But it would be much more interesting to actually see the books. I'd bet a lot of money that the tenants in expensive neighbourhoods are much more likely to pay on time, every month, and to leave when the contract is up. And in addition, the labor in dealing with each tenant is paid for out of $2000 not $200 rent, so more is left for the owner.
In other news, payday loans in sketchy parts of town come with higher interest rates than 20%-down home loans in good neighbourhoods. Does anyone think this is because payday loansharks are uniquely greedy human beings? They are just operating a very different business with different costs.
I don't doubt, however, that being really thick-skinned is a necessary trait for surviving in that business. Soft-hearted types also don't last long as drug dealers, surprisingly.
"Higher interest rates" doesn't even begin to define the exploitation of these people who are desperate for cash. The rates for these loans are on the order of 400%, which makes the comparison laughable.
It's almost like saying "the US national debt is $22 trillion, which is more than the average American makes in a year."
Conversely, assuming that every businessman is about equally greedy forces you to look elsewhere. Their loans are almost by definition high-risk, that's why they are expensive. Low-risk borrowers are a different market.
The fact that we can learn something by thinking about their business does not mean anything like "defending". It's just that sometimes the lessons are clearest with extreme examples. We can learn interesting things from studying drug gangs, pirates, kidnapping schemes, too.
We can also ask questions about whether the world would be made better by prohibiting loansharking, and I actually don't know enough to have an opinion. But it's clear to many that prohibiting drug-dealing has had some nasty side-effects.
That's the whole reason I used the example of loansharks, as I thought everyone understood by now that even if the angels ran that trade, such loans would be very expensive. But see below for other arguments against this bad-morals argument.
I've never seen numbers, but given the abundance of competing outfits, I'd expect that it looks roughly like any other business, once you account for all the costs. It could be a little more profitable if distaste drives some potential competitors to stay out. It also seems like a great front business for laundering, but I wouldn't guess that's a large proportion.
https://flint.craigslist.org/apa/d/flint-2-bedroom-1405-mapl...
That's $8,100 a year in rent.
That house for rent was probably a $4,000 buy + fix me up, similar to this one:
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3401-Herri...
Here's a ready to move in home for $27,500. Less than 4 yers of rent in the first example.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1114-Knapp...
I just looked up one single company running this particular swindle-- they have over a thousand locations and do over a billion a year in revenue.
Edit: Again, this is only one company, which currently only exists in a little over half of U.S. states.