this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024

95 points (85.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27253 readers

1407 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

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.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is second/third home ownership ethical in this economy? (links.hackliberty.org)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Especially when those 2nd, 3rd, + properties are being used as passive short term rentals. Observing the state of the housing situation "Hmm there aren't enough homes for normal families to each have a chance, I should turn this extra property of mine into a vacation rental." does this make said person a POS?

(page 2) 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Imo, the ethical limit is 3.

To live in
For additional income from rental, retirement security etc.
A country or seaside house for weekend/summer getaway

There's no real reason to own more property than that. If you have extra money to invest put it in actual business. Into new housing construction for example you get quite a return on that, and it doesn't make you unethical.

Edit: This also applies to companies. Actually companies shouldn't own any housing at all. Selling at a profit that's acceptable. Owning it as an 'investment' - absolutely not.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No. Unless it's like a family situation where it requires it I think it's unethical. People live in tents in the park in my city because housing is scarce and wildly expensive. It's not right to be able to hoard property.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Unfortunately op asked two inverted questions so no could mean not ethical or no not a POS, or, somehow, unethical but not pos.

[–] HobbitFoot 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Not really. It is ethical to build multiple units on the same property, but owning two individual units isn't.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Edit: to clarify, no it’s not ethical. Yes it makes person a pos.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

I agree with you that it makes a person a POS, but it's also necessary in our current system. It would take so much change to fix this.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

One aspect not mentioned is that sometimes, second homes are in places that have a good supply of houses available. This makes them cheaper, and easier to afford. It also has more potential to grow in value down the road. If that's the case, no issue. If not, it's complicated.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

What about in an economy with more houses than people?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Fuck what anyone else think mate, if you can do it go for it. 99% of people spend a lot of time complaining about everything, let them alone with their protagonist syndrome.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Yeah, a second house for traveling workers or seasonal migrants is fine, bit luxury but fine, but renting them out is where you're starting to be a dick.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments