• jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    The downside is they’ll just be bought up by corporations who will be even shittier landlords.

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      If the market is adequately regulated they wont be shittier landlords. There somehow is this romantic idea of smaller scale landlords to be like the good old guy that want to help a family find a good place and accept a modest profit. They exist, but the majority are just equally cutthroat like large corpos. Difference is that large corps have more means to be strategic about it and accept risks like 5% of tenants suing successfully while the rest just accepts the illegal treatment.

        • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          It is not an argument against regulation though. Regulation of markets like housing and healthcare, is reasonable and necessary. These cannot work as free markets because the one side has their life depending on it, wheras the other just can have another customer.

          • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            living isn’t a requirement, have you seen how many people willingly consume drugs and sugar despite knowing the risks. Let the free market collapse the upper class (almost certainly after the working class but still)