3 ms·
> 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 opt
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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.
- vundercind 3y agoI’m aware of a guy starting a small hog farm out of spite. The size of it, it can only have been costing him money and time and property value. There’s zero chance it was going to annoy his neighbors enough to let him do what he wanted instead (zone it as some kind of dump, iirc) because that would definitely be worse for them, so all this effort and cost was driven by pure spite. He ran it for years.
- bombcar 3y agoThere's an entire category of these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spite_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spite_house You can even make (somewhat slimy) money by identifying these situations; there's money to be made in spiteful divorces, for example.