5 ms·

If they don't even notice, what do they need compensation for? They're satisfied that they've gotten what they wanted out of the contract.

by imgabe 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's not how contracts works. You're bound to both sides of the deal, if you try to weasel out, you're a cheater.
- imgabe 11y ago
  Ultimately, what most landlords care about is: 1. the rent gets paid on time 2. the property is kept in good condition If those two things are satisfied, they have little incentive to go finding reasons about why their tenant who always pays the rent and keeps up the property should be kicked out. The other terms of the contract are just proxies for achieving those two outcomes. If the tenant delivers on both, they haven't "weaseled out" of anything.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    That's just rationalizing breaking of a contract. You don't have a right or reason to assume that landlord cares only about 1. and 2. Also, the biggest issue (after 2.) with AirBnB subletting is that in many cases, it affects other tenants and/or neighbourhood - in which case you're dumping an externality on innocent third parties.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      As long as an economic incentive exists, people are going to take advantage of it. Wagging your finger and moralizing is only going to convince people who probably weren't going to do it anyway. If you want to change behavior, you have to change the incentives. Last time I checked, AirBnB was a publicly accessible website. It should be trivial for a landlord to see if their property is on there and enforce the penalties if it is. Another comment mentioned that landlords are inserting language into leases that they get the profits from AirBnB if it's used. That seems like a reasonable response to me.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        The difference between homo economicus and homo sapiens is that the latter can opt to not follow some economic incentives (at least those sufficiently weak), and to maintain other types of incentive structures (like social, cultural). A guy who's subletting his place on AirBnB in clear violation of his contract is an asshole. A douche bag. I'm calling our figurative guy names not because I need to vent out. I'm providing a social disincentive for such behaviour. The vaguely defined terms like "asshat" are actually part of the way society incentivizes one to behave in a particular way. Mostly, it incentivizes cooperation (as in Prisoner's Dilemma) and disincentivizes defection. In the West, such incentive structures are individually much weaker than economic ones - but still, when they are aggregated, they form a powerful force. Services like AirBnB and Uber unfortunately slowly erode social/cultural incentives, turning citizens into competitors instead of cooperators. > Another comment mentioned that landlords are inserting language into leases that they get the profits from AirBnB if it's used. That seems like a reasonable response to me. And this is the bad outcome. The end result is the same as before AirBnB subletting became a thing, but now the contracts have additional clause that will probably be phrased vaguely enough to destroy some use cases that would be beneficial for both parties. That's the bad result I'm talking about - the side that's being cheated won't just lie down and admit defeat, they'll take up arms and defend themselves. In the end things are worse for everyone involved. > Wagging your finger and moralizing is only going to convince people who probably weren't going to do it anyway. If you want to change behavior, you have to change the incentives. I am changing the incentives (in a very small way - armchair activism, I know). I'm trying to highlight the problems in hope that some readers who may not have noticed them before will notice them now and opt out of contract-breaking subletting, and will discourage others from doing so as well. It's working the foundations.
        imgabe 11y ago
        > Services like AirBnB and Uber unfortunately slowly erode social/cultural incentives, turning citizens into competitors instead of cooperators. They erode the incentives that maintain the interests of the status quo, but they provide strong incentives to cooperate. They introduce competition to taxi services and hotels, but they increase cooperation between consumers and Uber drivers, and AirBnB hosts and guests. Maybe AirBnB provides an incentive not to cooperate with the landlord in his desire to restrict how many guests you can have and how long they can stay, but it provides a strong incentive to cooperate with people who need a place to stay and can't afford a hotel. I don't see any landlords ignoring economic incentives and offering below-market rent in the spirit of "cooperation". Indeed, they are quite happy to kick out rent controlled tenants at the earliest opportunity in order to bring in more money, regardless of how many people call them an asshole or a douchebag. > And this is the bad outcome. The end result is the same as before AirBnB subletting became a thing, but now the contracts have additional clause that will probably be phrased vaguely enough to destroy some use cases that would be beneficial for both parties. That's just pure speculation. Until we see the language we have no idea what cases it destroys or doesn't, or how vaguely worded it is. If there's a use that's beneficial to both parties, it should be possible to find a party who's willing to agree to it in order to receive that benefit, if the market is allowed to operate. > I am changing the incentives (in a very small way - armchair activism, I know). I'm trying to highlight the problems in hope that some readers who may not have noticed them before will notice them now and opt out of contract-breaking subletting, and will discourage others from doing so as well. It's working the foundations. If there is in fact a problem, it should be easy enough to point out the facts of the damage that's being done without resorting to calling people names like douchebag and asshole. Such insults usually come out when there isn't any logical argument to be made.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - brbsix 11y ago
    With regards to priority number 2 (that the property is kept in good condition): The landlord rents out a property at an expected degree of risk. They make this determination by screening the renter and drafting an appropriate rental contract (or vice-versa). If a renter plans to sublet out to 20 individuals every given month, risk skyrockets for everything from theft, pet damage, smoke damage, fire, etcetera. The landlord's home/rental insurance may not even cover these scenarios. Had the landlord known about this increased risk, they may have chosen to increase the deposit, amend the rental contract, or chosen another renter altogether.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    I think you left out: 3. The property is not used in a manner which creates unexpected costs for the landlord aside from the property maintenance issues addressed in #2, such as exposing the property owner to liability it is not prepared for. (Note that lots of things that can be done with property create potential liability for the landlord and not just the tenant-in-possession.) > The other terms of the contract are just proxies for achieving those two outcomes. If the tenant delivers on both, they haven't "weaseled out" of anything. No, in addition to other concerns (like my #3) that you may have forgotten, if the tenant usurps the landlords prerogative of deciding what steps to take to protect the interests the landlord has in the property, the tenant is weaseling out of something. If the tenant wants broader discretion to decide how to achieve the landlords interests without weaseling out of their agreement, they can negotiate that discretion into the lease and pay the landlord whatever premium the landlord demands for that transfer of trust.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      If the rent is received on time and the property is returned in the condition it was received, exactly what "unexpected costs" are there to the landlord? If there are actual costs in the form of damage that actually does occur (violating #2), then the landlord has ample grounds to pursue the tenant to recover those costs. People don't get compensated for things that might have happened.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > If the rent is received on time and the property is returned in the condition it was received, exactly what "unexpected costs" are there to the landlord? Liability to the government or an injured third-party for events occurring on the property for which liability exists for the landlord and not exclusively the tenant-in-possession; this can exist with no damage to the property. Further, again, given that the landlord would no doubt charge more for giving the tenant greater discretion to choose what risks to take on behalf of the landlord (even when considering damage to the property alone), breach of contract to take greater risk than is allowed in the contract is a harm to the landlord, because it denies the landlord the opportunity to choose to rent to a different party who would pay for the privilege that the usurping tenant is taking without paying for it. This is a harm that actually happens, not a thing that might have happened.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
If you don't notice that I've taken $10k out of your account, invested it, and put the $10k back after a year (pocketing the interest), would you be fine with that fact? edit: thank you for explaining banks to me; I'm talking about stealing my parent-comments' money for a year without them noticing, and investing it.
- imgabe 11y ago
  You just described exactly how the banking industry works.
- Spivak 11y ago
  This is literally fractional reserve banking and it's the foundation of our financial system. The money in your bank account isn't really there. Technically some of it is there but how much depends on your government's regulation -- it will probably be somewhere around 15%. The rest is just a number in their database and the actual money is given to their financial department to play the market. They provide you banking services and give you a terrible interest rate, they pocket the difference, you have near zero risk since you're insured, and both parties are happy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
- imgabe 11y ago
  How can you be anything but fine with something you don't notice? In order to be upset about something, you would necessarily have to notice it first. Obviously in your example the thief runs the risk that their victim will notice at which point the thief will be subject to all the attendant penalties. I'm not saying there shouldn't be penalties. The penalties have to be severe enough that they are not worth the risk of being noticed. If they aren't, some people are rationally going to decide to take the risk.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    So are you ok with e.g. stealing from the rich as long as they don't notice? I'll grant you that the harm is limited (kind of "lazy evaluation" of harm - there's none until the victim finally notices, and someone will somewhen, way before the heat death of the universe). But you have to look at the perverse incentives such attitude creates. If it's ok to break contracts as long as the victim doesn't notice, it pushes one side to be very shady, and the other to be hypervigilant. Also, people make mistakes and most of the time the victim notices quite soon. That's why we invented values of "honesty" and "integrity", which include not breaking deals even if the other party doesn't notice. Upholding them reduces the amount of resources we need to spend on protecting ourselves from one another.

If they don't even notice, what do they need compensation for? They're satisfied that they've gotten what they wanted out of the contract.

by imgabe 11y ago

If they don't even notice, what do they need compensation for? They're satisfied that they've gotten what they wanted out of the contract.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

That's not how contracts works. You're bound to both sides of the deal, if you try to weasel out, you're a cheater.

imgabe 11y ago
Ultimately, what most landlords care about is: 1. the rent gets paid on time 2. the property is kept in good condition If those two things are satisfied, they have little incentive to go finding reasons about why their tenant who always pays the rent and keeps up the property should be kicked out. The other terms of the contract are just proxies for achieving those two outcomes. If the tenant delivers on both, they haven't "weaseled out" of anything.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's just rationalizing breaking of a contract. You don't have a right or reason to assume that landlord cares only about 1. and 2. Also, the biggest issue (after 2.) with AirBnB subletting is that in many cases, it affects other tenants and/or neighbourhood - in which case you're dumping an externality on innocent third parties.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    As long as an economic incentive exists, people are going to take advantage of it. Wagging your finger and moralizing is only going to convince people who probably weren't going to do it anyway. If you want to change behavior, you have to change the incentives. Last time I checked, AirBnB was a publicly accessible website. It should be trivial for a landlord to see if their property is on there and enforce the penalties if it is. Another comment mentioned that landlords are inserting language into leases that they get the profits from AirBnB if it's used. That seems like a reasonable response to me.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      The difference between homo economicus and homo sapiens is that the latter can opt to not follow some economic incentives (at least those sufficiently weak), and to maintain other types of incentive structures (like social, cultural). A guy who's subletting his place on AirBnB in clear violation of his contract is an asshole. A douche bag. I'm calling our figurative guy names not because I need to vent out. I'm providing a social disincentive for such behaviour. The vaguely defined terms like "asshat" are actually part of the way society incentivizes one to behave in a particular way. Mostly, it incentivizes cooperation (as in Prisoner's Dilemma) and disincentivizes defection. In the West, such incentive structures are individually much weaker than economic ones - but still, when they are aggregated, they form a powerful force. Services like AirBnB and Uber unfortunately slowly erode social/cultural incentives, turning citizens into competitors instead of cooperators. > Another comment mentioned that landlords are inserting language into leases that they get the profits from AirBnB if it's used. That seems like a reasonable response to me. And this is the bad outcome. The end result is the same as before AirBnB subletting became a thing, but now the contracts have additional clause that will probably be phrased vaguely enough to destroy some use cases that would be beneficial for both parties. That's the bad result I'm talking about - the side that's being cheated won't just lie down and admit defeat, they'll take up arms and defend themselves. In the end things are worse for everyone involved. > Wagging your finger and moralizing is only going to convince people who probably weren't going to do it anyway. If you want to change behavior, you have to change the incentives. I am changing the incentives (in a very small way - armchair activism, I know). I'm trying to highlight the problems in hope that some readers who may not have noticed them before will notice them now and opt out of contract-breaking subletting, and will discourage others from doing so as well. It's working the foundations.
      - imgabe 11y ago
        > Services like AirBnB and Uber unfortunately slowly erode social/cultural incentives, turning citizens into competitors instead of cooperators. They erode the incentives that maintain the interests of the status quo, but they provide strong incentives to cooperate. They introduce competition to taxi services and hotels, but they increase cooperation between consumers and Uber drivers, and AirBnB hosts and guests. Maybe AirBnB provides an incentive not to cooperate with the landlord in his desire to restrict how many guests you can have and how long they can stay, but it provides a strong incentive to cooperate with people who need a place to stay and can't afford a hotel. I don't see any landlords ignoring economic incentives and offering below-market rent in the spirit of "cooperation". Indeed, they are quite happy to kick out rent controlled tenants at the earliest opportunity in order to bring in more money, regardless of how many people call them an asshole or a douchebag. > And this is the bad outcome. The end result is the same as before AirBnB subletting became a thing, but now the contracts have additional clause that will probably be phrased vaguely enough to destroy some use cases that would be beneficial for both parties. That's just pure speculation. Until we see the language we have no idea what cases it destroys or doesn't, or how vaguely worded it is. If there's a use that's beneficial to both parties, it should be possible to find a party who's willing to agree to it in order to receive that benefit, if the market is allowed to operate. > I am changing the incentives (in a very small way - armchair activism, I know). I'm trying to highlight the problems in hope that some readers who may not have noticed them before will notice them now and opt out of contract-breaking subletting, and will discourage others from doing so as well. It's working the foundations. If there is in fact a problem, it should be easy enough to point out the facts of the damage that's being done without resorting to calling people names like douchebag and asshole. Such insults usually come out when there isn't any logical argument to be made.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- brbsix 11y ago
  With regards to priority number 2 (that the property is kept in good condition): The landlord rents out a property at an expected degree of risk. They make this determination by screening the renter and drafting an appropriate rental contract (or vice-versa). If a renter plans to sublet out to 20 individuals every given month, risk skyrockets for everything from theft, pet damage, smoke damage, fire, etcetera. The landlord's home/rental insurance may not even cover these scenarios. Had the landlord known about this increased risk, they may have chosen to increase the deposit, amend the rental contract, or chosen another renter altogether.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  I think you left out: 3. The property is not used in a manner which creates unexpected costs for the landlord aside from the property maintenance issues addressed in #2, such as exposing the property owner to liability it is not prepared for. (Note that lots of things that can be done with property create potential liability for the landlord and not just the tenant-in-possession.) > The other terms of the contract are just proxies for achieving those two outcomes. If the tenant delivers on both, they haven't "weaseled out" of anything. No, in addition to other concerns (like my #3) that you may have forgotten, if the tenant usurps the landlords prerogative of deciding what steps to take to protect the interests the landlord has in the property, the tenant is weaseling out of something. If the tenant wants broader discretion to decide how to achieve the landlords interests without weaseling out of their agreement, they can negotiate that discretion into the lease and pay the landlord whatever premium the landlord demands for that transfer of trust.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    If the rent is received on time and the property is returned in the condition it was received, exactly what "unexpected costs" are there to the landlord? If there are actual costs in the form of damage that actually does occur (violating #2), then the landlord has ample grounds to pursue the tenant to recover those costs. People don't get compensated for things that might have happened.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > If the rent is received on time and the property is returned in the condition it was received, exactly what "unexpected costs" are there to the landlord? Liability to the government or an injured third-party for events occurring on the property for which liability exists for the landlord and not exclusively the tenant-in-possession; this can exist with no damage to the property. Further, again, given that the landlord would no doubt charge more for giving the tenant greater discretion to choose what risks to take on behalf of the landlord (even when considering damage to the property alone), breach of contract to take greater risk than is allowed in the contract is a harm to the landlord, because it denies the landlord the opportunity to choose to rent to a different party who would pay for the privilege that the usurping tenant is taking without paying for it. This is a harm that actually happens, not a thing that might have happened.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

If you don't notice that I've taken $10k out of your account, invested it, and put the $10k back after a year (pocketing the interest), would you be fine with that fact? edit: thank you for explaining banks to me; I'm talking about stealing my parent-comments' money for a year without them noticing, and investing it.

imgabe 11y ago
You just described exactly how the banking industry works.
Spivak 11y ago
This is literally fractional reserve banking and it's the foundation of our financial system. The money in your bank account isn't really there. Technically some of it is there but how much depends on your government's regulation -- it will probably be somewhere around 15%. The rest is just a number in their database and the actual money is given to their financial department to play the market. They provide you banking services and give you a terrible interest rate, they pocket the difference, you have near zero risk since you're insured, and both parties are happy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
imgabe 11y ago
How can you be anything but fine with something you don't notice? In order to be upset about something, you would necessarily have to notice it first. Obviously in your example the thief runs the risk that their victim will notice at which point the thief will be subject to all the attendant penalties. I'm not saying there shouldn't be penalties. The penalties have to be severe enough that they are not worth the risk of being noticed. If they aren't, some people are rationally going to decide to take the risk.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  So are you ok with e.g. stealing from the rich as long as they don't notice? I'll grant you that the harm is limited (kind of "lazy evaluation" of harm - there's none until the victim finally notices, and someone will somewhen, way before the heat death of the universe). But you have to look at the perverse incentives such attitude creates. If it's ok to break contracts as long as the victim doesn't notice, it pushes one side to be very shady, and the other to be hypervigilant. Also, people make mistakes and most of the time the victim notices quite soon. That's why we invented values of "honesty" and "integrity", which include not breaking deals even if the other party doesn't notice. Upholding them reduces the amount of resources we need to spend on protecting ourselves from one another.