this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
1791 points (99.3% liked)

Political Memes

7936 readers
2400 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] geissi 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay.

What people are willing to pay sets the upper limit of what he can charge. He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit. No amount of demand forces him to increase the price beyond cost + enough profit to live off.

Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.

I'm not sure how zoning in the US works. How exactly does this reduce construction costs or increase return on investment without high rents? What incentive does this give profit oriented investors to invest in affordable housing instead of other investment options?

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit.

It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store. Supply and demand ultimately determines the price. Charging what it is worth is no more greedy than any other aspect of capitalism. And as I said originally, maybe there are bigger issues than just “greedy landlords” that are causing the prices to go up so much, in this case unchecked capitalism.

Zoning is just one example. Part of the problem is that someone that just bought a million dollar home doesn’t want multi family homes built across the street. That will decrease the value of their house. Zoning plays into this. There’s plenty more state/local governments can do, but are not doing.

It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality. Why should we expect investors to build homes that would give them less profit? Exactly, and why would you expect landlords to charge less than what the home is worth? Why would Nike charge $50 for those shoes when they can charge $200 and still sell out immediately?

There’s lots to consider and saying “greedy landlords” is the problem just ignores the entire reality.

[–] geissi 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

To be clear, I am making one statement in this discussion and that is that the price is being set higher than it needs to be.
By stating that int he discussion about Landlord greed, it can be inferred that I equate this with greed.

It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store.

Saying that other businesses operate similarly does not refute my point. As you yourself pointed out, at best your argument is that all "capitalism is greed".

It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality.

I never pretended not to "get" it. I'm just claiming that it's greedy.

The way I see it there are two ways to counter my argument:
Either show that landlords have no choice and must demand the prices they do.
Or argue that wanting more than you need (usually to the detriment of others) is not greed. In that case I would be very interested where greed actually starts.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, and my entire point, that started this discussion, is that greedy landlords might not be the problem. Maybe there are bigger issues at play causing these prices to be so high.

Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords. If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out. Maybe you’ve fixed one problem but didn’t fix the actual problem.

[–] geissi 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords.

Again, supply and demand only determine how much a landlord can charge, they do not force them to raise prices.
If anything, supply not matching demand enables more greedy behavior.

If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out.

Only if you assume that only local landlords rent out cheaply while all others continue to raise rents. Besides that there are always factors why certain locations are more popular than others.

You're generally right that insufficient housing is a supply problem but housing is not like other goods that can just be substituted.
If the price of steak goes up, I can just stop eating steak but if the price of housing rises, just becoming homeless is not a reasonable option.
And sure, if the rent in the place you want to move to is too high then maybe don't move there.
But if the rent in the place you already live in rises then what? Just move out, away from your home, away from friends and family, away from your job?

So yes, more housing supply might be the solution* but it still is no argument that greed is not the problem.

*with all the previous caveats

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Were they just less greedy? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?

People have always been greedy. They’re not more greedy today than they were 20 years ago. Is it a problem? Yes. It will always be a problem. But there are other issues at play that need to be recognized or nothing will ever be solved.

[–] geissi 1 points 1 hour ago

Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?

Yes supply and demand limit how much they can charge. I've already conceded as much 8 hours ago.

People have always been greedy. [...] Is it a problem? Yes.

So that feels like an appropriate answer to your question from yesterday

Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat?

I think you summarized it nicely, including your comment on the nature of capitalism. It is not a coincidence, that basically all early criticism of capitalism is centered around landlords. Even Adam Smith criticized the "rentier".

Look, I agree with you. We need more housing supply. It reduces landlords ability to raise rents.
But it does not change the underlying issue that landlords are greedy and will charge as much as they can get away with.