6 ms·

This looks like hard work, but based on this article well done to the author for putting in the effort. > Landlords won’t listen to tenants. In the same way th

by roenxi 3y ago

This looks like hard work, but based on this article well done to the author for putting in the effort. > Landlords won’t listen to tenants. In the same way that Republicans won’t seriously engage with Democrats and vice versa. As presented, this interaction looks like a completely standard negotiation where both sides get something they want. It is a little unusual in that one side is being represented pro-bono by a neutral party, but stranger things happen. So although I agree that landlords wouldn't listen to tenants in these circumstances, it'd be interesting to explore how much this is underselling this "Luke" fellow simply having good negotiation skills. If a landlord is presented with a choice of losing $1,000 or $3,000 and everyone is reasonably polite I suspect a vast majority would choose $1,000.

aidenn0 3y ago
I strongly suspect that if a tenant asked to be paid to move out it would piss the landlord off even more. "Now they are extorting me!" People love to appear generous but hate demands.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Eh, that isn't that important though. They can choose to feel however they like and a skilled negotiator could frame the request well. The question is really "would they pay?".
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    Skilled negotiator would know that how their counterparty feels is extremely important. This is exactly what determines whether they would pay or not. Now, the real question is: how does a skilled negotiator frame “pay me $1000 and I’ll leave tomorrow” in such a way that the landlord feels like a hero for complying? With a neutral third party suggesting this, it is pretty easy as OP post suggests, but if you're the tenant suggesting that I think it won’t be as easy.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > This is exactly what determines whether they would pay or not. It really isn't. They're a landlord. If one option loses them less money they'll pick that option. The finances will win because they're not putting the house on the market to get warm fuzzy feelings. If they've been a landlord for even a small number of tenants they're used to outrageous demands and know how to take them in stride. They're more likely to accept the frame if it is nicely presented, but at the end of the day they'll swallow their feelings and choose the cheap option unless a tenant is being an outrageous bastard about the whole thing. I agree that their feelings are important. But their finances are really the guiding star for their decision making.
      - zztop44 3y ago
        I think you’re both right. People’s feelings are absolutely critical to any negotiation. And people pretty reliably find a way to align their feelings with their financial interests.
        bombcar 3y ago
        That's one of the ways to negotiate something like this - it saves the landlord money and lets him feel better than the other landlords; if he feels that way he'll likely go ahead; but if he feels he's being scammed, he'll put up a fight even if it costs him more.
      - groby_b 3y ago
        > If one option loses them less money they'll pick that option It's a nice idea to think human beings are strictly rational, but they aren't. We've long known, homo economicus had his funeral in the 90s. Amos Tversky murdered him in an entirely rational way. OK, kidding aside - purely rational decisions are extremely rare. > but at the end of the day they'll swallow their feelings People do many things, but they very rarely swallow their feelings. If you've ever seen a neighborhood lawsuit or a divorce, you've seen feelings be extremely powerful things, even if finances are involved. "unless a tenant is being an outrageous bastard" is the operative phrase there. Feelings color what's considered outrageous. Sometimes, "he looked at me funny" is all that's needed to make an entirely irrational decision. There's a whole bunch of studies clearly showing that people would rather take a monetary loss than a gain where they think the other party gets an outsized gain (not at their expense) as a result in the latter case. Humans are weird. Feelings matter a lot. One of my favorites is this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268198000894 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726819... One of the examples in there is a choice about pay at work A: You make $50,000; others earn $25,000 B: You make $100,000; others earn $200,00 And a very large number of participants would rather choose A, because that means they'd be relatively better off than their colleagues. Even if they end up with half the income.
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  Understandably so. People are grateful to someone who's generous to them but contemptuous of someone who gives them what they demand, even when it's the exact same outcome. A workaround I sometimes use when my kid demands something is to refuse, then shortly after, offer something entirely different, and they're happy.
- vasco 3y ago
  This happens all the time, I'm even surprised this is a blog post. I was paid to move by landlords twice already, one of them I didn't even ask, the other was a basic conversation about it. I mean I'm glad this guy is doing something that makes him feel good, but this felt like reading someone describing their commute to work as if it was WW2.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  Landlords are businessmen, I got paid to leave once as tenant. We all won.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    presumably you had some legal basis and weren't simply breaking contract and civil law. I think what works people up is when people do one of these things.
    - Hock88sdx 3y ago
      [dead]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      I had no contract that said I could live there. Somebody had a rental agreement at some point I guess. Nothing was in my name. Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        >Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again. You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part. Do you understand how people could have difficulty finding the operational difference between your situation and a squatter that broke in?
        rufus_foreman 3y ago
        >> You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part I was not a nice person at this point, and my intentions were to have somewhere to sleep out of the rain. I did at one point live in actual squat where people had broken in, the breaking in part happened before I got there, but I lived there for I guess what was the greatest summer ever. That was in a different city. I got out before the eviction happened, but what happened was that the landlord eventually figured out there were 7 hardcore kids squatting in this basement apartment and he came over and told them they had 24 hours to get out before he called the cops. In that location, the cops would have come, and the cops would have kicked the kids out that day, like literally kicked them out. Kicked their asses. In the other situation I describe, it was in a different city. Crime central. The cops weren't coming. Not to kick me out of a squat, not to kick me out of an apartment that somebody maybe had rented way back when. Not for anything. I could have set up a meth lab. Cops weren't coming. My meaning is, if you're a landlord, you're signing up to deal with this shit, know what you're getting in to. In some places you just call the cops. In some places, $1,000 to get rid of a non-tenant like squatter me would be getting off super cheap. It would be a business decision.
mistercow 3y ago
It’s hard for me to see how the tenant would go about negotiating that solution, though. How would you, as a tenant, present that option in a way that doesn’t just sound like blackmail? I bet there’s a way to do it, but it’s clearly a much easier sell from a disinterested third party who the landlord identifies as being in their in-group.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > How would you, as a tenant, present that option in a way that doesn’t just sound like blackmail? If you don't want to sound like you're blackmailing [0] someone, don't blackmail them? Walking away is a real option for the tenant here. But you can still be polite about the whole thing. You can blackmail someone and still have everyone be friends afterwards. Just make it clear it isn't personal, you like the landlord as a person, think they're fantastic [1], and that they're going to have to give you money for you to go away because the vicissitudes of fate have placed them over a barrel. They get karmic points and a good story for their next cocktail party. [0] I was surprised to learn that blackmail might indeed be the correct word. I thought it would be technically wrong but it seems to work. I'd use extortion if I wasn't prompted though. [1] Lie if required.
- frumper 3y ago
  Hey, I’ve got some expenses to move. Moving costs, taking time off work, etc. How about we help each other. I’ll move out like you want and you kick in $X to help me through the process.
  - ricardobeat 3y ago
    Sounds like blackmail, exactly as suggested by the other comments.
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      I'd say the way it sounds depends entirely on the prior relationship. ~ Good tenant - negotiation. ~ Bad tenant - extortion.

by roenxi 3y ago

aidenn0 3y ago

I strongly suspect that if a tenant asked to be paid to move out it would piss the landlord off even more. "Now they are extorting me!" People love to appear generous but hate demands.

roenxi 3y ago
Eh, that isn't that important though. They can choose to feel however they like and a skilled negotiator could frame the request well. The question is really "would they pay?".
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Skilled negotiator would know that how their counterparty feels is extremely important. This is exactly what determines whether they would pay or not. Now, the real question is: how does a skilled negotiator frame “pay me $1000 and I’ll leave tomorrow” in such a way that the landlord feels like a hero for complying? With a neutral third party suggesting this, it is pretty easy as OP post suggests, but if you're the tenant suggesting that I think it won’t be as easy.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > This is exactly what determines whether they would pay or not. It really isn't. They're a landlord. If one option loses them less money they'll pick that option. The finances will win because they're not putting the house on the market to get warm fuzzy feelings. If they've been a landlord for even a small number of tenants they're used to outrageous demands and know how to take them in stride. They're more likely to accept the frame if it is nicely presented, but at the end of the day they'll swallow their feelings and choose the cheap option unless a tenant is being an outrageous bastard about the whole thing. I agree that their feelings are important. But their finances are really the guiding star for their decision making.
    - zztop44 3y ago
      I think you’re both right. People’s feelings are absolutely critical to any negotiation. And people pretty reliably find a way to align their feelings with their financial interests.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        That's one of the ways to negotiate something like this - it saves the landlord money and lets him feel better than the other landlords; if he feels that way he'll likely go ahead; but if he feels he's being scammed, he'll put up a fight even if it costs him more.
    - groby_b 3y ago
      > If one option loses them less money they'll pick that option It's a nice idea to think human beings are strictly rational, but they aren't. We've long known, homo economicus had his funeral in the 90s. Amos Tversky murdered him in an entirely rational way. OK, kidding aside - purely rational decisions are extremely rare. > but at the end of the day they'll swallow their feelings People do many things, but they very rarely swallow their feelings. If you've ever seen a neighborhood lawsuit or a divorce, you've seen feelings be extremely powerful things, even if finances are involved. "unless a tenant is being an outrageous bastard" is the operative phrase there. Feelings color what's considered outrageous. Sometimes, "he looked at me funny" is all that's needed to make an entirely irrational decision. There's a whole bunch of studies clearly showing that people would rather take a monetary loss than a gain where they think the other party gets an outsized gain (not at their expense) as a result in the latter case. Humans are weird. Feelings matter a lot. One of my favorites is this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268198000894 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726819... One of the examples in there is a choice about pay at work A: You make $50,000; others earn $25,000 B: You make $100,000; others earn $200,00 And a very large number of participants would rather choose A, because that means they'd be relatively better off than their colleagues. Even if they end up with half the income.
EnigmaFlare 3y ago
Understandably so. People are grateful to someone who's generous to them but contemptuous of someone who gives them what they demand, even when it's the exact same outcome. A workaround I sometimes use when my kid demands something is to refuse, then shortly after, offer something entirely different, and they're happy.
vasco 3y ago
This happens all the time, I'm even surprised this is a blog post. I was paid to move by landlords twice already, one of them I didn't even ask, the other was a basic conversation about it. I mean I'm glad this guy is doing something that makes him feel good, but this felt like reading someone describing their commute to work as if it was WW2.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
Landlords are businessmen, I got paid to leave once as tenant. We all won.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  presumably you had some legal basis and weren't simply breaking contract and civil law. I think what works people up is when people do one of these things.
  - Hock88sdx 3y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    I had no contract that said I could live there. Somebody had a rental agreement at some point I guess. Nothing was in my name. Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again. You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part. Do you understand how people could have difficulty finding the operational difference between your situation and a squatter that broke in?
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        >> You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part I was not a nice person at this point, and my intentions were to have somewhere to sleep out of the rain. I did at one point live in actual squat where people had broken in, the breaking in part happened before I got there, but I lived there for I guess what was the greatest summer ever. That was in a different city. I got out before the eviction happened, but what happened was that the landlord eventually figured out there were 7 hardcore kids squatting in this basement apartment and he came over and told them they had 24 hours to get out before he called the cops. In that location, the cops would have come, and the cops would have kicked the kids out that day, like literally kicked them out. Kicked their asses. In the other situation I describe, it was in a different city. Crime central. The cops weren't coming. Not to kick me out of a squat, not to kick me out of an apartment that somebody maybe had rented way back when. Not for anything. I could have set up a meth lab. Cops weren't coming. My meaning is, if you're a landlord, you're signing up to deal with this shit, know what you're getting in to. In some places you just call the cops. In some places, $1,000 to get rid of a non-tenant like squatter me would be getting off super cheap. It would be a business decision.

mistercow 3y ago

It’s hard for me to see how the tenant would go about negotiating that solution, though. How would you, as a tenant, present that option in a way that doesn’t just sound like blackmail? I bet there’s a way to do it, but it’s clearly a much easier sell from a disinterested third party who the landlord identifies as being in their in-group.

roenxi 3y ago
> How would you, as a tenant, present that option in a way that doesn’t just sound like blackmail? If you don't want to sound like you're blackmailing [0] someone, don't blackmail them? Walking away is a real option for the tenant here. But you can still be polite about the whole thing. You can blackmail someone and still have everyone be friends afterwards. Just make it clear it isn't personal, you like the landlord as a person, think they're fantastic [1], and that they're going to have to give you money for you to go away because the vicissitudes of fate have placed them over a barrel. They get karmic points and a good story for their next cocktail party. [0] I was surprised to learn that blackmail might indeed be the correct word. I thought it would be technically wrong but it seems to work. I'd use extortion if I wasn't prompted though. [1] Lie if required.
frumper 3y ago
Hey, I’ve got some expenses to move. Moving costs, taking time off work, etc. How about we help each other. I’ll move out like you want and you kick in $X to help me through the process.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  Sounds like blackmail, exactly as suggested by the other comments.
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    I'd say the way it sounds depends entirely on the prior relationship. ~ Good tenant - negotiation. ~ Bad tenant - extortion.