Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?
There's two choice, really: work or die.
At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like a justification for slavery.
And if you don't like the other potential bosses, be your own!
That's kind of the idea. The employee-employer relationship is exploitive and no good for employers and employees alike. Let's abandon it and form cooperative associations instead, where we, the workers, own the means of production and the products of our labor.
How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?
What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement, with money he earned through his labor?
We can assume that Adam owns the house through his labor. Either he built it or bought it with the products of his labor. The landlord-renter relationship is still exploitive.
"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.
No. Adam can also sell Bob a share of a house. Of course, Bob would then have the associated decision making power over that basement share.
Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'
No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.