If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bobs need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bobs stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. Thats the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you.
Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.
Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.
Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts.
I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:
1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped
Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.'