Oh, looking back you were objecting to “being a landlord isn’t a job it is an investment”
We’ve had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying “but if can also be a job” and if you want to analyze social relations I’d argue that it’d be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?
where did I say that
Oh, looking back you were objecting to “being a landlord isn’t a job it is an investment”
We’ve had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying “but if can also be a job” and if you want to analyze social relations I’d argue that it’d be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?