[WaxProlix]

In what sense are landlords "providing" housing? Is there an argument around like, stabilizing a demand floor for new construction or something, or is this one of those weird in-group terms that cover over what might otherwise be seen as a relationship of power or dominance?

Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.

[refurb]

Providing housing is exactly how the word is defined - giving something - in this case a place to live.

Go and ask all the landlords in Toronto how the finances are working out.

Tons of landlords were cash flow negative against fully loaded costs. Then the market flipped and house prices dropped 30%.

Now they’re shelling out $2000 of their own cash per month, gaining $500 in equity, while they pay down a $700,000 mortgage on a home worth $500,000.

[WaxProlix]

This sounds like an investment that didn't pan out - I've had one or two of those myself, never pleasant. But are they providing housing? I guess in my mind the builders, equity incentive assistors, re-zoning advocates, etc might be 'providing housing'. How is a landlord providing housing?