Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
Most of that line of argument wasn't what you were responding to, though. You were brought into the conversation over the calling out of landlords as parasites. While I am not opposed to the idea that people would receive compensation for going through the effort to secure a site and erect a structure for others to live in, I view what happens after as parasitism. If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided?
|
He's bought the building, and pays for its management, upkeep, taxes... And he has to do all that whether he has tenants or not.
Sure, when everything's smooth sailing, they make more money than they spend for little to no effort. But when it isn't, they may well lose money. Holding the two possibilities in balance is what's capitalism is about.
Construction isn't a charity, it's an investment. If it stops being a way to make money, it stops happening. And whether one pays for the construction directly, or buys the building years later from the one who did, what does it change? The owner still had to spend money to acquire a building.