[Sohcahtoa82]

Landlords don't typically operate under a loss. Rent will include all those costs plus some extra profit.

If there's a scenario where long-term renting is cheaper than buying, then you're lucky because you've got a landlord that did not adequately calculate what rent should be.

[mock-possum]

Honestly even if you’re trying to operate your rental property as a ‘non-profit’ you’re still going to wind up in trouble if you don’t ’over-charge’ to build up a repair / emergency fund for the property. Such is the cost of owning a house - unexpected expenses may cost tends of thousand dollars, and may not be possible to put off, even legally, nevermind ethically.

The cost of ‘what if the roof caved in tomorrow’ or ‘what if the furnace blew up’ should be built into the rent.

[maest]

Landlords charge whatever the market will bear, which is largely unrelated to the mortgage costs - it's driven more by supply and demand, salary levels in the area, inflation etc.

Also, you're ignoring all the other factors I mentioned.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Housing is one of those goods that's just not really optional. People NEED a roof over their heads, and they will sacrifice a lot of quality of life in other areas to ensure they still have a place to live.

The market will bear a lot more than it should because the market doesn't have any other choice. As far as I'm concerned, people who buy real estate for the sole purpose of renting it out are financial vampires, sucking every last cent from their tenants, finding every justification for raising rents. You gotta be a cartoonish villain to raise rents just because your tenant got a new higher-paying job.

The absolute worst part of it all is how so many landlords have this savior complex, thinking they're providing a service that's good for the community. No no no. Landlords provide housing the same way scalpers provide concert tickets.

[exe34]

> which is largely unrelated to the mortgage costs

It's not unrelated - if the costs go up, they won't operate at a loss. They might sell to somebody who can buy it outright - but then many won't and just raise the rent. And then others can claim "muh market rates" to match them.

There's a shortage of housing in most places with jobs, so they have a large queue of people willing to pay through the nose. What are they going to do - live under a bridge? They will cut out most other expenses before they give up on housing.

Only two of those points weren't bullshit: the ability to up and move in the next year or the concern that you may be about to lose your job in the next few months. Anything else makes buying cheaper in the long run.