4 ms·

> Doctorow should be tried in absentia by professors of English composition, on the charges of poisoning the discourse with his stupid word, and of making poste

> Doctorow should be tried in absentia by professors of English composition, on the charges of poisoning the discourse with his stupid word, and of making posters incorrectly believe they have scored a profound point by including it in their sentences. > > Anyway let's dismantle these rickety arguments. 1) That RealPage says they can break the law because they are an app. This has no factual basis. You can read RealPage's argument[1] and draw your own conclusion. RealPage argues that they do not engage in price fixing, they distribute marketplace data which is protected by the First Amendment. No aspect of this argument has anything to do with means or venue. Indeed, the debate is exactly the opposite of what Doctorow suggests. RealPage's opponents are saying that RealPage must be regulated because they are a software platform, even though their activities would obviously be protected by the First Amendment in any other context. Doctorow fails to address the First Amendment implications. > But Doctorows argument is that a non-app service that says, "hey we bring all landlords together in a room to discuss how we can get the best rents on our properties" would run clearly a foul of antitrust laws (and no the activity is not protected by free speech). RealPage argument is a distraction, they try to muddy the waters and they do it exactly how Doctorow is saying, by creating confusion around what their software service actually is. > 2) That competitive markets have brought us things like antilock brakes. This lacks even the slightest resemblance to reality. The only reason we have widespread functioning ABS is because the whole industry is totally dominated by a few players, and always has been, even if the cartel membership has changed over the decades. The existence of the cartel and its co-evolution with automotive regulators is the enabling reason why the technology works. Doctorow throws out this example but does not grapple with the implications. He believes you won't think about it. > Citation needed

Karrot_Kream 1y ago
Walk us through how you think RealPage is going afoul of "antitrust laws". I'll presume you're talking about price fixing, which is a subset of antitrust laws but separate from them (i.e. you don't need to fall afoul of antitrust to be convicted of price fixing.) If I use statistical models to tell a landlord "hey I think you can raise your rents from $100 / mo to $115 / mo" how is this price fixing? A landlord can follow RealPage's advice and then lose business because people aren't willing to pay that price to rent housing. Is it price fixing to set higher rents? We don't have a "right to low rent" that's somehow inherent in housing prices that RealPage is breaking by pushing higher rents. The thing about price fixing is, it's a matter of prisoner's dilemma. If any one firm in a price fixing regime defects, e.g. they lower prices below the fixed price, they "win" the market. If a bunch of landlords collude to offer rents at $115 / mo, the first landlord to offer similar properties at $100 / mo will immediately win over all prospective tenants. To prove that RealPage is performing price fixing, you'd need to prove that a substantial portion of landlords are using RealPage as a pretext to setting prices concurrently. I find this really hard to believe due to the sheer number of independent landlords available. If anything the housing market is probably more sensitive to price changes because of how constrained the supply is in the US.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  > Walk us through how you think RealPage is going afoul of "antitrust laws". I'll presume you're talking about price fixing, which is a subset of antitrust laws but separate from them (i.e. you don't need to fall afoul of antitrust to be convicted of price fixing.) If there is a town of 8k rental apartments and I own 4k and you own 2k do you agree that we would run afoul of price fixing laws if we get together in a room to exchange information about our vacancy rates, state of the apartment and rents that we currently charge? If yes, how can it then be legal for a third party to take the same information and do some "statistical" analysis (the new "it's app so it is not ...") and give us suggested rent prices? > The thing about price fixing is, it's a matter of prisoner's dilemma. If any one firm in a price fixing regime defects, e.g. they lower prices below the fixed price, they "win" the market. If a bunch of landlords collude to offer rents at $115 / mo, the first landlord to offer similar properties at $100 / mo will immediately win over all prospective tenants. So your argument is price fixing doesn't work? > To prove that RealPage is performing price fixing, you'd need to prove that a substantial portion of landlords are using RealPage as a pretext to setting prices concurrently. I find this really hard to believe due to the sheer number of independent landlords available. If anything the housing market is probably more sensitive to price changes because of how constrained the supply is in the US. To put some numbers behind this, in LA independent private landlords own 33% of rental properties, that means institutional and corporate investors still own the vast majority of rental properties. The big contention in pretty much all lawsuits is how "optional" the price recommendations really are.
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    > If there is a town of 8k rental apartments and I own 4k and you own 2k ... You can't make policy this way. There is no such market anywhere in America, where 2 players own a majority share. In the case that I cited there is only 1 RealPage client in the city and they manage 100 of 30k homes.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      There isn't, it's to illustrate a point. If it's collusion when two players control everything and agree to to raise prices on the phone, why isn't it collusion when it's 300 players and there's a website that they're doing it on?

Karrot_Kream 1y ago

Walk us through how you think RealPage is going afoul of "antitrust laws". I'll presume you're talking about price fixing, which is a subset of antitrust laws but separate from them (i.e. you don't need to fall afoul of antitrust to be convicted of price fixing.) If I use statistical models to tell a landlord "hey I think you can raise your rents from $100 / mo to $115 / mo" how is this price fixing? A landlord can follow RealPage's advice and then lose business because people aren't willing to pay that price to rent housing. Is it price fixing to set higher rents? We don't have a "right to low rent" that's somehow inherent in housing prices that RealPage is breaking by pushing higher rents. The thing about price fixing is, it's a matter of prisoner's dilemma. If any one firm in a price fixing regime defects, e.g. they lower prices below the fixed price, they "win" the market. If a bunch of landlords collude to offer rents at $115 / mo, the first landlord to offer similar properties at $100 / mo will immediately win over all prospective tenants. To prove that RealPage is performing price fixing, you'd need to prove that a substantial portion of landlords are using RealPage as a pretext to setting prices concurrently. I find this really hard to believe due to the sheer number of independent landlords available. If anything the housing market is probably more sensitive to price changes because of how constrained the supply is in the US.

cycomanic 1y ago
> Walk us through how you think RealPage is going afoul of "antitrust laws". I'll presume you're talking about price fixing, which is a subset of antitrust laws but separate from them (i.e. you don't need to fall afoul of antitrust to be convicted of price fixing.) If there is a town of 8k rental apartments and I own 4k and you own 2k do you agree that we would run afoul of price fixing laws if we get together in a room to exchange information about our vacancy rates, state of the apartment and rents that we currently charge? If yes, how can it then be legal for a third party to take the same information and do some "statistical" analysis (the new "it's app so it is not ...") and give us suggested rent prices? > The thing about price fixing is, it's a matter of prisoner's dilemma. If any one firm in a price fixing regime defects, e.g. they lower prices below the fixed price, they "win" the market. If a bunch of landlords collude to offer rents at $115 / mo, the first landlord to offer similar properties at $100 / mo will immediately win over all prospective tenants. So your argument is price fixing doesn't work? > To prove that RealPage is performing price fixing, you'd need to prove that a substantial portion of landlords are using RealPage as a pretext to setting prices concurrently. I find this really hard to believe due to the sheer number of independent landlords available. If anything the housing market is probably more sensitive to price changes because of how constrained the supply is in the US. To put some numbers behind this, in LA independent private landlords own 33% of rental properties, that means institutional and corporate investors still own the vast majority of rental properties. The big contention in pretty much all lawsuits is how "optional" the price recommendations really are.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  > If there is a town of 8k rental apartments and I own 4k and you own 2k ... You can't make policy this way. There is no such market anywhere in America, where 2 players own a majority share. In the case that I cited there is only 1 RealPage client in the city and they manage 100 of 30k homes.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    There isn't, it's to illustrate a point. If it's collusion when two players control everything and agree to to raise prices on the phone, why isn't it collusion when it's 300 players and there's a website that they're doing it on?