> because I was being paid very well for the job (I wasn't and in fact was underpaid but I took the job to build a resume)
"I took the job to build a resume" is another way of saying "I was being paid very well for the job".
"I took the job to build a resume" is another way of saying "I was being paid very well for the job".
And the solution to the first issue isn’t to attack the people making $60,000 but to bring everyone who is underpaid up.
It's not strictly a free market so the market closing price will be lower than true equilibrium because a no-agreement for one negotiator (labour) results in starvation but a no-agreement for the other negotiator (employer) results in minor discomfort.
Perhaps allowing the former to negotiate freely by guaranteeing life will bring negotiation outcomes closer to true market closing price. That's got its own problems, of course, but unions aren't a bad idea to attempt to increase power of labour vs employer.
Maybe you can somewhat pay your landlord in living experience, frequently blogging about your amenities included in the place for a possibly more-than-one-time rent extension for pandemic purposes.
Prince Harry move to Montecito increased property values around his house (https://nypost.com/2021/03/08/montecito-home-next-to-prince-...). I am sure many luxury buildings in any city would be happy to rent apartment to him for free just for publicity it will generate. This is equivalent to having Google/Apple on your resume.
Even if you are nobody, there are experiences you can provide to the landlord in lieu of rent (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/landlords-are-targeting...) [Do not recommend, probably illegal for both sides]
Also I think it's pretty clear this discussion does not pertain to corporate or celebrity tenants.
Sorry to burst your ancap bubble though.