Current Events > Why do landlords get a hard time but not Uber drivers?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why not?

Obviously houses are more expensive than cars Ill give you that but the underlying issue or not being able to afford a house / car yourself is the same.

With Uber or taxi drivers people cant afford their own car so need to get someone to drive them.

Uberdrivers are usually a lot poorer

With Uber or taxi drivers people cant afford their own car so need to get someone to drive them.

You can't come up with ANY reasons the two groups are different beyond the price of the commodity?

False premise. People get those for convenience. Either you leave the state without your car, or you just don't feel like driving to a certain area. Often times, it's you know you'll be drinking.

uber drivers are just random individuals. landlords who are random individuals shouldn't be getting shit, the landlords that own tons of properties are the ones that are predatory af

If you don't like it you have the right not to post in the topic.

This is such a SHRlKE topic

If you don't like people asking you to back up your assertions, you have the right to never make the assertions in the first place.

If you don't like it you have the right not to post in the topic.

Okay - given what people have provided, do you have the same question?

If you answer post 24 first.

Are you saying some people don't chose to rent because of convenance? Because that's not true.

My question is that not everyone who rents wants to buy. Some people rent because they want. Do you disagree with that?

Are there Uber drivers buying up hundreds or thousands of cars and driving them all at once?

Ok great.

So are you still questioning why landlords get more hate than Uber drivers?

Uber drivers actually provide a service. I don't want to/can't drive a car, so I pay someone to do it for me. This is a good fair transaction. A landlord, however, doesn't provide a service or good. Even if they didn't exist the home would still be there. Instead, the landlord makes a profit because they own something. The uber driver's profit comes from an exchange of the value of my labour (my wages, or at least what I get left with after my boss robs me) with the value of the driver's labour (driving the car around). In a renting scenario, I'm trading the value of my labour (my wages) for the landlord's ownership, said ownership carrying no actual value.

Secondly, they have a different relationship with the customer. A car is not an essential. I can walk, I can bike, I can take public transit, I can ask a friend to drive me. Instead I pick the uber driver because their service is my preffered option. I'm picking it because I genuinely want the uber ride. Meanwhile, housing is an essential. Apart from renting, my only other choices are buying a home (unrealistic for many people) or being homeless, which isn't a real choice. Therefore, I'm not choosing to use the landlord's """service"""" because I want it, because no one WANTS to rent, I'm choosing it because I'm under the threat of a life on the streets if I don't. The uber driver makes profit based on the merit of their labour. The landlord makes profit based on exploiting human needs.

Because of the above, their effect on society is completely different too. Because the uber driver has to make you want to use their service, they're encouraged to make their service better, by being faster, by being cheaper etc. Yes, this is a simplified example, but the point is that in the end the driver's interests push them to provide a better service, helping society. In contrast, the landlord can't make anyone positively want to rent, since they don't actually provide any value. As a result, they aren't driven to create a better product that will benefit society, they're driven to create a greater scarcity of homes in order to force people to rent. They are actively encouraged to make society worse for the sake of profit.