4 ms·

Could be solved with more free markets. What a funny phenomenon this is: "reluctance to make even basic upgrades" -- landlords don't care because they have too

Could be solved with more free markets. What a funny phenomenon this is: "reluctance to make even basic upgrades" -- landlords don't care because they have too much market power and aren't even attempting to compete with each other. Imagine if car makers didn't bother with fuel efficiency because buyers had almost no choice and any car is better than nothing. We'd say that market isn't functioning well. Perhaps the problem is caused by price caps so it's not worth carmakers competing, or perhaps the law limits the number of cars that can be produced so there's always a shortage. Or perhaps it's the soviet union and there's no incentive for them to improve anything because the planners haven't demanded that they do.

tharkun__ 9mo ago
Car makers really don't care about fuel economy and have to be made to care about it by regulations and even those they try to skirt.
- gruez 9mo ago
  >Car makers really don't care about fuel economy and have to be made to care about it by regulations The fact that people buy EVs and hybrids at all, despite their higher upfront cost, suggests that at least some care about fuel efficiency.
  - tharkun__ 9mo ago
    Not talking about consumers. Car makers, as that's what my parent posited. "The market made car makers do fuel efficiency all by itself!". Yeah, no. Which traditional car maker actually cared about EVs before Tesla came along? (Even Toyota, which was sorta "caring about it" did not believe in going "all in" and for a very very long time would only do Hybrid and nothing more). Every other established car maker did not invest in this until "forced" by Tesla so to speak. And then spurred on by things like the EU regulations to no longer allow any non-EV new car registrations by ... was it 2035? Which I hear they're now thinking about undoing.
    - gruez 9mo ago
      >"The market made car makers do fuel efficiency all by itself!". Yeah, no. A "market" includes consumers, almost by definition, so the statement is true. Otherwise it just becomes a meaningless statement where companies can't be said to do anything. For a slightly less contentious example, consider gaming chairs. I think most people would assume it's something "the market" came up with, considering that there wasn't some government regulation mandating gaming chairs. Consumers demanded gaming chairs, and chair companies filled the gap. A market success story, right? Nope, according to the above definition, chair companies can't do anything. They only made gaming chairs because consumers demanded them. It's actually consumers that made (?) gaming chairs!
      - tharkun__ 9mo ago
        That's fair about the definition of a market. But "the market" (i.e. consumers) did not "do it by itself". Regulations had to force car makers to care about fuel economy. And while once Tesla came around (or a bit earlier a Prius) some consumers did buy those vehicles, they were premium vehicles. Prius owners were laughed at not imitated by the general public to an extent where both Toyota and every other car maker suddenly only made Hybrids or started making EVs. Thus my apprehension for my parent's "the market did it!" ;) Like, let's go back to what made me reply from my parent: Imagine if car makers didn't bother with fuel efficiency because buyers had almost no choice and any car is better than nothing Yeah, exactly. That is exactly what car maker didn't bother with because buyers had no choice. All of the car makers made cars that didn't really care for fuel economy because (especially in the US) gas was super cheap. Guess why in Europe smaller cars and cars with better fuel economy were and are more popular? Because gas is more expensive through regulation. "Regulation" there takes multiple forms. The earliest being simply taxes on gas, which are much higher in Europe. But also previously mentioned by me EV mandate, which is a Tesla+ era regulation. And before that the CO2 emission kind of regulations, which made me mention the "skirting". As in, manufacturer are skirting the CO2 emission rules, e.g. because some of those regulations only apply to a manufacturer entire assortment of offers. How is it the poor manufacturer's fault that people only buy their high emission models, when they have a "SMART" type choice on offer too? Essentially the market didn't work (again especially in the US with too cheap gas) with people buying SUVs and F150 type trucks over a Fiat Panda or SMART.
  - floxy 9mo ago
    Saving on gas money is nice, but EVs are just generally nicer vehicles. Smoother, better acceleration. No screwing around with oil changes or filling up with gas. Etc.
    - bluGill 9mo ago
      My ev on the track accelerates better - but the turbo charged ice with a stick shift I test drove the same day was a lot more fun. You feel the acceleration more when the shift/power curves force it. honestly both have far more acceleration than I use or want in the real world. But the fun factor is still there at lower acceleration in the ice.
- foxglacier 9mo ago
  It might depend on what country they're selling to. Maybe petrol is too cheap in America for it to matter much but it's a big deal where I live and fuel economy is a major selling point that people look for in cars, hence the popularity of hybrids despite them costing more up front than conventional cars.
gruez 9mo ago
Cars are regulated for efficiency though, CAFE for instance.
- seanmcdirmid 9mo ago
  Appliances sort of are also, just that they only apply to new appliances that can be sold in your locality/state.
Aurornis 9mo ago
Available rentals are still priced according to their relative value. If most landlords have newly updated units on the market for $2000/month and someone tries to rent a similar unit untouched since 1970 for $2000/month, that unrenovated unit is going to sit on the market for a very, very long time.
- bluGill 9mo ago
  Sure , but lower the 1970's unit to 1900 and it will be rented quick to someone who doesn't think about how much more utilities will be.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
Aarostotle 9mo ago
You're exactly right and the economics of it are pretty well studied. I know quite a few people in real estate, they're always eager to upgrade their property (read: make it more valuable) because then they can make more money. If their price is capped, though, they just don't make the investment. Rightly so, but at the end of the day, the renter is the one getting ripped off by the politician he voted for because the rent was too damn high. Just let people create value and trade. PS: Sad that you're getting downvotes for a thoughtful, polite comment, too. Downvotes are for hiding idiocy and meanness, not viewpoints that you disagree with.
seanmcdirmid 9mo ago
High efficiency apartments are actually kind of normal in newer more expensive rentals. Its the lower end rental properties that landlords think it doesn't make sense investing in; the rent increases that would come a long with the upgrades just wouldn't make sense for the market they are going for.
burnt-resistor 9mo ago
Deregulation led to Enron. Next bright idea?
- gruez 9mo ago
  This is as shallow of a response as "regulation led to the Soviet Union. Next bright idea?"
  - burnt-resistor 9mo ago
    It's not shallow, it's brief and true. There is a distinction you're apparently too dishonest and hypocritical to admit to.
daedrdev 9mo ago
Rent control also causes this because they get no additional value from better units.
wildzzz 9mo ago
Why would a landlord care about expensive efficiency upgrade? They don't pay the utility bills. Efficiency upgrades would only justify a higher rent to cover the work. The upgrades would essentially be a "luxury" upgrade that would raise the rent in this free market scenario. Would the higher rent be offset by the utility savings? Probably not. Assuming the work was free (it never would be but just go with it), the upgrade would save about $100/month in electricity. To a prospective tenant, that means they'd be willing to pay up to $100 more in rent to break even. Now since we live in the real world, that upgrade now has to be paid for. The work cost $4.8k and the landlord wants to pay for it over 2 years so now there's a $200/month increase. But the work will only save $100/month. The tenant is now paying an extra $100 in total living expenses. By the time the 2 years are up, the landlord isn't going to cut the rent by $200, he'll just continue to charge the same or more than what it was 2 years ago. The tenant will forever be paying that extra $100 in living expenses while the landlord gets to pocket an extra $200. What's needed is a baseline of acceptable housing for tenants and rent controls that force the landlord to share at least some of the financial burden.

tharkun__ 9mo ago

Car makers really don't care about fuel economy and have to be made to care about it by regulations and even those they try to skirt.

gruez 9mo ago
>Car makers really don't care about fuel economy and have to be made to care about it by regulations The fact that people buy EVs and hybrids at all, despite their higher upfront cost, suggests that at least some care about fuel efficiency.
- tharkun__ 9mo ago
  Not talking about consumers. Car makers, as that's what my parent posited. "The market made car makers do fuel efficiency all by itself!". Yeah, no. Which traditional car maker actually cared about EVs before Tesla came along? (Even Toyota, which was sorta "caring about it" did not believe in going "all in" and for a very very long time would only do Hybrid and nothing more). Every other established car maker did not invest in this until "forced" by Tesla so to speak. And then spurred on by things like the EU regulations to no longer allow any non-EV new car registrations by ... was it 2035? Which I hear they're now thinking about undoing.
  - gruez 9mo ago
    >"The market made car makers do fuel efficiency all by itself!". Yeah, no. A "market" includes consumers, almost by definition, so the statement is true. Otherwise it just becomes a meaningless statement where companies can't be said to do anything. For a slightly less contentious example, consider gaming chairs. I think most people would assume it's something "the market" came up with, considering that there wasn't some government regulation mandating gaming chairs. Consumers demanded gaming chairs, and chair companies filled the gap. A market success story, right? Nope, according to the above definition, chair companies can't do anything. They only made gaming chairs because consumers demanded them. It's actually consumers that made (?) gaming chairs!
    - tharkun__ 9mo ago
      That's fair about the definition of a market. But "the market" (i.e. consumers) did not "do it by itself". Regulations had to force car makers to care about fuel economy. And while once Tesla came around (or a bit earlier a Prius) some consumers did buy those vehicles, they were premium vehicles. Prius owners were laughed at not imitated by the general public to an extent where both Toyota and every other car maker suddenly only made Hybrids or started making EVs. Thus my apprehension for my parent's "the market did it!" ;) Like, let's go back to what made me reply from my parent: Imagine if car makers didn't bother with fuel efficiency because buyers had almost no choice and any car is better than nothing Yeah, exactly. That is exactly what car maker didn't bother with because buyers had no choice. All of the car makers made cars that didn't really care for fuel economy because (especially in the US) gas was super cheap. Guess why in Europe smaller cars and cars with better fuel economy were and are more popular? Because gas is more expensive through regulation. "Regulation" there takes multiple forms. The earliest being simply taxes on gas, which are much higher in Europe. But also previously mentioned by me EV mandate, which is a Tesla+ era regulation. And before that the CO2 emission kind of regulations, which made me mention the "skirting". As in, manufacturer are skirting the CO2 emission rules, e.g. because some of those regulations only apply to a manufacturer entire assortment of offers. How is it the poor manufacturer's fault that people only buy their high emission models, when they have a "SMART" type choice on offer too? Essentially the market didn't work (again especially in the US with too cheap gas) with people buying SUVs and F150 type trucks over a Fiat Panda or SMART.
- floxy 9mo ago
  Saving on gas money is nice, but EVs are just generally nicer vehicles. Smoother, better acceleration. No screwing around with oil changes or filling up with gas. Etc.
  - bluGill 9mo ago
    My ev on the track accelerates better - but the turbo charged ice with a stick shift I test drove the same day was a lot more fun. You feel the acceleration more when the shift/power curves force it. honestly both have far more acceleration than I use or want in the real world. But the fun factor is still there at lower acceleration in the ice.
foxglacier 9mo ago
It might depend on what country they're selling to. Maybe petrol is too cheap in America for it to matter much but it's a big deal where I live and fuel economy is a major selling point that people look for in cars, hence the popularity of hybrids despite them costing more up front than conventional cars.

gruez 9mo ago

Cars are regulated for efficiency though, CAFE for instance.

seanmcdirmid 9mo ago
Appliances sort of are also, just that they only apply to new appliances that can be sold in your locality/state.

Aurornis 9mo ago

Available rentals are still priced according to their relative value. If most landlords have newly updated units on the market for $2000/month and someone tries to rent a similar unit untouched since 1970 for $2000/month, that unrenovated unit is going to sit on the market for a very, very long time.

bluGill 9mo ago
Sure , but lower the 1970's unit to 1900 and it will be rented quick to someone who doesn't think about how much more utilities will be.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

Aarostotle 9mo ago

You're exactly right and the economics of it are pretty well studied. I know quite a few people in real estate, they're always eager to upgrade their property (read: make it more valuable) because then they can make more money. If their price is capped, though, they just don't make the investment. Rightly so, but at the end of the day, the renter is the one getting ripped off by the politician he voted for because the rent was too damn high. Just let people create value and trade. PS: Sad that you're getting downvotes for a thoughtful, polite comment, too. Downvotes are for hiding idiocy and meanness, not viewpoints that you disagree with.

seanmcdirmid 9mo ago

High efficiency apartments are actually kind of normal in newer more expensive rentals. Its the lower end rental properties that landlords think it doesn't make sense investing in; the rent increases that would come a long with the upgrades just wouldn't make sense for the market they are going for.

burnt-resistor 9mo ago

Deregulation led to Enron. Next bright idea?

gruez 9mo ago
This is as shallow of a response as "regulation led to the Soviet Union. Next bright idea?"
- burnt-resistor 9mo ago
  It's not shallow, it's brief and true. There is a distinction you're apparently too dishonest and hypocritical to admit to.

daedrdev 9mo ago

Rent control also causes this because they get no additional value from better units.

wildzzz 9mo ago

Why would a landlord care about expensive efficiency upgrade? They don't pay the utility bills. Efficiency upgrades would only justify a higher rent to cover the work. The upgrades would essentially be a "luxury" upgrade that would raise the rent in this free market scenario. Would the higher rent be offset by the utility savings? Probably not. Assuming the work was free (it never would be but just go with it), the upgrade would save about $100/month in electricity. To a prospective tenant, that means they'd be willing to pay up to $100 more in rent to break even. Now since we live in the real world, that upgrade now has to be paid for. The work cost $4.8k and the landlord wants to pay for it over 2 years so now there's a $200/month increase. But the work will only save $100/month. The tenant is now paying an extra $100 in total living expenses. By the time the 2 years are up, the landlord isn't going to cut the rent by $200, he'll just continue to charge the same or more than what it was 2 years ago. The tenant will forever be paying that extra $100 in living expenses while the landlord gets to pocket an extra $200. What's needed is a baseline of acceptable housing for tenants and rent controls that force the landlord to share at least some of the financial burden.