> Every single cost mentioned in the article is passed to the renter in one way or another.
That's not how markets work.
You can only charge in rent what the market will bear and if it's between renting a place out for a net loss of say -1500 or not renting it out and paying 3000 in expenses anyways some landlord is going to pick -1500 over -3000.
In general, being a landlord is a losing proposition. The whole reason renting is better than owning is because real estate appreciates less than the stock market. That's still the case if you buy the place and rent it out! You might make money but you're losing out on the opportunity cost of NVDA growth.
Now landlords could all gather together and decide that renting 150 units for 3000 generates more profit than renting 200 units for 2000 and yeah you'll end up with empty units. But its because the opportunity cost of the empty unit is in the landlord favor.
That's not how markets work.
You can only charge in rent what the market will bear and if it's between renting a place out for a net loss of say -1500 or not renting it out and paying 3000 in expenses anyways some landlord is going to pick -1500 over -3000.
In general, being a landlord is a losing proposition. The whole reason renting is better than owning is because real estate appreciates less than the stock market. That's still the case if you buy the place and rent it out! You might make money but you're losing out on the opportunity cost of NVDA growth.
Now landlords could all gather together and decide that renting 150 units for 3000 generates more profit than renting 200 units for 2000 and yeah you'll end up with empty units. But its because the opportunity cost of the empty unit is in the landlord favor.