Landlords have at least one asset. The vast majority (all?) of their tenants have zero assets.
This is a measure of wealth, but Bloomberg makes the same mistake that all of these borderline propaganda rags make which is to compare incomes.
This is a measure of wealth, but Bloomberg makes the same mistake that all of these borderline propaganda rags make which is to compare incomes.
It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.
> It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.
These are all assets that can be liquidated for something. The renters have no such assets.
The landlords are just as capable of going and getting a job as anyone. Most landlords are not employed full time simply because there isn't enough work to be done as a landlord to justify 40 hours of labor every week, at least until a substantial number of units are being rented out. The income the landlord receives is typically declared after all costs of ownership, which include any mortgages. So, the work of the landlord results in a greater share of their asset ("equity").
The jobs their tenants have likely do nothing to increase the value or share in an asset.