You because you didn’t have to come out of pocket the high cost of a down payment, handle maintenance costs, deal with the risk of mortgage default if you lost your income, deal with the possibility (and thus hold insurance for) of liability if someone is injured and sues, or lose out on the opportunity cost of money spent on the house versus what else that money could have purchased. To say nothing of you don’t know what their interest rates are, how property taxes or cost of home owners insurance may have changed (in the U.S. your escrow payments change often if taxes and insurance change) or how liquid the house is (ie could they sell if they needed to and at what discount to the market value).

Oh, and don’t forget that they’re paying interest on the mortgage and that - when adjusted for inflation - the actual increase in value versus what they’ve paid in in mortgage interest over the years is probably far less than the non adjusted gains it looks like.

It’s pretty easy to demonize owner landlords when you’ve always been a renter because you think only about a monthly payment. I’m not going to tell you that’s it’s a relative luxury to be fixated on one simple payment each month, but it’s also not the case that owning a home as an individual is some kind of pot of gold.

An owner that values their tenant and keeps their rent flat isn’t a saint. But they’re also doing a good thing in a time when they could be - by account of this thread - exploiting people for as much as possible. We don’t need to order them a parade, but it might be worth broadening your understanding of what the cost of a home is before you blanket assume they’re worthy of scorn.

If their fixed costs are low, the tenant could be making more through investments after staying in the same house for 15 years.

Buying makes a ton of sense if you're going to live somewhere for a long time of course, but if you start out not sure and you have a nice landlord that doesn't take advantage of you with perpetual rent increases every year, then it can make sense to ride it out and invest your "inflated" income every year instead. By the time the tenant moves out, they have a nice portfolio to leverage for a new property and the landlord has gotten a decent return on their investment with a stable tenant.

In this scenario, it seems to me that main driver of disparity in our society is landlords' push to always increase rent even when the mortgage is being paid 2x or 3x over each month, just because it's allowed.

I'm not saying we need rent controls necessarily as a way to fix the problem, but that is one problem that rent control solves. Perhaps paired with some other scheme (3% max increase per year for first 5 years of renting, then capped at 1%?) we could find a more equitable way to account for inflation of repair costs while not screwing tenants with "forced" moves every few years when the rent becomes unaffordable.