The key difference is that these goods and services wouldn’t exist if you were not paid to do the job.
If landlords didn’t exist, then all housing would either be government-distributed, socially-owned, or obtained through mortgages.
If the workers building those houses didn’t exist, then the house wouldn’t either.
The only difference between a system for housing with a landlord, and one without a landlord, is that the landlord is an intermediary that shaves some money off the top any time money is used to pay for housing, even when the building is already fully paid off, or they aren’t there, and your money just covers the cost of construction and maintenance directly.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 hours ago
My job doesn’t involve making a profit off of arguably the most important thing a human needs for survival… Just saying.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
So you have a problem with farmers?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 hours ago
Why would I have a problem with farmers? Farmers actually work to produce something, so it’s not really a valid comparison. Landlords create nothing and provide nothing of value to society.
You know, farming is not defined by, “profiting from the things you grow.” Co-ops exist. But yes, in the current hyper-capitalist environment, most farmers are probably going to need to sell some shit to survive.
But there’s a massive difference between farmers in Iowa raking in tons of cash (including a shit ton of government subsidies) for providing more corn than we even need, and self-sustaining farms and/or communities that are not predatory.
For example, the Amish are farmers. They seem to do just fine without price gouging.