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.

> This isn’t true. Plenty of landlords don’t cover their monthly expenses for providing the housing.

Just because landlords don't clear their monthly expenses does not mean that the tenant's rent is not going to cover (a portion of) property taxes.

Then they should get out of that business, right?

I assume that rising property values make the endeavor worthwhile?

tone: I am not being snarky here. Genuine question.