Otherwise it would lead to a concentration of wealth among the few, and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. And are you asking why personal freedom is so important to people?
Nothing wrong with renting, economies of scale make it cheaper than owning unless the government decides to ruin everything. (London vs Paris is a great example of this)
Wat? Is this skipping the real world of every condominium building apartment owner paying a maintenance fee and having a say in where/how the money gets allocated?
When you rent, you just give the power of choice away and have misaligned incentives (when you own, you give more of a shit than when you are merely extracting profit)
Why can't the owner pay a company to deal with that? You are conflating the part of the remuneration for the landlord that has to do with actual services rendered, with the part that simply has to do with the monopoly on capital rights.
Exactly. Economies of scale + the simple fact of things like a roof for 2+ story block of apartments is going to be far cheaper to replace than a roof for the same number of houses as units.
Surely it's the other way around. The renter has far more freedom, they can easily pack up their things and go. The renter has also has far fewer responsibilities than the owner.
They would still need to complete their lease or pay the penalty, I dont think 'easily' is the appropriate adverb. Besides homeowners can also do this, it's called selling your home, people do it all the time albeit with a bit more paperwork than the renter.
The lack of freedom derives not from imaginary mobility constraints, but from the provision of shelter coming from a 3rd party landlord. Your roof is resting on the whims of a profit motive for someone who owes you nothing.
You can't see how that presents a fundamental lack of independence?
> whims of a profit motive for someone who owes you nothing.
what whims? I have a lease for X months. Yes all bets are off after that. No one is acting on whims.
Homeowners are also at the whims of cost of labor to make essential repairs , cost of necessary appliances , property tax increases, employment opportunities near your home if you lose your job and whims of the banks that can foreclose your home.
Nothing in life is a guarantee . Owing mortgage payments to a bank vs renting isn't more freedom. Renters can become homeowners if they want and homeowners are forced to become renters ( remember 2009 ) . So i don't really understand what 'freedom' being a homeowner gives you. Your financial status give you freedom not your home ownership status.
They have more "freedom" than renters, right? They can pack up and head somewhere else whenever they want (as they're not bound by a lease), and they have absolutely zero responsibilities to anyone other than to obey the law.
But they have the least personal financial freedom, is my point.
Why would that be desirable?