3 ms·
The problem isn't "the algorithm," the article is exceedingly clear that the problem is "the company" and "the captured market" but mostly collusion by proxy.
by klyrs 4y ago
The problem isn't "the algorithm," the article is exceedingly clear that the problem is "the company" and "the captured market" but mostly collusion by proxy.
But in this case, it's also the algorithm -- the article has multiple quotes where "empathy" is seen as a problem and that getting humans out of the loop is a boon to profit. The algorithm itself isn't the problem, it's the bloody-minded profit-seeking where capitalists leverage trust in the algorithm to extract maximum rents by leaving properties vacant in the midst of a housing crunch.
- ajhurliman 4y agoLeaving properties vacant is an absolute killer to revenue. I’m reading a lot of people in this discussion cite that property managers are comfortable with vacant units because of all the extra money they’re making off of raising the rents, but you’d need to raise them an incredible amount to justify even a single month of vacancy. Normally 5% is reasonable, but if that number slides it really kills profits. I guess what I’m saying is that the incentives are aligned here: property managers want to see units occupied, and so does everyone else. Will they lower prices until 100% occupancy? No, there needs to be some unoccupied units or there would be no liquidity in the market (if there are no houses to rent and you want to move to a city, how could you move?).
- klyrs 4y ago> I guess what I’m saying is that the incentives are aligned here: property managers want to see units occupied, and so does everyone else. It sounds like you're using the intuition of a person who hasn't captured a major portion of the rental market. You're going so far as telling me that property managers wouldn't do what the people involved with the company say they're doing. Needless to say, I'm not convinced.