep people in homes and not out on the streets, and to have a healthy, functioning economy that everyone has the spare cash to participate in.

[0] This is assuming a market where the costs of being a landlord aren't going up much (at least nowhere near at the same rate as rents are/had been), which is the case we're talking about here. The potential rent increase is driven solely by demand, not by any increase in intrinsic value that the landlord or property is providing.