People have been landlords throughout history and renters can only rent if they can pay. Plenty of other generations didn’t have an ability to have their own place so the current people who can’t aren’t special. Each individual’s ethics are not always aligned so there is no one rule to fit all.
Well, I mean, where the word "landlord" European feudalism, this was not exactly the relationship. The landlord took a portion of the peasants production, but non-producing members of the community still lived on the land too.
I'm not sure what you mean by "special". But it's certainly not unusual for people to exploit other people, sure.
There is nothing inherently wrong with landlords and rent. Anyone that says otherwise is a tankie. Landlords provide a valuable service. But there cannot be perpetual growth in rents like there is in say the growth of a startup. It’s the corporatization of landlords that is wreaking havoc by forcing them to maximize shareholder wealth. A simple solution is to bar corporations from charging rent for residential property. Limit landlords to only LLC’s. No incorporation and under no circumstances should they be publicly traded.
It takes considerable effort and funds to keep a house not just livable, but well kept, insured, managed, etc. If not for landlords, how else would all of that happen?
What valuable service do landlords provide, exactly?
It's my understanding that barring regulatory requirements for standards of living, at their core a landlord is providing access to previously un-utilized monopolized space. That's not really a valuable service, in my mind; maybe it is in the way that 'we'll give you protection from ourselves coming back and breaking your windows' is a valuable service.
See my comment below to a similar concern. There are as many different kinds of landlords as there are people. The value the good ones bring are cared for, affordable places for people to live who prefer to not own a home. Repairing, maintaining, improving, insuring, all take a lot of costs and risks. The government does provide public land in which people can live for free. Why isn't that more popular?
House repair and maintenance is not really what a landlord does, though - they rent land. Perhaps as an added feature they can offer services like repairs and maintenance, but that is not inherent to the "job" of landlord.
Yes, but the spirit of what was meant is that smaller groups could only be the owners. Perhaps a different kind of "corporation" is needed. Maybe one with limits, reporting transparency and other benefits wrt maintaining and improving the property.
As I'm sure you know, these types don't know what they're talking about. Calling someone a "red" is too old-fashioned so some people need a new thought-terminating cliche to toss around.
