The problem with the landlord tenant power dynamic is that an unscrupulous party on either side can easily do great damage to the other.
Look at eviction laws in New York and California. Look at the recent headlines about squatting.
The landlord is actually the party with the greater financial risk by far, but the tenant has the emotional and social vulnerability of having no control over their home.
It is not actually at all clear that the tenant has lower financial risk. If, after being evicted, you fail to find housing, it is very easy to become homeless, and that is a terrible financial prospect for the tenant, as the US is really not set up to support homeless folks. Essentially every service you could want requires an address, and homeless shelters have terribly restrictive policies like separation of couples, pet bans, etc.
They have actual physical vulnerability because it's very dangerous to not be living in a home, and there is no guaranteed short-term fallback if you are forced from your home. Speaks VOLUMES that you consider "financial risk" more valid than this, which you choose to downplay as just a sense of vulnerability rather than the actual fact of it.
The tone of "Speaks VOLUMES" doesn't help the discussion.
Not all people and and places are equal: It's not a universal truth that someone given 30 days notice will find themselves unhoused and in a dangerous situation. Often it is just a sense.
And even where it is true: What then? If landlords are made the social safety-net of last resort, the 'guaranteed fallback', for people who are unable to secure housing then why should anyone be a landlord? It won't be easier to secure housing for people if the conditions are made too unattractive.
Some landlords stink, some tenants stink, sometimes the situation stinks without anyone being at fault. Policy ought to try to do the most good for the most people, but part of that is recognizing that an inability to evict people who don't pay (or worse) can mean that even more go unhoused when people choose to not rent out.
Given the situation that there is no safety net, and knowing that, why would you choose a relationship that is likely to position your financial interests against the physical safety and wellbeing of someone else, even a whole family?
I wouldn't choose it and I don't have respect or sympathy for people who do.
Look at eviction laws in New York and California. Look at the recent headlines about squatting.
The landlord is actually the party with the greater financial risk by far, but the tenant has the emotional and social vulnerability of having no control over their home.