Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I might be on the fringe here, but I think second home ownership is always unethical in any economy. It is, however, a necessary evil in our current society.
Edit: I don't feel like responding to everyone, so I'll elaborate a bit here. Profiting off of something another person requires in order to live a happy/healthy life is unethical. In the current society we live in, landlords are a necessary evil. This is broad strokes, there are fringe scenarios where one might end up with another and not use it for profit. To be clear, I also think owning a second home to live in part time is unethical as well.
That seems weird, the opposite position makes more sense to me. You can't think of any possible economy where you could morally have two houses, and in this situation it's somehow necessary? Could you elaborate further, because it seems reasonably plausible that there could be an economy with significantly more houses than households, to the point of warranting multiple ownership. And of all the things to call second house ownership (convenient, luxurious, smart, excessive, warranted), necessary isn't the one that comes to mind.
So it was unethical for us to buy a cottage that had been for sale for months and that we got for peanuts at the peak of COVID rural exodus? No one wanted it, we're trying to sell it now and no one wants it even though we've lowered the price again and again and it's priced under what it would cost to recreate the same setup even if you got the lot for free.
What about in an economy with more houses than people?
Mh, I agree, but also disagree to some extent. I am a Democratic socialist and think that means of production should be used for the greater good, so keeping a house in order to make profit is exactly that: private property of means of production with the goal of $$$.
However, I think the question goes deeper than that. I think it's absolutely valid for a family to have a secondary home, e.g. when they want to go to a vacation. Sometimes renting out a hostel is difficult, one might not like the hostels available, or a plethora of other reasons. As soon as the person owning the house uses it for themselves for a significant amount of time, it isn't really a means of production anymore, but a private property. What is important in my opinion is that the time when the house isn't used by the owner, other people have a chance to use it - cheap AirBnB covering the costs maybe?
Tl;DR - renting the house out to others to make profit: yes, unethical. Earning money by a human necessity is, in my opinion, not right. Using the house yourself and/or renting it for sustenance cost: absolutely valid. You don't use the means of production to take money from the people, you use it for your own (and society's) benefit.
Here's the problem. Second homes (one that is lived in part time) tend to increase property values of the area where they are. Additionally, short term rentals also increase property values. On top of this, that is a home that is unavailable to folks who live there full time. This compounds to create a higher barrier of entry for people that want to purchase a home. Rising property values and nearby short term rentals also increase long term rent for people that live in the area. This isn't even to mention negative impacts on the environment, an additional tax burden for the area the second home resides, or additional carbon footprint being created.
On top of all of this. If you are renting a home to another person, this is exploitation. You are demanding money for providing something essential to modern life and increasingly to even exist in an area. Rent prices have also become a cabal and are constantly increasing due to landlords fixing rent prices. I think being a landlord is unethical, but they are necessary with the way housing is structured today.
We require massive revisions to housing policies and zoning laws, at a federal level, to solve these problems.
TL;DR Second homes are bad but there isn't a lot we as individuals can do about it right now.
Thank you for your reply! I will think about the first point. I didn't consider that second homes tend to increase property values in the area - that's a valid point.
I disagree with your second paragraph. When you rent a house at its price, aka only and exactly the price for electricity, water, and repairs of the building, I don't see any exploitation in it because you effectively aren't making any profit from the person living there.
However, I'm replying from a German standpoint. I presume that in the USA, the situation is different and in an advanced stadium of dystopican capitalism, so probably my thoughts aren't fully applicable.
Thank you for replying! I appreciate it.
I would agree with that. If you aren't making a profit, or if you are making enough profit to perform maintenance it sounds fine. If maintenance is a job, you should be obviously be compensated. That value doesn't seem to represent the level of work I see being put in.
I am writing specifically from an American point of view. All of the landlords set prices based on a data set that combines property values and rent cost. This basically means that rent prices have been rising rapidly, a long with home prices. It's all inflated value and the government doesn't seem interested in doing anything about it. Rent in my area specifically has more than doubled in the past decade and this is not uncommon.