If a family is renting in the same place for decades, that is their problem. The moment you realize you are going to stay in one place for an extended period of time, there is no reason to continue renting. Sure, not everybody can purchase their dream home. But they can purchase something small, build equity, and upgrade in the future. The government also has programs to help first time buyers, especially those with less income.
Again, the primary reason to rent is so you can relocate. If you are not planning on relocating in the 5-10 years, you should own, or be working on owning.
Furthermore, the landlord is taking on risk (risk of the market moving against him, risk of the tenant not paying him or the place remaining unoccupied after a tenant leaves), is paying property taxes, insurance, is responsible for broken appliances, and is also often taking on a loan with higher interest rates.
Should all of this be provided for free?
Many people have no interest or ability to take care of a property. I watched my grandparents' house deteriorate and literally fall apart from neglect. [I used to think the roof leaking when it rained was a totally normal thing] They had literally every appliance in the house break over the years but they didn't have the wherewithal to replace anything so they just went without. They lived in total squalor for years, it was depressing (as well as very dangerous) visiting. If code enforcement stopped by they'd be homeless.
For sure, there is many, many benefits to owning, I love being a homeowner (most of the time - though I did get a little sticker shocked at my first 4 figure repair bill), but don't believe for a second "everyone should own."
I just very briefly touched on one issue with owning and why it may make sense for someone to rent for years (even if it might not be financially optimal[1]).
Books could be written about the topic.
The main takeaway is "everyone is different." And "one size does not fit all." Remember, many businesses still choose to rent over buying.
[1] plus you only truly know in hindsight what was truly financially optimal
You really should own if you're going to stay in the same place. If you can't take care of your place, and you rely on a landlord to do it, you're going to be in for a bad time when you have a landlord that doesn't give a shit. Which a lot of them are.
My parents came to America without a dollar in their pockets. My dad's income was running a convenience store which barely made enough to pay his bills. So both parents worked, effectively minimum wage jobs, and saved for years so they could build their dream home and send their children to college.
We never went out to eat, rarely went on vacation, and parents don't drink. So, they were able to fulfill their dreams.
When people say they want to own a house, but are unwilling to find a cheaper location, stop drinking, stop eating out, drive older beat-up cars, well, then they've made their choice. The system has its issues, but no one deserves anything, and the system is not the problem here.
I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their properties and realize a sizable income.
Rent-to-own arrangements might also be considered ethically acceptable.
I'm not trying to propose a practical policy here, just suggesting some potentially ethical arrangements.
Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means. Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.
While to a certain extent real estate has been transformed into something that, in some cases, approximates a commodity, it is historically the canonical non-subsitutable monopolized good where each item lacks perfect substitutes, which is why “rent-seeking” is literally named after what landlords do. Renting out real estate is the “trope naming” instance of rent-seeking.
If not, what the fuck are you talking about then? Landlords offer a service for money. Since when is that unethical?
Speaking as a homeowner, with a garden, fruit trees, and formerly chickens and goats, they're very comparable.
Renting meets the daily housing need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future.
Buying food meets the daily food need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future.
Alternatively, people could buy land and equipment/building and develop skills to use/maintain them, allowing them to meet their future food/housing needs.
The key element is that people can choose how they want to spend their resources (money, time, and attention). Sometimes buying is better, sometimes renting is. And yes, people do often make decisions that turn out not to have been in their best long-term interest.
What I was taught: Renting is often times optimal, totally fine, the right choice for a lot of people!
What my experience has taught me: Renting is for suckers or the incredibly wealthy that want to be able to move to a new city on a whim. I was a sucker for many years, and paid a very rich man 100k+ for the luxury of paying down his mortage. Never again.
There are lots of reasons to rent. It is generally a mutually beneficial relationship, like pretty much every other business transaction.