23 ms·

There is nothing wrong with keeping units empty to manage overall rental yield. It becomes an issue if a group of landlords agree not to rent below a certain t

There is nothing wrong with keeping units empty to manage overall rental yield. It becomes an issue if a group of landlords agree not to rent below a certain threshold in a community. This is classic price fixing - leaving renters no alternative other than paying the minimum rate set.

tristor 3y ago
> It becomes an issue if a group of landlords agree not to rent below a certain threshold in a community. This is classic price fixing - leaving renters no alternative other than paying the minimum rate set. This is exactly what's happening, though. Landlords using RealPage/YieldStar are required to follow its guidelines and need permissions from the company to make exceptions. It's technology mediated collusion to price-fix.
Pannoniae 3y ago
"There is nothing wrong with keeping units empty to manage overall rental yield." Heavily disagree. There is everything wrong with that. Housing should not be an investment or a profit source at all
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > Housing should not be an investment or a profit source at all Who would build housing, then?
  - stefan_ 3y ago
    People who need housing? It's what they call a necessity good. We get it, you have rentals - maybe it would do you some good to read more and write less.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      You built your own housing? > We get it, you have rentals Nope.
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    The soon to be occupiers would build them. Like they did in most places for most of human history
    - davidw 3y ago
      We're well past the age when someone can do a reasonable job of slapping together some logs. It's fine if people make a profit at providing essential goods as long as there's enough surplus to redistribute to those who markets can't reach. No one complains about farmers profiting from farms. We care about people going hungry, so we buy some food from tax revenues and help feed them.
      - hirako2000 3y ago
        It was an answer to the rhetorical comment that if housing stopped yielding a return on investment then there would be no housing. I don't see the possible parallel with farmers, all there is in common is land potentially owned as property. Farmers bear fruits through labour. Real estate investors bear returns on capital. That's interesting you mention some people going hungry, most people's inability to slap logs together to make shelter, and resorting to tax collection and distribution.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        > Real estate investors bear returns on capital. There have been many attempts to eliminate bearing returns on capital. They all resulted in a prostrate, non-functioning economy. There are two input requirements for a functioning business: 1. labor 2. capital Neither can come for free.
- hirako2000 3y ago
  There is nothing legally wrong with it. I also disagree, it isn't right. While real estate is commonly accepted as one of the prominent investment type of asset, it has been challenged with excellent arguments against it.
bigtex88 3y ago
The issue is rent-seeking. This is the basest form of rent-seeking and the downstream effects are felt by the entire economy. So yes, there is something wrong with it. Instead of letting the prices float to the settling rate of the market, they're being manipulated to reach a specific financial goal. That is morally reprehensible, especially when it comes to shelter.
soperj 3y ago
> There is nothing wrong with keeping units empty to manage overall rental yield. That's like saying there's nothing wrong from profiteering during a crisis. Are you for stores drastically increasing prices on essentials like water and food during a natural disaster?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Yes, there is nothing wrong with it. Here's the thing. When there's a natural disaster, it used to be that everybody outside the disaster zone would fill jerry cans with gas, load up their pickup trucks with supplies, and immediately drive into the disaster zone and sell it with high prices. They'd get there far faster than the government. With the anti-gouging laws, nobody bothers doing that anymore. The result is (pick one): 1. no anti-gouging laws. Gas and supplies are available. 2. anti-gouging laws. No supplies are available. In which case are the people needing supplies better off?
  - soperj 3y ago
    So it used to be that rich people were able to get supplies previously, and now rich people are in the same situation that the poor people were always in?
    - pempem 3y ago
      It used to be that rich(er) people would get more supplies than they needed and sell them. It still is.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        Under gas rationing in WW2, people would sell the gas they didn't need at high prices in the black market. Along with the black market came crime, because it was illegal.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Think "black market". The Soviet Union all had prices set by the government, but nothing for sale. The economy subsisted on the illegal black market. Do you really think that's better?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
UncleMeat 3y ago
Landlords should serve the public. "We will provide less service to the public so we can make more money" is horseshit. Deliberately limiting access to a critical human resource should be criminal.

tristor 3y ago

> It becomes an issue if a group of landlords agree not to rent below a certain threshold in a community. This is classic price fixing - leaving renters no alternative other than paying the minimum rate set. This is exactly what's happening, though. Landlords using RealPage/YieldStar are required to follow its guidelines and need permissions from the company to make exceptions. It's technology mediated collusion to price-fix.

Pannoniae 3y ago

"There is nothing wrong with keeping units empty to manage overall rental yield." Heavily disagree. There is everything wrong with that. Housing should not be an investment or a profit source at all

WalterBright 3y ago
> Housing should not be an investment or a profit source at all Who would build housing, then?
- stefan_ 3y ago
  People who need housing? It's what they call a necessity good. We get it, you have rentals - maybe it would do you some good to read more and write less.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    You built your own housing? > We get it, you have rentals Nope.
- hirako2000 3y ago
  The soon to be occupiers would build them. Like they did in most places for most of human history
  - davidw 3y ago
    We're well past the age when someone can do a reasonable job of slapping together some logs. It's fine if people make a profit at providing essential goods as long as there's enough surplus to redistribute to those who markets can't reach. No one complains about farmers profiting from farms. We care about people going hungry, so we buy some food from tax revenues and help feed them.
    - hirako2000 3y ago
      It was an answer to the rhetorical comment that if housing stopped yielding a return on investment then there would be no housing. I don't see the possible parallel with farmers, all there is in common is land potentially owned as property. Farmers bear fruits through labour. Real estate investors bear returns on capital. That's interesting you mention some people going hungry, most people's inability to slap logs together to make shelter, and resorting to tax collection and distribution.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > Real estate investors bear returns on capital. There have been many attempts to eliminate bearing returns on capital. They all resulted in a prostrate, non-functioning economy. There are two input requirements for a functioning business: 1. labor 2. capital Neither can come for free.
hirako2000 3y ago
There is nothing legally wrong with it. I also disagree, it isn't right. While real estate is commonly accepted as one of the prominent investment type of asset, it has been challenged with excellent arguments against it.

bigtex88 3y ago

The issue is rent-seeking. This is the basest form of rent-seeking and the downstream effects are felt by the entire economy. So yes, there is something wrong with it. Instead of letting the prices float to the settling rate of the market, they're being manipulated to reach a specific financial goal. That is morally reprehensible, especially when it comes to shelter.

soperj 3y ago

> There is nothing wrong with keeping units empty to manage overall rental yield. That's like saying there's nothing wrong from profiteering during a crisis. Are you for stores drastically increasing prices on essentials like water and food during a natural disaster?

WalterBright 3y ago
Yes, there is nothing wrong with it. Here's the thing. When there's a natural disaster, it used to be that everybody outside the disaster zone would fill jerry cans with gas, load up their pickup trucks with supplies, and immediately drive into the disaster zone and sell it with high prices. They'd get there far faster than the government. With the anti-gouging laws, nobody bothers doing that anymore. The result is (pick one): 1. no anti-gouging laws. Gas and supplies are available. 2. anti-gouging laws. No supplies are available. In which case are the people needing supplies better off?
- soperj 3y ago
  So it used to be that rich people were able to get supplies previously, and now rich people are in the same situation that the poor people were always in?
  - pempem 3y ago
    It used to be that rich(er) people would get more supplies than they needed and sell them. It still is.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Under gas rationing in WW2, people would sell the gas they didn't need at high prices in the black market. Along with the black market came crime, because it was illegal.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Think "black market". The Soviet Union all had prices set by the government, but nothing for sale. The economy subsisted on the illegal black market. Do you really think that's better?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

UncleMeat 3y ago

Landlords should serve the public. "We will provide less service to the public so we can make more money" is horseshit. Deliberately limiting access to a critical human resource should be criminal.