Landlords are parasites

"[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind." - Adam Smith

What are the other two?
- to those who live by rent, to those who live by wages, and to those who live by profit.

The house was not built by its owner. It was erected, decorated, and furnished by innumerable workers--in the timber yard, the brick field, and the workshop, toiling for dear life at a minimum wage.

The money spent by the owner was not the product of his own toil. It was amassed, like all other riches, by paying the workers two-thirds or only a half of what was their due.

Moreover--and it is here that the enormity of the whole proceeding becomes most glaring--the house owes its actual value to the profit which the owner can make out of it. Now, this profit results from the fact that his house is built in a town possessing bridges, quays, and fine public buildings, and affording to its inhabitants a thousand comforts and conveniences unknown in villages; a town well paved, lighted with gas, in regular communication with other towns, and itself a centre of industry, commerce, science, and art; a town which the work of twenty or thirty generations has gone to render habitable, healthy, and beautiful.

A house in certain parts of Paris may be valued at thousands of pounds sterling, not because thousands of pounds' worth of labour have been expended on that particular house, but because it is in Paris; because for centuries workmen, artists, thinkers, and men of learning and letters have contributed to make Paris what it is to-day--a centre of industry, commerce, politics, art, and science; because Paris has a past; because, thanks to literature, the names of its streets are household words in foreign countries as well as at home; because it is the fruit of eighteen centuries of toil, the work of fifty generations of the whole French nation.

Who, then, can appropriate to himself the tiniest plot of ground, or the meanest building, without committing a flagrant injustice? Who, then, has the right to sell to any bidder the smallest portion of the common heritage?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html

Just the first line raises so many basic social questions:

Do all the workers who contributed to the building of the home own it? If so, do they all get to live in it? If not, must they then communally determine who lives in it? How would that be organized? Majority opinion? A reversion to primitive village social structures? What's the purpose of supposing they get a minimum wage? What does it change about their contribution if they were highly paid by the owner? If you admit that their labor was commoditized to build the house, and they were compensated by the owner according to the socially agreed value of their work, then what does it matter if the owner didn't build it and why does that prevent the owner from claiming it as his private property? What if the owner overpaid them - i.e paid each the amount it would cost to commission laborers to build their own similar home? Are they then self-exploiting if they use the money their labor earned to buy the labor of others to build homes?
- Most of your questions are answered in the chapter I linked. It's a good read, check it out. Obviously, the whole ordeal Kropotkin describes would require ingenuity, and patience, and M U T U A L A I D.
That's such an amazing fucking quote

Worse imo are brokers. Esp. here in parts of the US, where a landlord hires a broker to show their apartment and do nothing else, then collect 15% of your yearly rent for no fucking reason

Most Americans will never understand that housing would still exist without landlords. They have been convinced that landlords are like delivery drivers, a necessary part of the chain of production. "It won't get to my table without the landlords to deliver it!"

No??? You're crazy. People don't think that.

Only one in my building who is getting a reasonable rate right now. Granted I live in Florida and most of my neighbors moved in mid covid.

To be fair, if you were to buy or build a house it won't cost you any less.

Right, but at least it will be your house. Instead of paying someone else's mortgage and coming out of it with nothing for yourself.
- I'm not defending landlords here — just pointing out that housing is expensive right now regardless of who owns it. Construction costs are through the roof (no pun intended) even before factoring in a profit margin for the builder and/or the landlord. If I had to rebuild my house today it would cost at least 3x what I paid for it 15 years ago, and my income hasn't tripled since then.
As a former homeowner who is now renting again after moving across the country, you lose a lot renting.

So many small and large details of my home I built for me that if I add to my apartment will only serve to let the landlord raise the rent later and/or evict me to find someone willing to pay more for my own additions.

It’s less about what you spend and more about freedom, control, and who benefits from caring for the property.

Also modern apartments are turning every aspect of living into add-on subscriptions. Pet rent, parking fee, ev charging fee, even gym fees are popping up now

Thank god some federal laws changed that blocked landlords from bundling specific cable and internet providers. That was horrible the first time we moved west and found that your building controlled what services you could even buy.

Your housing budget shouldn't be 2/3 of your income.

Landlords pay property taxes that comes out of the rent, and the bank fees and other costs. The building is also maintained, which costs 3% /yr of the value of the building.

If you owned your own building, it would be on you to pay the taxes and fees, maintain the building and appliances, and service the bank loan.

I'm not saying that landlords are not doing it for profit, but silly arguments borne from ignorance of economics do not help the discussion. Same with the whole "late stage capitalism" circlejerking from people that propose no viable alternatives.

Your housing budget shouldn't be 2/3 of your income.

Many people have no choice in the matter.
- Expert personal finance advice from chucklefuck bootlicker banner80: "just don't be poor lol"
- I find that most people that say that refuse to address it. And I'm not being callous. Yes, there are many people that struggle to find a job and already live as small as possible renting a room in a cheap part of town. But that's not who I'm talking about, and it's also usually not the person making a song and dance about their income going to landlords or "the man."
  
  Most people in America live in a house or apartment larger than they need, saddled with credit card debt they chose, many drive a car they can't afford, and some then complain about how hard it is to maintain their current living standards they set for themselves.
  
  People outside of the US are puzzled by what Americans do, from politics to consumerism and living arrangements.
  
  Most Americans complaining about the cost of living and housing could lower and share their expenses if they were serious about it. But blaming others is easier when we know the system is not perfect. There's always someone else we can accuse of our problems and choices.
  
  The truth is that the US is one of the richest countries in the history of the world, Americans as a whole are among the wealthiest and luckiest people in history, and living here is easier than almost anywhere else in the world. Even at the bottom incomes, the people complaining about earning $15/hr in the US should learn about India, China, Brazil, Russia, and find out what bottom level salaries pay there. But the people here on about "late stage capitalism" do not want to have that conversation.
  
  "Comparison is the thief of joy" - People that want to complain are always comparing themselves against those that are doing better. But if you live in the US, you were born in the lucky 10%. If you have normal American problems and are struggling with expenses, take a moment to stop comparing yourself against the 9% above you, and take a look at how the other 90% live. We can all pick up a few cost-saving/sharing habits from them.
  
  Also, this is not to say we don't have policy problems. Vote for leaders that care about the middle class and have policies to make life better for people not corporations.
Landlords are an inherently monopolistic position over an incredibly inelastic good. That's not good for a market economy.

You don't have to defend them.
- I'm not defending "landlords," I'm calling for math and logic. We'll never make any progress in crafting sound economic policy when the argument is rooted in nonsense.
  
  There is nothing inherently evil with someone owning a building and renting it out to a willing tenant. The real conversation then is about social policies and economic incentives to manage the economic activities and participants.
  
  Houses cost something, they are not free. Someone has to pay. Everyone wants to live in a nice city, in a nice apartment, and for it to be cheap. Why should nice stuff be cheap? There are 330 million people in the US, and they all want something nice. The people that have the money to pay for nice are willing to bid more. In the US, the median household income is $81k. So plenty of people can afford to bid for what they want.
  
  Laws of nature. If we live in a wealthy country, nice things are priced accordingly. People think that what they are asking for is merely "decent." No, people want nice. And they want it at discount prices. If they saw how the 90% of the world lives, those equivalent to the economic status elsewhere, they'd say that's beneath them. There's no honesty in this discussions. People that came to complain are not willing to look inward.
  
  Detroit was giving away buildings for free and nobody went over there to collect them. People want the city or town they like, in a part of town that's not bad, near their job that pays the most they were able to find. That's the nice stuff. The comfy stuff close to where I can make the most money and be as comfortable as I can make it. Yes, that's what everyone wants, so we are all in a bidding competition for the same spots. I can find you a cheap apartment in a minute if I get to pick the location.
  
  Landlords are not some magical entity that somehow amasses all the wealth. They don't control the financial markets, they can't stop anyone from buying a house. It's not the landlord's fault or problem if you want a house but can't afford one or can't get credit for one.
  
  Landlords pay taxes, pay for maintenance, pay bank interests, and take on risks. Like any business. They turn a profit, like any business. The profit is not that great either. Landlording doesn't rank high in business returns compared to anything else an investor could do with their money.
Houses wouldnt be so expensive if it werent for landlords
Not to mention, no one will lease to you if the rent is 2/3rds of your income.
- Do you think people only have one job their entire lives?