If you have enough money to buy a second home, there's no reason you'd have to bend over backwards to try to "secure you livelihood," the only situation that would make sense in is if you inherit the house, and even then the ethical thing is to sell it.
Bold thumbnail. King shit. Also like that it's one of his shorter videos because you don't need very long to explain why landlords should not exist.
Watching now, it's v good so far even if its not saying anything us here don't already know
Great to show your lib friends or relatives (especially if you have any younger ones that think you're cool).
only landlord i dont mind are the kind that rent shit out in vacation areas to tourists, as that is just something that is gonna happen in any sort of beautiful or popular place, people will want to visit it for a couple days to weeks and need a place to stay
but it still would be better if the touristy stuff was state owned and directly benefited the people
obviously there should be limits on how many things / what places should be allowed to be rentals or whatever. but the fact that they are rentals for temp housing would never change. people like to visit nice places, but like to live where their family is. that wont change. and in some cases having a high permanent population in the nice place is actually detrimental to making the nice place nice
but i really dont think theyre worse than forcing someone to rent full time in a place inherently. i should also mention that china and cuba use rentals like this for poverty alleviation by handing it off to a commune or groups of families. so in a way it can be used to the benefit to the local populace if you make certain groups the 'landlord' of the temp housing
i mean yeah most hotels in those areas are actually condos owned by individuals. some are big name and all rooms are owned by a corporation. obviously turning a normal house into one with say an airbnb is far worse than a condo or something built expressly for tourism
