> But if the profit is 30% nobody’s getting it but the landlord.

What profit? The landlord has a $10,000/month mortgage payment and 10 tenants who pay $1000/month rent. If three of the tenants stop paying their rent and you can't evict them and replace them with paying tenants, you still have a $10,000/month mortgage, so now you have to raise the rent on the others by >$400/month each just in order to make the payment.

It's systemic, so all the other landlords are in the same situation and have to do the same thing, which means you can raise the rent by that much without losing tenants to the competition.

The people getting the extra money that the other tenants are paying aren't the landlords, they're the tenants who are living there without paying rent because they can't be evicted. And you can imagine what happens when the other tenants can't afford the higher rent and stop paying too.

There aren't too many landlords earning 30% profits over the long run. If they are, they are doing an exceptional job managing those properties.

People who are getting evicted are stressed. They often trash the property or behave in such ways that others don't want to live near them. For the ll, it is money; for their neighbors it is their life.

What does that have to do with sharing the loss but not the profit?