3 ms·
That is troubling, if they die, they aren't paying money, it's bad for profits Better to keep them barely alive with the minimum funding possible
by iso1631 4y ago
That is troubling, if they die, they aren't paying money, it's bad for profits
Better to keep them barely alive with the minimum funding possible
- koheripbal 4y agoTheoretically, if they increased profits per tenant by 30% a 10% reduction in tenants would still equate to a 20% increase in profit.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rdtwo 4y agoNah dead tenants just get replaced with live ones. Minus minor acquisition costs they probably make like 28% more
- iso1631 4y agoIf there's more supply you could expand. The ideal situation from the owner point of view is you extract the entire net worth of the tennant and then move them on (coffin or just kick them out), while at the same time spending the least amount possible. You don't want them dying too quickly as that's leaving money on the table, but you don't want to have to evict them once they run out of money Bonus points if you can extract money from relatives too
- 11101010001100 4y agoI believe that's what they are doing, with an acceptable error rate.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoYou can increase your rates and wait until people have lost all their money. then it's more profitable to have people dying.