When I got started on the web I moved a couple states over to live with a friend who was going to college. We lived in a mobile home & our rentier extractor landlord captured like $110 a month. I was able to spend little time doing work I didn't want to do in order to pay rent & could spend a lot of time learning.

High rents can offer some level of exclusivity and give people an opportunity to express their values, what they value, and how much they value it. There's a reason that most people who are in subsidized public housing end up wanting to move away if they can afford to.

You wouldn't be proving a negative. The assertion is that doing so (extracting value without providing any) is bad requires that bad thing to be stated. It's bad because opportunity cost, it's bad because people have to exchange currency for goods or services, it's bad because houses being in possession of money is itself immoral. These aren't negatives that need to be proved. As for cheating, what should I call acting so that others don't get a chance to participate?

> It's interesting that you haven't made a single attempt to provide an actual counterpoint of your own, of what value rent seekers actually provide, especially since you're complaining that no one else is explaining their position. "No one" attempts to explain, including yourself?

I don't have an assertion I want to make. Nothing other than to point out the problematic rhetoric. As an example, pointing out that 2+2=6 is invalid, or unconvincing because if you only have 1,2 and another for 3,4 can't reach 6. Does contribute, because the assertion that 2+2=6 is bad to leave unchallenged. Just like me making an assertion that 2+2=5 which would also be wrong. I don't know enough about the housing market in CA to make an any argument I'd want to stand behind. But I'm willing to say, just owning and renting property isn't enough to call them malicious, leaches, nor shitty.