> It make sense , because more people will build rental accommodation. ( They will certainly not do it if it is not profitable. ) Again, you're making a priori

> It make sense , because more people will build rental accommodation. ( They will certainly not do it if it is not profitable. ) Again, you're making a priori assumptions when there's gobs of empirical evidence that says you're wrong. In the places where this is the biggest problem, there's little room to build and many regulatory and local problems to overcome. At least in Boston-- the market worst I'm most familiar with-- contractors are regularly found bribing city officials with tens of thousands of dollars, free services, lavish vacations, and all of that sort of thing to get their projects approved. In progress construction sites are in every neighborhood. In my more reasonably priced city, and nearly every other US city, there are gobs of shitty 5 over 1 buildings being built but they're targeting the "luxury market" so they don't provide relief to market rate renters but you can get a place that costs 50k or 60k per year no problem! Rent maximizing platforms pressure landlords to let apartments sit empty rather than lowering the price specifically so they can keep the market high. The FTC just released a memo about it saying that price collusion is still collusion if it's done through an online platform. You're just straight-up factually wrong. > If more homes are built, the vacancy rate will slowly rise back to around 3% ( A 3 % vacancy rate is inferred to be a far number between tenants and landlords ) Rental rates have only been able to rise so much because there is a massive housing shortage - present vacancy rate is 0.9% in my area. At 09% Tenants have just about NO choice - I do not know about your area, there are lots of influences I do not know about. What you're describing is price gouging. When people use the market leverage to charge vastly more money than it costs because people have no choice, that's price gouging. What you're talking about is not made ethical because that's the way the market functions. It's an unethical behavior that is only possible when the market functions like this. Maybe your market doesn't afford you this incredible opportunity to rip people off? If that's the case, we're not talking about that. Lots of things are very cut-and-dried if you ignore context, evidence, ethics, the effects of your actions, and things like that. Listen, there's a lot written out there about this if you're interested in really knowing rather than just reinforcing the conclusion you've already reached without that information. I'm not your research assistant. If you're even curious about the possibility you might be wrong, you could confirm it in a matter of seconds using google. In fact, you could have already done that but you haven't, so I'm going to assume you're not really interested in knowing what you're talking about and stop trying to convince you that it matters.