As in: Which makes the most sense from their PoV, ethics aside.

  • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    21 days ago

    I have relatives that own their house as well as a few rental properties, but they also work normal jobs, they get the new iPhone (or sometimes Samsung Phone) every year, they rarely use public transit, always drive their cars. I’m assuming they have health insurance as well. And I also heard they have other investments besides rental income (as in stocks)

    Now I don’t know if they need to work, but they definitely have enough rental income to get by even if they lose their jobs.

    Idk what class that is supposed to be.

    • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      21 days ago

      I think an easier interpretation than the “owners vs workers” in this day and age is, are they billionaires. If you’re not a billionaire or close to it, you should be on the side of the working class.

      The billionaires that make up only 1% of the population ans own nearly half the wealth of the entire world are the problem.

      • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        21 days ago

        $10M and up would probably qualify. Below that, people would still need to work to maintain what they have with some measure of comfort and dealing with risk, inflation. Above that, they should be able to be self sustaining without working for a paycheque.

        • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          21 days ago

          When I bought my current home, I rented out my previous home to friends of friends. They covered the payments on that house until they were in a situation where they could get a loan to buy it from me. There were no yachts or caviar for me during those years.

          Renting out one or two homes doesn’t make someone “owner class”.

          • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            21 days ago

            but they definitely have enough rental income to get by even if they lose their jobs.

            You had them cover your other mortgage. These people can coast off of rent money. You are not the same.

          • Lasherz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            I think the line is when the primary bread winner is your tenant. Covering costs of mortgage only is a nice thing to do, profiting off of them beyond the mortgage is exploitation. That’s the difference, your assertion at the end is highly dependent on how they choose the rates for said houses and whether they profit off the work of others in that transaction.