This is completely ignorant of the fact that landlords can get insurance for those things and often dont have to pay anything at all.
You’ve got this upside-down. The existence of the insurance industry in a capitalist system is proof that risk is a thing that can be bought, sold, traded, banked and spent. If there was no financial cost to risk, then there would be no market for insurance to mitigate that risk.
The landlord gives up some income in order to mitigate risk, and most of the time, only some of that risk. I have yet to see or hear of an insurance policy that would basically cut a check for 100% of an insured item’s value unconditionally. If it did exist, it would probably be more expensive than the object itself.
As opposed to the tenants just getting rid of the landlord, buying their own insurance, and covering costs collectively. Thereby entirely eliminating the landlord and they can keep their wages to themselves.
You’ve got this upside-down. The existence of the insurance industry in a capitalist system is proof that risk is a thing that can be bought, sold, traded, banked and spent. If there was no financial cost to risk, then there would be no market for insurance to mitigate that risk.
The landlord gives up some income in order to mitigate risk, and most of the time, only some of that risk. I have yet to see or hear of an insurance policy that would basically cut a check for 100% of an insured item’s value unconditionally. If it did exist, it would probably be more expensive than the object itself.
As opposed to the tenants just getting rid of the landlord, buying their own insurance, and covering costs collectively. Thereby entirely eliminating the landlord and they can keep their wages to themselves.
Good luck finding 30 people who are willing to pool together 6 million to buy/build an apartment complex and live together.
I mean co-ops can happen, but the majority of time when something like that happens, it’s actually a cult.