8 ms·

Why are all landlords assholes again? Why is making a profit evil? Do you sell your services for half of what they are worth just to be nice?

jsprogrammer 12y ago
By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.
- harryh 12y ago
  False. In reality, in most transactions, both parties profit due to the fact that there is no fixed concept of "worth." The apple that you bought from your grocer for 50 cents was valued at 40 cents by him and 60 cents by you.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      Because you bought it? Clearly it has more value to you than the money.
    - harryh 12y ago
      Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much. You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.
        harryh 12y ago
        Are you dumb? I just made up the numbers. I never said anything was linear and even though the grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents he doesn't because then he wouldn't be able to meet supply so he raises the price until he can. Maybe the real life numbers are 45, 50 & 55. Maybe they're 34, 37 & 50. Maybe you really fucking love apples and it's 34, 37 & 5000 in which case go nuts, buy up the whole orchard, and keep all the doctors away for all time. Maybe those numbers aren't even close because what exactly does an apple cost these days I don't even know exactly. But the point holds. There is a price at which the transactions happens. Somewhere below that is the producer willingness to sell. The difference between those numbers is the producer surplus. Somewhere above the price is the consumer willingness to pay. The difference between that number and the price is the consumer surplus. Go find any economics 101 textbook in the known world and you'll have a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve. They intersect at a market price. Then you get some shaded in areas for the producer and consumer surplus. If you don't know what one of these graphs looks like then you aren't qualified to participate in any discussion ever about what things should cost. Just shut up and go back to writing shitty software using the worst programming language in general use today.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Oh wow, u mad bro? Supply/demand curves are literally 4th grade curriculum where I come from. So yeah, mastered that shit 20+ years ago. Thanks for assuming though. You've gone off the rails and are now confusing 'cost' with 'worth' or 'value'. We can only determine a 'value' or 'worth' when an actual transaction occurs. You can't just extrapolate out on a model curve and expect it to hold in the real world, no matter what your theory tells you. Bottom line is, if a grocer is currently asking 40 cents for an apple, I will transact at that price no matter how much higher I 'value' that apple. I wouldn't pay 60 cents for an apple that a grocer is selling for 40 cents. I wouldn't pay 50 cents for it either. BTW, ECMAScript is poised to take over the world. Better strap in.
        michas 12y ago
        Economic 101 course for you. In your original comment you said: > By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something. You are terribly wrong, because, by definition, there is no such thing as objective worth of something you buy. There is only subjective worth and it is different for different people. And that is the sole things that enables us to trade goods at all. Example: what is worth more: 5$ or a pack of ciggaretes? non-smoking shop owner probably will choose 5$, average smoker will choose pack of ciggaretes. And they DO choose that every day - every time you buy something you prove that the thing you bought is more valuable to you than the money you spent. Otherwise you wouldn't buy it. So, if two people make transaction volunteerly the price paid is always fair, and both people end up thinking that they traded something less valuable for something more valuable. That's called "mutually beneficial" :)
- jusben1369 12y ago
  You have to finish that thought with "Otherwise you wouldn't do the action. And the buyer wouldn't benefit from your output."
- brc 12y ago
  No, profit is arranging a voluntary transaction where both parties where both parties trade something they value less for something they value more. Where did all this 'profit is evil' talk come from anyway? This is a site dedicated to startups and tech talk, and all of a sudden we have activist student slogans passing for comment?
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    The term is a bit ambiguous. You are referring to profit, the concept. I am referring to profit, the concrete measurable (ie. revenue - cost).
thefreeman 12y ago
All landlords aren't assholes, just the ones who try to force people out of their homes by jacking up rents to insane prices.
- Kalium 12y ago
  What's the not-asshole thing to do when you find out you could be making a profit literally ten times as big as your current profit? Especially when you know the supply being competed over won't be changing much.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      > The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. So every lease becomes a lifetime deal. Hmm. Since rent keeps going up, this means prices are going to have to go up dramatically now so that I'm not completely hosed in ten to twenty years. After all, rent control increase caps are pretty much always below property tax increase caps. Long-term, me-the-landlord is going to be put in a situation where rent doesn't even cover taxes. Nevermind repairs, maintenance, and insurance. > You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Huh. I guess evictions for non-payment are out now. After all, it's their home, and it would be evil for me to evict someone from their home just for the sake of my bank account... Between this and your previous point, you've made an excellent case that a moral and ethical person who owns property in SF would refuse to rent it under any circumstances. Well done. > Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least. Are you aware that you just defined turning a profit as an asshole move? Perhaps you want to rethink your definition.
zobzu 12y ago
Basically rent in big cities is extremely low risk income. It means if you're lucky enough to be born/married the right places and own a few buildings, you do not need to work, nor will ever need, nor will your children ever need. So.. it doesn't make landlords assholes or evil, but its not like there wasnt a class issue. The only reason why this thread explodes is because the wealth difference is getting bigger and bigger.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.

harryh 12y ago
False. In reality, in most transactions, both parties profit due to the fact that there is no fixed concept of "worth." The apple that you bought from your grocer for 50 cents was valued at 40 cents by him and 60 cents by you.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    Because you bought it? Clearly it has more value to you than the money.
  - harryh 12y ago
    Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much. You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.
      - harryh 12y ago
        Are you dumb? I just made up the numbers. I never said anything was linear and even though the grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents he doesn't because then he wouldn't be able to meet supply so he raises the price until he can. Maybe the real life numbers are 45, 50 & 55. Maybe they're 34, 37 & 50. Maybe you really fucking love apples and it's 34, 37 & 5000 in which case go nuts, buy up the whole orchard, and keep all the doctors away for all time. Maybe those numbers aren't even close because what exactly does an apple cost these days I don't even know exactly. But the point holds. There is a price at which the transactions happens. Somewhere below that is the producer willingness to sell. The difference between those numbers is the producer surplus. Somewhere above the price is the consumer willingness to pay. The difference between that number and the price is the consumer surplus. Go find any economics 101 textbook in the known world and you'll have a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve. They intersect at a market price. Then you get some shaded in areas for the producer and consumer surplus. If you don't know what one of these graphs looks like then you aren't qualified to participate in any discussion ever about what things should cost. Just shut up and go back to writing shitty software using the worst programming language in general use today.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Oh wow, u mad bro? Supply/demand curves are literally 4th grade curriculum where I come from. So yeah, mastered that shit 20+ years ago. Thanks for assuming though. You've gone off the rails and are now confusing 'cost' with 'worth' or 'value'. We can only determine a 'value' or 'worth' when an actual transaction occurs. You can't just extrapolate out on a model curve and expect it to hold in the real world, no matter what your theory tells you. Bottom line is, if a grocer is currently asking 40 cents for an apple, I will transact at that price no matter how much higher I 'value' that apple. I wouldn't pay 60 cents for an apple that a grocer is selling for 40 cents. I wouldn't pay 50 cents for it either. BTW, ECMAScript is poised to take over the world. Better strap in.
        michas 12y ago
        Economic 101 course for you. In your original comment you said: > By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something. You are terribly wrong, because, by definition, there is no such thing as objective worth of something you buy. There is only subjective worth and it is different for different people. And that is the sole things that enables us to trade goods at all. Example: what is worth more: 5$ or a pack of ciggaretes? non-smoking shop owner probably will choose 5$, average smoker will choose pack of ciggaretes. And they DO choose that every day - every time you buy something you prove that the thing you bought is more valuable to you than the money you spent. Otherwise you wouldn't buy it. So, if two people make transaction volunteerly the price paid is always fair, and both people end up thinking that they traded something less valuable for something more valuable. That's called "mutually beneficial" :)
jusben1369 12y ago
You have to finish that thought with "Otherwise you wouldn't do the action. And the buyer wouldn't benefit from your output."
brc 12y ago
No, profit is arranging a voluntary transaction where both parties where both parties trade something they value less for something they value more. Where did all this 'profit is evil' talk come from anyway? This is a site dedicated to startups and tech talk, and all of a sudden we have activist student slogans passing for comment?
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  The term is a bit ambiguous. You are referring to profit, the concept. I am referring to profit, the concrete measurable (ie. revenue - cost).

thefreeman 12y ago

All landlords aren't assholes, just the ones who try to force people out of their homes by jacking up rents to insane prices.

Kalium 12y ago
What's the not-asshole thing to do when you find out you could be making a profit literally ten times as big as your current profit? Especially when you know the supply being competed over won't be changing much.
- kelnos 12y ago
  The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    > The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. So every lease becomes a lifetime deal. Hmm. Since rent keeps going up, this means prices are going to have to go up dramatically now so that I'm not completely hosed in ten to twenty years. After all, rent control increase caps are pretty much always below property tax increase caps. Long-term, me-the-landlord is going to be put in a situation where rent doesn't even cover taxes. Nevermind repairs, maintenance, and insurance. > You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Huh. I guess evictions for non-payment are out now. After all, it's their home, and it would be evil for me to evict someone from their home just for the sake of my bank account... Between this and your previous point, you've made an excellent case that a moral and ethical person who owns property in SF would refuse to rent it under any circumstances. Well done. > Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least. Are you aware that you just defined turning a profit as an asshole move? Perhaps you want to rethink your definition.

zobzu 12y ago

Basically rent in big cities is extremely low risk income. It means if you're lucky enough to be born/married the right places and own a few buildings, you do not need to work, nor will ever need, nor will your children ever need. So.. it doesn't make landlords assholes or evil, but its not like there wasnt a class issue. The only reason why this thread explodes is because the wealth difference is getting bigger and bigger.