> You realize that the "rent" you pay includes the cost of the land, as well as the actual building on top. My point is that comparing whatever serfs paid and got in return (ie. only access to the land) and what the typical renter today gets (ie. access to the land and a finished building) isn't comparable.

I'm pretty sure most serfs were renting pre-existing dwellings.

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with this welfare state stuff. Yes we get taxed and receive things in return but so did the serf. The only difference is the serf typically only paid one tax for everything that also included his rent. Currently, people are paying the same amount as the serf did just for rent (30-50% or more) yet the landlord has no responsibility to maintain roads and any of the other basic services he did back in the day. Instead the worker has to pay for these things on top of what he is already paying the landlord. The only benefit the modern worker is getting over his medieval counterpart is better quality housing.

>I'm pretty sure most serfs were renting pre-existing dwellings.

Who built the pre-existing buildings? I somehow doubt that the feudal lords were pre-building the houses landlord style. Also, after the building is built, there's the cost of maintenance. Today, that's the responsibility of the landlord. I doubt that back in the day the serfs would be contacting the lord if they had a leaky roof.

>And I'm not sure what you're getting at with this welfare state stuff

That was brought up because the original commenter was talking about all the taxes that people have to pay.

>The only benefit the modern worker is getting over his medieval counterpart is better quality housing.

That's exactly the contention. Renters today are getting access to the land and a living unit that costs a non-trivial amount of resources to build. Serfs get access to the land and a mud hut. Sure, maybe if you work out the numbers the "living unit" part of the rent is actually trivial, but as it stands right now the numbers aren't directly comparable.

> Who built the pre-existing buildings? I somehow doubt that the feudal lords were pre-building the houses landlord style.

Yeah some building is going on. But a lot is getting passed down or rented out to other people when people die. If I remember correctly the Crown essentially seized all land with the Magna Carta and then diced it up as they saw fit and anyone in any existing dwelling was forced to pay or booted out.

> Today, that's the responsibility of the landlord

Er no it's not. The developer builds the property. The landlord buys it and rents it.

> Today, that's the responsibility of the landlord. I doubt that back in the day the serfs would be contacting the lord if they had a leaky roof.

Yes, this is true. But many landlords will also refuse to pay out to get certain things fixed. On top of that, you're also not allowed to modify the dwelling you live in if you want to see your deposit again. Which you probably won't because they'll make up some kind of reason not to give it back to you.

If you can't see the similarities to how medieval aristocracy and modern day landlords are bullying the rest of society for their own benefit and extracting the same proportion of money from them, then I can't be arsed to convince you.

Keep moving those posts /s

Also, you sure do look like a sealion to me.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I agree that comparing serfdom to market labor and housing isn't particularly enlightening. But there were reciprocal obligations involved that would be unheard of nowadays even in the most renter-friendly places. A lord would be expected to provide physical protection against bandits. "Evictions" were comparatively rare. In times of hardship, it was customary to provide what we'd now think of as welfare. Common resources like ovens and roads were expected to be provided by the lord.

On the other hand, serfs were also bound up in much more obligations than simply providing part of their income to the lord (e.g. it wouldn't be the lord building and maintaining the road that he had to provide). And they couldn't get up and leave, even in principle, if they had a bad lord.

If there was already a building there and nobody was using it, they could have it. Typically it didn't cost much to put up a basic house.

You don't see anything wrong with comparing:

1. serfs paying 30% (or whatever) of their income and getting a parcel of land and a mud hut that "didn't cost much to put up"

2. someone today paying 30% and getting an apartment unit that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and comes with electricity, plumbing and air conditioning

and concluding that the plight of the latter is basically the plight of the former?

Yes, because the modern day worker would be able to afford the former without paying 30% of his income if there were laws that strongly discouraged using property as an investment vehicle e.g exponential property owner tax, 0% for first property owned, 1% of land value for second, 2% for third, 4% for fourth, 8% for fifth etc. The issue is that those with capital are basically using their capital to bully the rest of the population, who cannot continue to exist without shelter, into paying high prices, that wouldn't exist if such measures were taken to discourage property hoarding.

Here's another way of looking at it. Imagine that medieval society had the same construction technology we have today. Everyone lives in modern homes, with solar panels providing electricity and their own septic tanks for waste, and their own water collection systems. Other than that, the social structure is the same. Is there much difference between that and what we have today? Or is one set of people in society essentially freeloading of the other?