That's the worst part. The fact they keep doing it means it probably works. I just don't understand how.

They even ambush me every time I go to the grocery store. And they've doubled my bill since I signed up. Why bother marketing when you can raise rates whenever you want? They could save so much money by not mailing every day and hiring people to hunt me

You clearly haven't heard of private equity

where is the money going to come from if they can't sell anything?

I think a big component of the problem is location. I may have a different perspective living in a low cost of living city. Just a few years ago I lived in a two bedroom apartment that was $650/mo. It was old and not very nice, but totally functional and reasonably safe. It was a bigger complex so the landlord was a management company. They weren't amazing or anything, but they held up their end of the lease. I understand the situation somewhere like NYC or California is going to be radically different.

I think that's where a really interesting question comes in though, do people have a right to housing? Or a right to housing in the place they're currently living? It's a big difference. Forcibly relocating people is... Problematic at best. But there are places like LA where it's almost physically (geologically) impossible to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live there.

If you haven't already I'd recommend listening to the podcast mini series "according to need" by 99 percent invisible. I really appreciated the perspective it offers into some of the practical challenges of trying to get homeless people housed.

Ultimately I don't know that I'd call housing a "right", purely for semantic reasons, but I do think the very existence of homelessness and housing insecurity is a devastating critique of our social and economic systems. I didn't think we'll ever have a system that completely eliminates renting/short term housing, but we do clearly need to change a lot of things about how housing works now.

What do you mean no choice? There's always a choice.

Realistically many people don't have a choice to buy, because they don't have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don't see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?

I'd be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn't afford the house you're in now if you had to buy it today. I'm in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it's a lot more complicated than "landlords" though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.

Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren't landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let's a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.

Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I'm pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn't want to be responsible for that.

More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you're mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it's actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It's just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.

So while I see your argument that landlords don't "deserve" the money they make, practically they're an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.

They could be, and probably should be repurposed

But also, brand new chrome books are ~$80

By the time you collect, clean, repair, and reimage the older computers, it may well be cheaper to just buy Chromebooks.

I hate seeing anything useful going to the trash but the economics aren't great in this case

You know that's not actually going to happen though. Maybe one in a hundred will get intercepted and saved at best.

I think there's some ability to distinguish as anything intentionally discarded due to spillage or damage should be accounted for directly, as opposed to only showing up at inventory

Obviously it is impossible to separate out honest mistakes, intentional theft, and disgruntled employee semi-intentional shrink. If you ask the company, 500% of shrink is theft by organized crime rings and the general public should definitely be spending taxpayer dollars on police enforcement and jail time for pretty thieves. So I would assume most of it is actually accidental check out mistakes and employees "accidentally" checking things out wrong.