3 ms·

> Who verifies that the algorithm is correct? You're not going to like this answer, but...the market does. The point is that no software has to power to force

by thunky 4y ago

> Who verifies that the algorithm is correct? You're not going to like this answer, but...the market does. The point is that no software has to power to force tenants to pay higher than market rents. edit to add: > In the case of YieldStar it means that tenants cannot fairly negotiate because they don't know what a reasonable price is. If that's the case, then the landlords could save the money they're spending on YieldStar and just set the high prices already. They could use their own proprietary "I want more money" algorithm, and the tenant would have no choice but to pay whatever number the landlord popped out of their head.

richbell 4y ago
> You're not going to like this answer, but...the market does. In other words, nobody is culpable and the people with money and resources are able to exploit those below them with impunity. > The point is that no software has to power to force tenants to pay higher than market rents. Sure it does. Having a roof over your head is a fundamental need and people are willing to do a lot to avoid homelessness. If your landlord says to you "rent is going up $500 a month" and you're already struggling financially, uprooting your family is a serious personal and financial hardship many people try to avoid, even if that means giving up basic luxuries. Not to mention that corporate landlords can absolutely abuse their power to drive prices across an area. We aren't just talking about individual landlords — though even individuals can still own dozens of properties.
- thunky 4y ago
  If I have a friend that owns a rental property, and I tell her: "you're only charging $1k for rent? you could get $2k easily". Am I helping her exploit her tenant? Now what if she owns 10 rentals? 1,000? 10,000? I think we probably just need to agree to disagree that this is a form of exploitation. Now if there is actual price fixing or collusion going on, that's another matter.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Since you clearly read the article and have shown awareness of the issues in your other comments prior to this one, offering such simplistic arguments smacks of disingenuity. Good discussions happen when you lead with your best arguments, not a string of weak ones designed to exhaust your interlocutor.
  - richbell 4y ago
    > If I have a friend that owns a rental property, and I tell her: "you're only charging $1k for rent? you could get $2k easily". Am I helping her exploit her tenant? Now what if she owns 10 rentals? 1,000? 10,000? > ... > Now if there is actual price fixing or collusion going on, that's another matter. If your friend owns 10,000 rentals and sets prices unilaterally, thats blatantly anti-consumer if not monopolistic. Shelter is a basic need and people will pay as much as they can to keep a roof over their heads, until they reach the breaking point. If you have several friends that control a sizable amount of the housing supply in an area and they agree to charge a certain amount and artificially limit the availabile supply, that seems like price fixing to me. Doesn't matter if you have three friends or three hundred friends. ) When competitors collude, prices are inflated and the customer is cheated. https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/810261/download#:~:text=When%20competitors%20collude%2C%20prices%20are,United%20States%20Department%20of%20Justice https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/810261/download#:~:text=Whe.... In either case, the prices are inflated and people are being cheated.
    - thunky 4y ago
      > If your friend owns 10,000 rentals and sets prices unilaterally, thats blatantly anti-consumer if not monopolistic. In my example, the friend is only "fixing" the rent in the sense that it was broken (artificially low) before. I didn't say she controlled the entire supply of housing in the area, and I didn't say she was setting rents artificially high. I don't see a crime. For some reason you're assuming that anytime rent is raised it's a violation of the tenant's rights.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        > I didn't say she controlled the entire supply of housing in the area Actually, it was you who introduced the idea that she owned 10,000 rentals. Please don't insult people's intelligence by suggesting that 10,000 rental units in a market is too small to affect overall pricing. > If I have a friend that owns a rental property, and I tell her: "you're only charging $1k for rent? you could get $2k easily". Am I helping her exploit her tenant? Now what if she owns 10 rentals? 1,000? 10,000?
      - 4y ago
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
> If that's the case, then the landlords could save the money they're spending on YieldStar and just set the high prices already. They could use their own proprietary "I want more money" algorithm, and the tenant would have no choice but to pay whatever number the landlord popped out of their head. Now you're getting it. They could do this, but if their number is higher than other owner numbers in their area, they lose. If it's the same as other numbers in their area, they win. So they need something to coordinate those numbers. A 3rd party, for example. And thus we arrive at why people call it collusion via a 3rd party.

by thunky 4y ago

richbell 4y ago

> You're not going to like this answer, but...the market does. In other words, nobody is culpable and the people with money and resources are able to exploit those below them with impunity. > The point is that no software has to power to force tenants to pay higher than market rents. Sure it does. Having a roof over your head is a fundamental need and people are willing to do a lot to avoid homelessness. If your landlord says to you "rent is going up $500 a month" and you're already struggling financially, uprooting your family is a serious personal and financial hardship many people try to avoid, even if that means giving up basic luxuries. Not to mention that corporate landlords can absolutely abuse their power to drive prices across an area. We aren't just talking about individual landlords — though even individuals can still own dozens of properties.

thunky 4y ago
If I have a friend that owns a rental property, and I tell her: "you're only charging $1k for rent? you could get $2k easily". Am I helping her exploit her tenant? Now what if she owns 10 rentals? 1,000? 10,000? I think we probably just need to agree to disagree that this is a form of exploitation. Now if there is actual price fixing or collusion going on, that's another matter.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Since you clearly read the article and have shown awareness of the issues in your other comments prior to this one, offering such simplistic arguments smacks of disingenuity. Good discussions happen when you lead with your best arguments, not a string of weak ones designed to exhaust your interlocutor.
- richbell 4y ago
  > If I have a friend that owns a rental property, and I tell her: "you're only charging $1k for rent? you could get $2k easily". Am I helping her exploit her tenant? Now what if she owns 10 rentals? 1,000? 10,000? > ... > Now if there is actual price fixing or collusion going on, that's another matter. If your friend owns 10,000 rentals and sets prices unilaterally, thats blatantly anti-consumer if not monopolistic. Shelter is a basic need and people will pay as much as they can to keep a roof over their heads, until they reach the breaking point. If you have several friends that control a sizable amount of the housing supply in an area and they agree to charge a certain amount and artificially limit the availabile supply, that seems like price fixing to me. Doesn't matter if you have three friends or three hundred friends. ) When competitors collude, prices are inflated and the customer is cheated. https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/810261/download#:~:text=When%20competitors%20collude%2C%20prices%20are,United%20States%20Department%20of%20Justice https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/810261/download#:~:text=Whe.... In either case, the prices are inflated and people are being cheated.
  - thunky 4y ago
    > If your friend owns 10,000 rentals and sets prices unilaterally, thats blatantly anti-consumer if not monopolistic. In my example, the friend is only "fixing" the rent in the sense that it was broken (artificially low) before. I didn't say she controlled the entire supply of housing in the area, and I didn't say she was setting rents artificially high. I don't see a crime. For some reason you're assuming that anytime rent is raised it's a violation of the tenant's rights.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      > I didn't say she controlled the entire supply of housing in the area Actually, it was you who introduced the idea that she owned 10,000 rentals. Please don't insult people's intelligence by suggesting that 10,000 rental units in a market is too small to affect overall pricing. > If I have a friend that owns a rental property, and I tell her: "you're only charging $1k for rent? you could get $2k easily". Am I helping her exploit her tenant? Now what if she owns 10 rentals? 1,000? 10,000?
    - 4y ago

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

> If that's the case, then the landlords could save the money they're spending on YieldStar and just set the high prices already. They could use their own proprietary "I want more money" algorithm, and the tenant would have no choice but to pay whatever number the landlord popped out of their head. Now you're getting it. They could do this, but if their number is higher than other owner numbers in their area, they lose. If it's the same as other numbers in their area, they win. So they need something to coordinate those numbers. A 3rd party, for example. And thus we arrive at why people call it collusion via a 3rd party.