Repair costs are hugely jagged: Sometimes you have a few months with no repair, and then a huge sewer/roof/electrical repair, so rents need to account for that.

> I also never said they shouldn’t make money - they absolutely should, otherwise nobody would want to be a landlord.

Correct, and that is why it is so important that the housing asset class remains competitive with alternative investments. If you force the return of housing to be less than other investments at the same risk level, it reduces investment in housing and in return creates more scarcity and higher rents, exactly what some of the people here seem to want to avoid yet don't understand that the policies they're arguing for is causing.

> Homes are quite inelastic and a necessity for everyone.

Yes, but homes in a particular location are not. If you want to live in Manhattan you have to be able to afford to live there. You don't get to claim living in Manhattan is a necessity for everyone and that therefore prices there must accommodate your financial circumstances.

> a landlord has far more “financial padding” to account for macroeconomic shocks compared to a renter

That is not universally true since smaller landlords typically have a pretty big mortgage to service for a long time. They don't have the flexibility to just not pay just because a tenant decides not to pay. A house is not easy to sell in an economic downturn and may even be underwater.