DOJ will examine whether RealPage helped landlords coordinate rent increases(propublica.org)
propublica.org
DOJ will examine whether RealPage helped landlords coordinate rent increases
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-realpage-rent-doj-investigation-antitrust
124 comments
Corporate landlords math out things and only do it as long as it’s profitable.
Private single-family landlords are often content renting as long as they get more than the mortgage. And if you’re a good tenant they often don’t bother checking comps at all until they have to rent it again.
Private single-family landlords are often content renting as long as they get more than the mortgage. And if you’re a good tenant they often don’t bother checking comps at all until they have to rent it again.
For a large operation it is complicated. The profit maximizing strategy starts to become more entwined with interest rates and taking out loans with properties as collateral. The price of your rent can be higher than the market rates on housing because housing is more or less a byproduct of a financial services scheme.
Huh? Large landlords are unable to raise rents significantly above the local market rate, unless they have an effective local monopoly or collude with other landlords. Rent prices are not byproducts of a financial services scheme. When landlords ask for rent much higher than the market rate, tenants eventually just move out.
Unless all rent prices are made public in real time, buyers (and small sellers) do not have sufficient information to determine what market price is.
Huh? Buyers (renters) have real-time information on asking rents through sites like Craigslist and Apartments.com. Have you not seen those sites?
Asking price is not the sale price. It is apparently valuable enough for landlords to provide to RealPage, and then in return get a pricing suggestion.
In my city we have a rent registry. Tenants have perfect market information if they want it. This does not give them pricing power. Objectively, Berkeley has one of the worst housing crises in the nation. 3Bd/1ba 1000sqft apartments are advertised at $7200/mo. Rents have quadrupled in real dollars in 25 years. This is a result of government strangling the construction market and nothing to do with collusion or hidden pricing.
Of course, real time price information only conveys movement of supply and demand curves, it does not alleviate insufficient supply and/or demand.
> This is a result of government strangling the construction market and nothing to do with collusion or hidden pricing.
Actually, many apartments near prestigious UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA) are priced to be affordable for two students per bedroom. This is how some undergraduate students have been renting for decades, from my own personal observations. A $7200/month 3 bedroom can house 6 students in bunk beds. So at $1200/month per student, this is more than affordable for their upper middle class parents.
Actually, many apartments near prestigious UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA) are priced to be affordable for two students per bedroom. This is how some undergraduate students have been renting for decades, from my own personal observations. A $7200/month 3 bedroom can house 6 students in bunk beds. So at $1200/month per student, this is more than affordable for their upper middle class parents.
You've just circumscribed the population of students eligible to attend those universities to include only members of upper-middle-class American families. Perhaps you can see that is problematic.
Again, these prices have quadrupled in real dollars in only 25 years. Any notion that this is normal for a college town is incorrect.
Again, these prices have quadrupled in real dollars in only 25 years. Any notion that this is normal for a college town is incorrect.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and surrounding areas are hardly college towns. It's just unrealistic to expect cheap market-rate housing near Cal and UCLA.
The solution should be for the UC Regents to build more on-campus dormitories, reduce enrollment at overcrowded campuses, and build or expand campuses in areas with fewer geographical constraints and lower housing costs. Costs are much lower around UC Riverside and UC Merced. There ought to be another campus in Fresno or Bakersfield.
The solution should be for the UC Regents to build more on-campus dormitories, reduce enrollment at overcrowded campuses, and build or expand campuses in areas with fewer geographical constraints and lower housing costs. Costs are much lower around UC Riverside and UC Merced. There ought to be another campus in Fresno or Bakersfield.
Yeah I think this would work much, much, much better in a city that didn’t have a complete housing emergency crises like Berkeley.
Landlords can get a bit above market (basically market + cost of annoyance at having to move) but not much beyond that.
But a substantial percentage of the population seems to think they could charge $10m a month and everyone would just have to take it.
But a substantial percentage of the population seems to think they could charge $10m a month and everyone would just have to take it.
People just abandon the whole concept of supply and demand when talking about housing, even though it clearly applies. Landlords can’t charge more than a market-clearing price and they won’t charge less. Tenants can’t pay less and won’t pay more. Collusion, either by landlord syndicates or tenant strikes or whatever, doesn’t materially affect the market rents. The only things that really matter are local supply and demand. Is there a growing industry, an expanding population, and a lot of immigration into your area? Prices will increase if housing isn’t built to compensate. Plain and simple.
> Landlords can’t charge more than a market-clearing price and they won’t charge less.
I think your posts are great, to the point, a no-nonsense economics approach to the question, and I largely agree with them.
However, I'm wondering in this beautiful free-market world ---
What value is being provided by RealPage?
The costs to the landlords I could find online seem low, but with startups it's hard to tell what the "profitable equilibrium price" of the service would be. For only $10/month it would seem to be nothing more than saving a few hours of labor for each property. (Which might be better seen as ~$100+/rental event or something, since the leases are probably lasting at least a year, but still...)
I think your posts are great, to the point, a no-nonsense economics approach to the question, and I largely agree with them.
However, I'm wondering in this beautiful free-market world ---
What value is being provided by RealPage?
The costs to the landlords I could find online seem low, but with startups it's hard to tell what the "profitable equilibrium price" of the service would be. For only $10/month it would seem to be nothing more than saving a few hours of labor for each property. (Which might be better seen as ~$100+/rental event or something, since the leases are probably lasting at least a year, but still...)
A large percentage of landlords charge below market rent - for various reasons.
Small landlords often don’t want to deal with annoying their tenant so they don’t raise rent unless they feel they “need” to - and appreciation makes them feel they don’t need to.
Middling landlords (owning one or two 20 or so unit buildings) often are aiming more for cash flow and minimum vacancy, so they often have pricing out of date. (Ask people in your are who rent which apartments never have vacancies - you’ve found the underpriced one).
Large landlords (many thousands of units) have vacancy targets and formulas and comps to determine rent as best they can - not because it makes them money per se but that it raises the value of the property (which for large complexes is a simple formula based on rents) allowing more loans for more properties.
RealPage is trying to provide that “large landlord” stuff to the other two.
Small landlords often don’t want to deal with annoying their tenant so they don’t raise rent unless they feel they “need” to - and appreciation makes them feel they don’t need to.
Middling landlords (owning one or two 20 or so unit buildings) often are aiming more for cash flow and minimum vacancy, so they often have pricing out of date. (Ask people in your are who rent which apartments never have vacancies - you’ve found the underpriced one).
Large landlords (many thousands of units) have vacancy targets and formulas and comps to determine rent as best they can - not because it makes them money per se but that it raises the value of the property (which for large complexes is a simple formula based on rents) allowing more loans for more properties.
RealPage is trying to provide that “large landlord” stuff to the other two.
I don't actually know what realpage does, but in the spirit of HN, I am going to speculate anyway.
at a high level, yes, there is a "market rate" for apartments that is driven by supply and demand. you won't have a lot of luck trying to let a 1 BR for double the median 1 BR rent in that neighborhood. but individual units are not fungible either; landlords can definitely charge more for units that have been more recently renovated, better layouts, nicer views, etc. plus or minus $50 on rent might not make much difference to a tenant, but having the data to make those little adjustments could matter a lot to a landlord with hundreds of units. this isn't something you can get just by scraping zillow.
at a high level, yes, there is a "market rate" for apartments that is driven by supply and demand. you won't have a lot of luck trying to let a 1 BR for double the median 1 BR rent in that neighborhood. but individual units are not fungible either; landlords can definitely charge more for units that have been more recently renovated, better layouts, nicer views, etc. plus or minus $50 on rent might not make much difference to a tenant, but having the data to make those little adjustments could matter a lot to a landlord with hundreds of units. this isn't something you can get just by scraping zillow.
> What value is being provided by RealPage?
Efficient way how to find market rate?
Efficient way how to find market rate?
> What value is being provided by RealPage?
According to their website, the issue in question is "price discovery" -- e.g. let's say the market price is $1000 a month for your unit, but you don't know the market price because, for example, a long term rent controlled tenant just left, and they were paying $400 or something. Or maybe you had a tenant that was paying $1200 and he left because he found a better place for less.
So what do you charge?
You can try to charge $2000, wait four months, get no takers, then lower to $1800, wait four months, etc. Or you look at realpage, which says similarly priced units sold for $1000 in your area, so you advertise for $1000 and get a tenant. For the individual small time landlord, price discovery is not easy and it can be very costly. Realpage provides it to you for a small fee. Larger corporate landlords probably have their own people dedicated to price discovery and so they may not benefit as much, but even then, you are centralizing the data collection process so not every landlord needs to do their own legwork. Why not just look at some of the websites that do statistics of craigslist asking prices? Well, in some sense that's all that's going on here, except with clean data and hopefully adjusting for biases -- e.g. if you look at averages of asking rents, you will get an over-estimate of rents because those who don't find buyers keep their advertisement up longer than those who find a buyer, so there is some adjustment that needs to be performed on an average of craigslist asking prices. Also that data tends to be dirty and doesn't have good coverage. I wouldn't be surprised if all that realpage is doing is massaging this data and fixing it up, plus adding in other data sources to get a propriety estimate.
That's the value of this one feature.
Of course, real page also handles online billing and a lot of the standard services you would expect from a property management app, but those services aren't at issue here. Point is, having realtime data about what people are paying is useful. That's why Zillow has estimates, and we don't look at that as a pricing cartel. Kelly Blue Book also has price estimates, etc. Even stock exchanges sell price data -- it's just a useful, valuable commodity.
According to their website, the issue in question is "price discovery" -- e.g. let's say the market price is $1000 a month for your unit, but you don't know the market price because, for example, a long term rent controlled tenant just left, and they were paying $400 or something. Or maybe you had a tenant that was paying $1200 and he left because he found a better place for less.
So what do you charge?
You can try to charge $2000, wait four months, get no takers, then lower to $1800, wait four months, etc. Or you look at realpage, which says similarly priced units sold for $1000 in your area, so you advertise for $1000 and get a tenant. For the individual small time landlord, price discovery is not easy and it can be very costly. Realpage provides it to you for a small fee. Larger corporate landlords probably have their own people dedicated to price discovery and so they may not benefit as much, but even then, you are centralizing the data collection process so not every landlord needs to do their own legwork. Why not just look at some of the websites that do statistics of craigslist asking prices? Well, in some sense that's all that's going on here, except with clean data and hopefully adjusting for biases -- e.g. if you look at averages of asking rents, you will get an over-estimate of rents because those who don't find buyers keep their advertisement up longer than those who find a buyer, so there is some adjustment that needs to be performed on an average of craigslist asking prices. Also that data tends to be dirty and doesn't have good coverage. I wouldn't be surprised if all that realpage is doing is massaging this data and fixing it up, plus adding in other data sources to get a propriety estimate.
That's the value of this one feature.
Of course, real page also handles online billing and a lot of the standard services you would expect from a property management app, but those services aren't at issue here. Point is, having realtime data about what people are paying is useful. That's why Zillow has estimates, and we don't look at that as a pricing cartel. Kelly Blue Book also has price estimates, etc. Even stock exchanges sell price data -- it's just a useful, valuable commodity.
> You can try to charge $2000, wait four months, get no takers, then lower to $1800, wait four months, etc.
Or you can go to Craigslist, look for similar properties in your area, factor in quality of renovation, furniture, views etc, and have quite informed guess in a matter of hour tops. For a yearly procedure it is adequate.
Or you can go to Craigslist, look for similar properties in your area, factor in quality of renovation, furniture, views etc, and have quite informed guess in a matter of hour tops. For a yearly procedure it is adequate.
I mean, I addressed that -- did you read a few more sentences down?
Lemme guess, were you working in google leadership when they were conspiring with Apple to unlawfully fix wages?
Market forces are not magic pixie dust. The actions of market participants are what create the market in the first place. Colluding to fix prices, assuming the collusion is widespread enough absolutely impacts prices. That the buyers ability/willingless to pay limits the maximum amount of rent extraction (har har) doesn't change this fact: the equilibrium in the presence of competitive pricing is still different than in its absence.
Even partial collusion can still have an effect similar to removing the units from the market, and this effect is outsized when the market's supply is already very limited. Say a collusion only controls 400 units in a market of 20,000 (like, say, mountain view)-- you wouldn't argue that demolishing those units would have no substantial impact on prices, so you shouldn't argue that removing price competition among them wouldn't either.
Market forces are not magic pixie dust. The actions of market participants are what create the market in the first place. Colluding to fix prices, assuming the collusion is widespread enough absolutely impacts prices. That the buyers ability/willingless to pay limits the maximum amount of rent extraction (har har) doesn't change this fact: the equilibrium in the presence of competitive pricing is still different than in its absence.
Even partial collusion can still have an effect similar to removing the units from the market, and this effect is outsized when the market's supply is already very limited. Say a collusion only controls 400 units in a market of 20,000 (like, say, mountain view)-- you wouldn't argue that demolishing those units would have no substantial impact on prices, so you shouldn't argue that removing price competition among them wouldn't either.
Apple, Intel, Adobe, Google, Pixar, and Intuit collectively control a huge share of the local employment market for software developers. That puts their collusion into a different category altogether.
Why cartels can't work in industries with numerous competitors is literally an Econ 101 topic. Historic cartels only succeed with majority market share and high concentration among a few players. We don't see anything like that in real estate. Not even remotely close.
Your example also doesn't make sense to me. A cartel controlling 2% of the inventory of apartments in a city holds a few apartments off the market. This would indeed raise the equilibrium price, but doesn't benefit the cartel participants. All the excess profits in that scenario are flowing to non-participants. It's the perfect backwards cartel!
Why cartels can't work in industries with numerous competitors is literally an Econ 101 topic. Historic cartels only succeed with majority market share and high concentration among a few players. We don't see anything like that in real estate. Not even remotely close.
Your example also doesn't make sense to me. A cartel controlling 2% of the inventory of apartments in a city holds a few apartments off the market. This would indeed raise the equilibrium price, but doesn't benefit the cartel participants. All the excess profits in that scenario are flowing to non-participants. It's the perfect backwards cartel!
jeffbee is correct:
"Supply skepticism and shortage denialism are pushing against the actual solution to the housing crisis: building enough homes."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...
"Supply skepticism and shortage denialism are pushing against the actual solution to the housing crisis: building enough homes."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...
> Collusion, either by landlord syndicates or tenant strikes or whatever, doesn’t materially affect the market rents.
Why? What is the logic behind this statement?
Why? What is the logic behind this statement?
The idea of economic monopolies makes sense only for produced goods -- for example, diamonds, in which you influence what the market will bear by producing more or less. If you can get all the producers together to restrict supply, then they can charge higher prices because they are selling to a smaller subset of buyers (those willing to pay the most). But notice the coordination is never on price -- OPEC doesn't get together to say "We will all charge $90 for oil" -- they get together to say "We will decrease production by 1 million bpd". So price is the target but the actual control is not price, but quantity.
The point of a monopoly is to manipulate the price by increasing or decreasing production, and this is why you need a produced good. Actual prices are set by whatever the market can bear.
But there is no such thing -- even conceptually -- in a market for non-produced goods such as land. Now that doesn't mean they can't be in violation of some law -- maybe they were coordinating to exclude bad tenants based on a protected category or something like that.
But then you will first object, "The land isn't produced, but the structure on the land is produced" and then I'll say that if there was an accusation of collusion among homebuilders, then you would have a point. But not landlords (there are many examples of monopolistic practices in housing, but in the form of zoning regulations).
And then a second objection is "Renting also requires property management services to owners. Maybe there is a collusion among those providing property management to charge more" -- but they are charging the property owner, and it's a field with such relative low entrance bars that it's hard to imagine owners getting screwed by some collusion among property managers.
The point of a monopoly is to manipulate the price by increasing or decreasing production, and this is why you need a produced good. Actual prices are set by whatever the market can bear.
But there is no such thing -- even conceptually -- in a market for non-produced goods such as land. Now that doesn't mean they can't be in violation of some law -- maybe they were coordinating to exclude bad tenants based on a protected category or something like that.
But then you will first object, "The land isn't produced, but the structure on the land is produced" and then I'll say that if there was an accusation of collusion among homebuilders, then you would have a point. But not landlords (there are many examples of monopolistic practices in housing, but in the form of zoning regulations).
And then a second objection is "Renting also requires property management services to owners. Maybe there is a collusion among those providing property management to charge more" -- but they are charging the property owner, and it's a field with such relative low entrance bars that it's hard to imagine owners getting screwed by some collusion among property managers.
There are just way too many landlords to make it work. There is no single dominant landlord and no number of landlords small enough to fit around a
conference table that controls a significant portion of the housing stock. Staying with my city of Berkeley, the notoriously abusive (seriously, Google it for some extreme horror stories) Everest Properties holds only 354 units. There are 30 different apartment owners who hold at least 100 units and 6000 total landlords. There's just no way with that diversity of ownership that collusion would amount to anything.
The article directly contests this idea though:
> In one downtown Seattle ZIP code, 70% of more than 9,000 apartments were controlled by just 10 property managers — every one of which used RealPage’s pricing software in at least some of its buildings.
This seems true in a lot of hot rental markets - there actually aren't that many landlords. In my midsized city only 4-5 institutional landlords control most of the available units in the median price bracket (and that's for residential, commercial is even worse with just two large landlords controlling a majority of lower end small units). And then when they use Realpage they are all effectively pricing together, so it creates a near-monopoly that greatly curtails downward pressure on prices.
> In one downtown Seattle ZIP code, 70% of more than 9,000 apartments were controlled by just 10 property managers — every one of which used RealPage’s pricing software in at least some of its buildings.
This seems true in a lot of hot rental markets - there actually aren't that many landlords. In my midsized city only 4-5 institutional landlords control most of the available units in the median price bracket (and that's for residential, commercial is even worse with just two large landlords controlling a majority of lower end small units). And then when they use Realpage they are all effectively pricing together, so it creates a near-monopoly that greatly curtails downward pressure on prices.
The allegation seems to be that RealPage was providing a service to solve the coordination problem you're elucidating.
I don't disagree and to be clear I don't think regulators should tolerate RealPage. But I also don't think that getting rid of RealPage will do anything about the rent crisis, since the estimates are the U.S. lacks between 4 and 80 million un-built homes. That's the root issue.
The shape of housing also really matters.
The modern chunky 5+1 is only really affordable to build for big landlords. Smaller landlord apartments are much smaller, often the size of a subdivided house.
The modern chunky 5+1 is only really affordable to build for big landlords. Smaller landlord apartments are much smaller, often the size of a subdivided house.
Not really.
Landlords are price takers. If their financing costs are higher than market rent, then they have to live with it. Plenty of landlords are negative monthly cash flow.
Rent in SF dropped by 20% during Covid. They had no choice and it didn’t matter if it didn’t cover their holding costs.
Landlords are price takers. If their financing costs are higher than market rent, then they have to live with it. Plenty of landlords are negative monthly cash flow.
Rent in SF dropped by 20% during Covid. They had no choice and it didn’t matter if it didn’t cover their holding costs.
I've found they're also far more likely to be absentee, and far more likely to discriminate on the basis of whoever happened to burn them in the past. They're also more volatile -- many are new to landlording and if it's not working out and they get a good offer they'll just sell meaning you've got to move.
Yeah, there are definite downsides.
Most small landlords make less than appreciation when it’s all said and done - and if appreciation dries up many will sell out.
Most small landlords make less than appreciation when it’s all said and done - and if appreciation dries up many will sell out.
> These companies have turned areas they operate into upscale meat grinders that lure you with a "welcome" price only to systematically hike up your rent way beyond inflation.
This was the operating model of large landlords before RealPage, too. I happen to believe RealPage likely facilitates illegal collusion, but it's not like large commercial landlords were saints before.
This was the operating model of large landlords before RealPage, too. I happen to believe RealPage likely facilitates illegal collusion, but it's not like large commercial landlords were saints before.
It’s really just supply and demand. There aren’t enough homes and landlords know it. If there are 2 families for every home you’re gonna have a bad time, no way around it. Only solution is building more.
In the case of housing, the tight timeframes for buyers and the low opportunity costs for sellers do not allow for a “fair” playing field.
If sellers collude, they can hold out for a few months or even a year without a problem. But buyers are rarely in that position.
Technically, it is a supply and demand issue, but the feedback loop takes so long that it needs some other force to keep it humming long term without sellers pushing society to the brink of disaster.
If sellers collude, they can hold out for a few months or even a year without a problem. But buyers are rarely in that position.
Technically, it is a supply and demand issue, but the feedback loop takes so long that it needs some other force to keep it humming long term without sellers pushing society to the brink of disaster.
The building we moved out of started doing referrals again, about 15% (according to a person I talked to at the leasing office) of their apartments are currently empty and they are still hiking prices, this isn't supply & demand, this is price systematic price gauging.
Anecdotes are fun, and I’m sure many landlords are doing this, but the data does not generally show it. Nyc is sitting at 4% vacancy, only 1% above all time lows.
That's an anecdote (regarding a single market that's known to be an outlier). Meanwhile, my experience squares with GP's. Rents don't have to follow S+D because downturn concessions can be covered by "specials" that effectively lower out-of-pocket costs for renters temporarily while keeping the market rate the same. Essentially, all discounts that would have been reflected in a lower market rate in the past are now internalized on a property manager's balance sheet.
It's not supply and demand, though, because the increases are well beyond vacancy pressures.
I currently live in a large luxury apartment complex in a cosmopolitan city with a moderately high vacancy rate. I'm about to move out because of a large rent increase.
Easily half the units in my complex are empty. Any reasonable person would look at that and say "gee, we need to bring prices down so that we have higher occupancy. Every month that a unit stands empty we're losing a whole month's rent."
Instead they use RealPage. It's obvious when a complex does this because the prices change day by day and negotiation is impossible. All the other apartment complexes in this city are using the same software. Even if RealPage isn't a collusive conspiracy any error in their pricing algorithm affects the entire city.
Rent on private houses are not set by RealPage so you can rent a large house here for what an apartment costs. Apartments are uniformly priced well above the "real" market price set by supply and demand. The entire city's vacancy slice is concentrated in the apartment buildings.
In order to rent apartments at above market prices the apartments here have gotten slack about income verification and background checks. The only people who want to rent an apartment for well above a mortgage payment are small-time drug-dealers who have enough income to pay but not enough clean income to get a mortgage.
RealPage is a market-distorting force. Inherently. In order to not distort the market they'd have to always evaluate supply and demand correctly.
I currently live in a large luxury apartment complex in a cosmopolitan city with a moderately high vacancy rate. I'm about to move out because of a large rent increase.
Easily half the units in my complex are empty. Any reasonable person would look at that and say "gee, we need to bring prices down so that we have higher occupancy. Every month that a unit stands empty we're losing a whole month's rent."
Instead they use RealPage. It's obvious when a complex does this because the prices change day by day and negotiation is impossible. All the other apartment complexes in this city are using the same software. Even if RealPage isn't a collusive conspiracy any error in their pricing algorithm affects the entire city.
Rent on private houses are not set by RealPage so you can rent a large house here for what an apartment costs. Apartments are uniformly priced well above the "real" market price set by supply and demand. The entire city's vacancy slice is concentrated in the apartment buildings.
In order to rent apartments at above market prices the apartments here have gotten slack about income verification and background checks. The only people who want to rent an apartment for well above a mortgage payment are small-time drug-dealers who have enough income to pay but not enough clean income to get a mortgage.
RealPage is a market-distorting force. Inherently. In order to not distort the market they'd have to always evaluate supply and demand correctly.
> I'm sure a decent chunk of NH's population has lived or lives in properties that are or were using RealPage.
It took me a sec to realize you were referring to Hacker News and not New Hampshire. :)
It took me a sec to realize you were referring to Hacker News and not New Hampshire. :)
> These companies have turned areas they operate into upscale meat grinders that lure you with a "welcome" price only to systematically hike up your rent way beyond inflation.
In my experience with downtown Seattle, the high end luxury apartments this rings true.
I had an apartment that I was renting for ~$4k a month and gave me like 1 month free. The building then decided when it was time to renew our lease, I should pay an additional $400 a month. I moved out of that apartment and then they relisted that apartment for $3700/month with a 1 month free offer.
My next apartment was $2300/month. Same thing, 1 month free. Come lease renewal time (1 year later), they said the new rent would be $400 or $500 higher (a 17% or 21% increase). Recently they've decided to give an "exploding offer" where the new rent would only be $2500/month with 8 weeks free if signed by X date.
TLDR: 10%+ rent increases are the norm for my building. I've never actually paid the full listed amount for rent though when you take the concession into consideration.
In my experience with downtown Seattle, the high end luxury apartments this rings true.
I had an apartment that I was renting for ~$4k a month and gave me like 1 month free. The building then decided when it was time to renew our lease, I should pay an additional $400 a month. I moved out of that apartment and then they relisted that apartment for $3700/month with a 1 month free offer.
My next apartment was $2300/month. Same thing, 1 month free. Come lease renewal time (1 year later), they said the new rent would be $400 or $500 higher (a 17% or 21% increase). Recently they've decided to give an "exploding offer" where the new rent would only be $2500/month with 8 weeks free if signed by X date.
TLDR: 10%+ rent increases are the norm for my building. I've never actually paid the full listed amount for rent though when you take the concession into consideration.
So your landlord priced the unit too high, you are moving to a competitor... sounds like the market working as expected to me?
No where in the comment did OP say they were moving. They also stated explicitly that competitors were virtually non-existent:
> Practically every other building in the area (downtown Redmond, WA) has increased prices in unison so there is basically 0 competition.
> Practically every other building in the area (downtown Redmond, WA) has increased prices in unison so there is basically 0 competition.
Regulation might work but it’s complicated and expensive. The best thing you can do against landlords is abundant housing supply. Collusion isn’t going to work in practice in the face of 20% local vacancy rates.
> Imo corporate landlords need to be heavily regulated and need to be broken up.
A big issue at least here in the UK and Ireland is that many politicians are landlords.
How do we fix that…
A big issue at least here in the UK and Ireland is that many politicians are landlords.
How do we fix that…
We should deregulate the housing-construction market to increase competition and decrease prices: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388
This is fundamentally a problem with housing restrictions.
This is fundamentally a problem with housing restrictions.
Unfortunately, the government knows they don't have to do this because the public is dumb enough just to blame the landlords, because that's who their checks go to.
We can do both!
Right, but you got fucked over by private landlord, that just happened to use some service to coordinate it
The service might be the tool used to perpetrate the problem but regulating corporations won't help much here, if they are gone landlords will find a different way to coordinate
The service might be the tool used to perpetrate the problem but regulating corporations won't help much here, if they are gone landlords will find a different way to coordinate
You’re not wrong. We should get rid of landlords and replace them with housing cooperatives.
Housing cooperatives are not really alternatives to landlords, they are alternatives to condominiums.
What's stopping anyone?
Since credit and money creation is privatised, it is only available to for-profit ventures. Good luck obtaining credit to build an apartment building, if all you have is a contract signed by 100 people promising to take on 1/100th of the debt.
Housing cooperative can just take mortgage for the building. That is commonly done here when apartment houses are sold as a whole. It is simpler to make one big mortgage for cooperative instead if 100 smaller mortgages for individual flat owners.
Reverse this - get 100 people to take on construction loans to bud a co-operative to live in, and then refinance after completion. You'll have no problems - except people don't want to take the risk of owning.
Most folks aren't interested in housing cooperatives- too much work, they want to be able to move without strings, etc.
The ones that own rental properties have no reason to change business models and no competition (like say city-build-and-owned rental apartments)
It is always easy to ask others to do the moral thing.
> We should get rid of landlords
How? Please elaborate.
In places that did this, usually a new set of more evil landlords took over after mass killing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement_(China)
"Landlords had their land confiscated and they were subjected mass killing by the CCP and former tenants,[2][3] with the estimated death toll ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions.[4][5][6]"
This should probably be required reading for everyone before they comment on housing:
"Housing Breaks People’s Brains"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...
The problem is a simple lack of supply not evil landlords.
Not convinced?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national...
> In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Edit: And of course, a comment with references is riddled with downvotes with no responses :), so predictable , while the original with an emotional "get rid of a class of people" stays positive.
How? Please elaborate.
In places that did this, usually a new set of more evil landlords took over after mass killing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement_(China)
"Landlords had their land confiscated and they were subjected mass killing by the CCP and former tenants,[2][3] with the estimated death toll ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions.[4][5][6]"
This should probably be required reading for everyone before they comment on housing:
"Housing Breaks People’s Brains"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...
The problem is a simple lack of supply not evil landlords.
Not convinced?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national...
> In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Edit: And of course, a comment with references is riddled with downvotes with no responses :), so predictable , while the original with an emotional "get rid of a class of people" stays positive.
> The problem is a simple lack of supply not evil landlords.
both can be part of the problem. It's not an one dimensional problem.
> In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Oh, so sad they would have to sell the property that was previously just provided stream of passive income at no (many private landlords use companies to manage their properties) effort to them at all..
I'm also so sad for them to only earn a good amount on their "investment" of "being well off enough to convince bank to give the mortgage for an investment property" /s.
More than that, this absolute disaster might actually lower the housing pricing a bit and we can't have that now can we ?
both can be part of the problem. It's not an one dimensional problem.
> In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Oh, so sad they would have to sell the property that was previously just provided stream of passive income at no (many private landlords use companies to manage their properties) effort to them at all..
I'm also so sad for them to only earn a good amount on their "investment" of "being well off enough to convince bank to give the mortgage for an investment property" /s.
More than that, this absolute disaster might actually lower the housing pricing a bit and we can't have that now can we ?
> How? Please elaborate.
Ignoring all other factors, it's quite easy. The landloard-tennant social relation is able to exist because the legal system has a system of laws backed the threat of violence to secure and perpetuate its existence. To deconstruct the social relation as such, one would need to catalog federal, state, and local code to identify which clauses establish houses, apartments, condos, etc as private property and remove them. Voila! the legal construction of landlords no longer exists. without the threat of state violence, landlords cease to become a social category. If this sounds terrible to you, please refer to the first clause of this comment.
Ignoring all other factors, it's quite easy. The landloard-tennant social relation is able to exist because the legal system has a system of laws backed the threat of violence to secure and perpetuate its existence. To deconstruct the social relation as such, one would need to catalog federal, state, and local code to identify which clauses establish houses, apartments, condos, etc as private property and remove them. Voila! the legal construction of landlords no longer exists. without the threat of state violence, landlords cease to become a social category. If this sounds terrible to you, please refer to the first clause of this comment.
> To deconstruct the social relation as such, one would need to catalog federal, state, and local code to identify which clauses establish houses, apartments, condos, etc as private property and remove them
So if I purchased or built a house with my work, then it is not longer mine?
> If this sounds terrible to you, please refer to the first clause of this comment.
Which is "Ignoring all other factors, it's quite easy"
Exactly, this works only in imagination land.
Thanks for ignoring my links to CCP China where they exactly followed what you prescribed and ended up killing landlords.
Summarizing, there is a problem X (= housing), scientists say solution is Y (= more supply). But common folks say solution is Z (= confiscation of other's labor and property).
Z has been attempted in other societies for X and always resulted in bloodshed. I ask how can this not happen again if we follow Z and I get a response that is just a slightly more detailed plan for Z.
So if I purchased or built a house with my work, then it is not longer mine?
> If this sounds terrible to you, please refer to the first clause of this comment.
Which is "Ignoring all other factors, it's quite easy"
Exactly, this works only in imagination land.
Thanks for ignoring my links to CCP China where they exactly followed what you prescribed and ended up killing landlords.
Summarizing, there is a problem X (= housing), scientists say solution is Y (= more supply). But common folks say solution is Z (= confiscation of other's labor and property).
Z has been attempted in other societies for X and always resulted in bloodshed. I ask how can this not happen again if we follow Z and I get a response that is just a slightly more detailed plan for Z.
> > To deconstruct the social relation as such, one would need to catalog federal, state, and local code to identify which clauses establish houses, apartments, condos, etc as private property and remove them
> So if I purchased or built a house with my work, then it is not longer mine?
Well, the criterium to become landlord is not "purchased your own home" but "convince bank to give you mortgage" then just charge more than mortgage costs you. It is essentially passive income with little to no effort put once you get above certain level of wealth
> So if I purchased or built a house with my work, then it is not longer mine?
Well, the criterium to become landlord is not "purchased your own home" but "convince bank to give you mortgage" then just charge more than mortgage costs you. It is essentially passive income with little to no effort put once you get above certain level of wealth
> once you get above certain level of wealth
which took effort to obtain - either by sacrificing consumption, or by working more or doing more valuable work.
The banks' mortgage is the fact that there's evidence that you have the productivity to service said mortgage.
If you cannot show evidence that such a mortgage can be serviced, the bank will not lend you money. Lending isn't free - there's risk involved.
Calling it passive income with little to no effort is just hiding the work that went on previously. You only see the results, and not the work that went into achieving it.
which took effort to obtain - either by sacrificing consumption, or by working more or doing more valuable work.
The banks' mortgage is the fact that there's evidence that you have the productivity to service said mortgage.
If you cannot show evidence that such a mortgage can be serviced, the bank will not lend you money. Lending isn't free - there's risk involved.
Calling it passive income with little to no effort is just hiding the work that went on previously. You only see the results, and not the work that went into achieving it.
I feel a lot less for landlords than I do for people who die from lack of housing at all. The former could simply choose to not be landlords, the latter cannot simply choose to live in a house.
The question was how to get rid of landlords, I answered that. What I'm attempting to dispel is the myth that landlords are some fundamental aspect of nature or reality - they aren't. Landlords are a product of a specific form of ownership and the legal structure that supports it. Those two things are choices even if they seem to you they aren't.
The question was how to get rid of landlords, I answered that. What I'm attempting to dispel is the myth that landlords are some fundamental aspect of nature or reality - they aren't. Landlords are a product of a specific form of ownership and the legal structure that supports it. Those two things are choices even if they seem to you they aren't.
We could simply remove density restrictions. Landlords are not your enemy, and hear me out on this one, single family homes are.
Zoning limits the competition for property to single households. I can compete and win against a lot of single households for land. I could not compete with 10 households looking to build apartments. It is illegal to build ten apartments on most lots though, so good for me I guess.
Landlords own land and make it available to others to use. They generally want to build more housing because they like money. They are a strong ally in the fight for more housing (which means cheaper housing). Single family homes are the enemy.
Zoning limits the competition for property to single households. I can compete and win against a lot of single households for land. I could not compete with 10 households looking to build apartments. It is illegal to build ten apartments on most lots though, so good for me I guess.
Landlords own land and make it available to others to use. They generally want to build more housing because they like money. They are a strong ally in the fight for more housing (which means cheaper housing). Single family homes are the enemy.
I fundamentally believe that markets do not function correctly for goods with inelastic demand and have a lower bound that when crossed result in a loss of human dignity. I'm not sure there is a way to convince me otherwise. This seems to be a core way in which I process the world and relate to other humans. Changing this would mean that I would relate to people as a means rather than an end and I don't have a way to operate ethically in that world.
Housing doesn't have inelastic demand though. If the city gets cheaper (+capacity) more people can live in it. As well, if it gets too expensive people are priced out and leave. Ask any state about the Californians moving there.
We are already at the lower bound. We have already lost human dignity. You either need to afford 1k per month or be homeless. This homelessness is to spare them the indignity of living in a 350 sqft efficiency?
Build more housing. Remove parking minimums. Remove minimum unit sizes. End density restrictions. 8 units on every lot.
We are already at the lower bound. We have already lost human dignity. You either need to afford 1k per month or be homeless. This homelessness is to spare them the indignity of living in a 350 sqft efficiency?
Build more housing. Remove parking minimums. Remove minimum unit sizes. End density restrictions. 8 units on every lot.
Housing has plenty of inelastic demand and it's getting worse[1]. This isn't a controversial statement.
1. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/declining-elasticity-us-housi...
1. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/declining-elasticity-us-housi...
The article you linked is titled "The declining elasticity of US housing supply", where as all your comments speak about "demand".
>The more inelastic housing supply becomes, the more rising demand translates into rising prices and the less into additional housebuilding.
My argument is that we should remove barriers to building housing so that increases in demand (it is already very high) translate into more houses. Landlords aren't the problem. The single family zoning that constrains supply is.
>The more inelastic housing supply becomes, the more rising demand translates into rising prices and the less into additional housebuilding.
My argument is that we should remove barriers to building housing so that increases in demand (it is already very high) translate into more houses. Landlords aren't the problem. The single family zoning that constrains supply is.
Thank you. My mistake. Either way http://www.nber.org/papers/w22816 shows statistically significant demand inelasticity with the relevant section being
> a simple regression of the log median rental share on the rental price index, recovering a median expenditure share, sy, of 22.5 percent, and an implied price elasticity, εy,p of -0.83. ... The regression line has slope β1 = −β2 in equation (5b), with β3 = β4 = 0 imposed. Both slopes are positive and statistically significant, indicating demand is price-inelastic
> a simple regression of the log median rental share on the rental price index, recovering a median expenditure share, sy, of 22.5 percent, and an implied price elasticity, εy,p of -0.83. ... The regression line has slope β1 = −β2 in equation (5b), with β3 = β4 = 0 imposed. Both slopes are positive and statistically significant, indicating demand is price-inelastic
This is like having a conversation with a wall.
It seems like you would identify with Georgism[0]. The fundamental premise is that land/natural resources should belong to everyone, so it is necessary to pay everyone for the land we exclude others from.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
> The landloard-tennant social relation is able to exist because the legal system has a system of laws backed the threat of violence to secure and perpetuate its existence.
So, if no one can own the property, then high rent will be solved with a state monopoly?
So, if no one can own the property, then high rent will be solved with a state monopoly?
I think it's a little bit of a false dichotomy and a deficit of creativity that the only two conceivable ownership models for housing have to be private or public. There are an infinite number of ways to conceive of housing, than those two. Just try.
> There are an infinite number of ways to conceive of housing, than those two. Just try.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, because there really are only a few options, all of which fall into two buckets: private ownership or government/state/tribal ownership.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, because there really are only a few options, all of which fall into two buckets: private ownership or government/state/tribal ownership.
Corporate landlords have large portfolios and more likely experienced the new “risk” that the government allowed people to not pay rent for almost 2 years IIRC. It’s hard to objectively try to analyze the situation and ignore that whole snafu.
Or, people need to calibrate their desires for housing to their ability to pay for it. When landlords have bought property that becomes more valuable, they made an investment that paid off. This is what happens everywhere all the time. People speculate, some win, some lose.
You've probably done it yourself, maybe by speculating on where to apply for employment. It's hard to win that way since millions of people can copy that thesis. There is only so much real estate however.
At each rent increase, you could re-evaluate whether the investment is working out for you and adjust accordingly. You could also lobby your employer to move somewhere more affordable. I understand that is not a simple or easy thing to do, and you have my empathy. I just want to give you some insight a bit above "yeah, fuck those guys, you got screwed" which is not all that helpful to you.
You've probably done it yourself, maybe by speculating on where to apply for employment. It's hard to win that way since millions of people can copy that thesis. There is only so much real estate however.
At each rent increase, you could re-evaluate whether the investment is working out for you and adjust accordingly. You could also lobby your employer to move somewhere more affordable. I understand that is not a simple or easy thing to do, and you have my empathy. I just want to give you some insight a bit above "yeah, fuck those guys, you got screwed" which is not all that helpful to you.
Isn't this exactly how wages are set in tech?
Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. all report their payroll data to a centralized third party who then reports back to them what they should be paying their employees. Sure, companies can choose to nudge those numbers up or down, but it's exactly the same thing landlords are doing here.
We need to make colluding to keep rent high and wages low illegal.
Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. all report their payroll data to a centralized third party who then reports back to them what they should be paying their employees. Sure, companies can choose to nudge those numbers up or down, but it's exactly the same thing landlords are doing here.
We need to make colluding to keep rent high and wages low illegal.
Wages in IT are high for the same reason that rents in these neighborhoods are high: demand is far greater than supply.
It feels great being on the supply-side and getting crazy money, but it feels bad to be on the demand-side and having to pay crazy money. And everyone will say that one of these is perfectly fine and the other is outrageous.
It feels great being on the supply-side and getting crazy money, but it feels bad to be on the demand-side and having to pay crazy money. And everyone will say that one of these is perfectly fine and the other is outrageous.
No, I think the point being made is that it's bad to set wages this way. If every company is colluding, then wages are being kept artificially low. (Even in tech, where engineers are in demand.)
Neither of these is fine.
Neither of these is fine.
The salaries are high because of supply and demand. Big tech companies collude to "keep them low" because they are high.
Nobody here has a problem with their salary being high, they feel it's totally fine because it benefits them. It's only when they experience the other side that they're outraged and want regulation.
Which is totally natural and fine, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed or whatever. But we should still be aware that that's what it is.
Nobody here has a problem with their salary being high, they feel it's totally fine because it benefits them. It's only when they experience the other side that they're outraged and want regulation.
Which is totally natural and fine, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed or whatever. But we should still be aware that that's what it is.
As long as workers aren’t colluding this argument doesn’t work.
Colluding to raise rent and colluding to lower salaries are the same action taken by different people.
Employees enjoying high salaries means nothing as long as they’re not banding together to distort the market outside of a union or workers guild.
Colluding to raise rent and colluding to lower salaries are the same action taken by different people.
Employees enjoying high salaries means nothing as long as they’re not banding together to distort the market outside of a union or workers guild.
Wages are lower than they should be. Wages would be higher if employers were not colluding. Collusion is hurting both high demand engineers and renters.
100%. And house prices are where they should be. Supply and demand, there's someone willing to pay more, so they charge more.
Again, why are you fine with supply & demand raising prices in one situation but furiously outraged when the same thing happens in the other?
Again, why are you fine with supply & demand raising prices in one situation but furiously outraged when the same thing happens in the other?
> Again, why are you fine with supply & demand raising prices in one situation but furiously outraged when the same thing happens in the other?
Because both are at the cost of workers and for the benefit of capital.
Owners win both ways, workers lose both ways.
Edit: Also, the collusion is by the few against the many in both cases.
Also also, the prices are artificial -- collusion is keeping rents artificially high and wages artificially low.
Because both are at the cost of workers and for the benefit of capital.
Owners win both ways, workers lose both ways.
Edit: Also, the collusion is by the few against the many in both cases.
Also also, the prices are artificial -- collusion is keeping rents artificially high and wages artificially low.
Hmmmm... I wonder whether they will find any conclusive evidence that the platform which promises to help landlords extract every penny possible from their properties, using data from surrounding properties, that was being used by practically every major apartment complex, was possibly being used to raise rents... and whether this highly complex product with their proprietary algorithm could've had a feedback loop on it's own raised prices. Such a difficult case to figure out... /s
I don't believe that company is a 'force for good', but I don't think they would be able to corner the market in the face of actually abundant housing, either.
It's like we keep looking for the bogeyman that's driving up prices so we don't have to face up to the real problem: our cities' policies that prevent homes from being built, and our neighbors who support them.
If you'd like to join an organized effort to fight for housing, these are good groups:
* https://yimbyaction.org/2021/
* https://welcomingneighbors.us/
It's like we keep looking for the bogeyman that's driving up prices so we don't have to face up to the real problem: our cities' policies that prevent homes from being built, and our neighbors who support them.
If you'd like to join an organized effort to fight for housing, these are good groups:
* https://yimbyaction.org/2021/
* https://welcomingneighbors.us/
There are housing price crises literally all over the world, even in places where restrictive city policies are not an issue.
I'm sure supply constraints make it worse, but the underlying problem is financial in nature: because of making housing a financial asset.
I'm sure supply constraints make it worse, but the underlying problem is financial in nature: because of making housing a financial asset.
The housing crisis is far worse in places where artificial constraints make it so.
In general, the financial side of things drives the constraints, rather than the other way around. If I view my house as an investment, it's in my interest to see a constrained supply so that the value of my house goes up, up, up.
In general, the financial side of things drives the constraints, rather than the other way around. If I view my house as an investment, it's in my interest to see a constrained supply so that the value of my house goes up, up, up.
Where is there a housing crisis with no restrictions on construction, and how much construction has been happening there relative to population growth?
Compared to the Bay Area, there are many, many places with vacancies at 80% (Weed, CA) to 99% (Detroit) lower prices. The problem is that everyone wants to live in a few good employment markets with local housing shortages imposed by zoning.
Compared to the Bay Area, there are many, many places with vacancies at 80% (Weed, CA) to 99% (Detroit) lower prices. The problem is that everyone wants to live in a few good employment markets with local housing shortages imposed by zoning.
People want to live where industry is? Woah there. If you call that a problem then there will never be a solution for the rest of forever.
Any sane housing policy has to take this into account not pretend it’s the laborer’s fault. If you want people to move to different places then you have to get some businesses to start or move there until you get natural momentum.
Any sane housing policy has to take this into account not pretend it’s the laborer’s fault. If you want people to move to different places then you have to get some businesses to start or move there until you get natural momentum.
I think a productive step would be to force companies like realpage to publish all of their rents and history in real time
And then make a model that shows actual supply and demand in the area
This would be the first time that uniform data would be available thanks to SaaS companies
To skip the legislative issues of categorizing these kind of companies to begin with, it Could come with a settlement offer with DOJ
I think I’ll wrote to the DOJ about it
And then make a model that shows actual supply and demand in the area
This would be the first time that uniform data would be available thanks to SaaS companies
To skip the legislative issues of categorizing these kind of companies to begin with, it Could come with a settlement offer with DOJ
I think I’ll wrote to the DOJ about it
Recent and related:
Lawsuit filed against rent-setting software RealPage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33317414 - Oct 2022 (50 comments)
Rent going up? One company’s algorithm could be why - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224502 - Oct 2022 (279 comments)
Lawsuit filed against rent-setting software RealPage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33317414 - Oct 2022 (50 comments)
Rent going up? One company’s algorithm could be why - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224502 - Oct 2022 (279 comments)
I mean the whole RealPage pitch to landlords is that it will help you extract more rent by raising prices to keep up with everyone else who’s using RealPage.
I used to use RealPage OneSite when I worked in facility maintenance. As recently as 2018, it was an old clunky webapp that only worked in Internet Explorer.
At the time, I was like, why has no one disrupted them yet? but I later realized building boring, complex software like this is hard, and convincing an org with hundreds of satellite offices to switch is even harder.
At the time, I was like, why has no one disrupted them yet? but I later realized building boring, complex software like this is hard, and convincing an org with hundreds of satellite offices to switch is even harder.
People of the same trade seldom meet together,
even for merriment and diversion,
but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
I’m not sure how this is different (other than scale) of a landlord just pulling up a rental app, finding similar places as theirs and pricing similarly?
I mean, it’s not like other rent rates weren’t visible to landlords before this website same along.
I mean, it’s not like other rent rates weren’t visible to landlords before this website same along.
And yet crickets out of anyone from the DOJ regarding the massive fraud that is happening everyday in crypto. I have no faith whatsoever in law enforcement anymore. Its all politics and thumbs on scales.
Rent is unavoidable and essential to a dignified life. Crypto is for people with some spare cash who want to buy a thousand lottery tickets. The priorities of DOJ are correct. They are there to save you from the greed of others, not from your own.
Part of the problem with crypto is "elite capture", ie., the political class seem to have jumped behind it as with, eg., AI, quantum computing, self-driving cars etc. --- without realising that it's a pyramid-style hype phenomenon rather than a "innovation-style" one.
To defend them, it's really really hard to tell -- many technical people are economically incompetent and have been "captured"; and political people are far from either economically or technically competent.
However, of course, there's also a significant amount of money funnelled from this scam into political pockets. I'd say it's 80% the former, 20% the latter.
In any case, if the gov were to come down against crypto, they'd wipe the entire industry out. That would be a high-risk move from the political elite class on any ordinary technology, let alone one they've been captured to support.
To defend them, it's really really hard to tell -- many technical people are economically incompetent and have been "captured"; and political people are far from either economically or technically competent.
However, of course, there's also a significant amount of money funnelled from this scam into political pockets. I'd say it's 80% the former, 20% the latter.
In any case, if the gov were to come down against crypto, they'd wipe the entire industry out. That would be a high-risk move from the political elite class on any ordinary technology, let alone one they've been captured to support.
SBF was the second biggest individual donor to Biden's election campaign, and he donated 8 times as much in the 2022 midterms to democrats. Newspapers close to democrats have made very positive pieces about him and his scam. Now after the collapse, the government is still after him. He will probably meet the fate of most upper class blue collar criminals, with low security prison for a low single digit number of years.
The political class protects you if you bribe them, and you can get really rich thanks to such cooperations. They will defend your shady real estate deal, your NIMBY-ism, your neo feudal constitutional amendments from 1978, or pro-corporate legislation. But this has limits, e.g. when you appear in newspapers as someone who has scammed tens of thousands.
I do think however that a thing such as "good" (in the sense of quality, not in the sense of impact on the world) elite capture exists, even for crypto currencies. Ultimately we might end up with one or two private crypto currencies that have managed to bribe the elites of the gun owning apparatus well, and then that apparatus will use the guns to eliminate the crypto currencies that didn't manage to do such elite capture. We might end up with privatized, state sanctioned currencies, just as large parts of the banking system are private, or how certain parts of the elite got first row access to massive Fed loans while the masses had nothing. In the end, elite captured crypto currencies will just be the people with guns deciding to use a different mechanism to distribute the goods the guns are protecting, instead of being the innovation the pro-crypto people have been dreaming about that deprecates the need for people with guns.
The political class protects you if you bribe them, and you can get really rich thanks to such cooperations. They will defend your shady real estate deal, your NIMBY-ism, your neo feudal constitutional amendments from 1978, or pro-corporate legislation. But this has limits, e.g. when you appear in newspapers as someone who has scammed tens of thousands.
I do think however that a thing such as "good" (in the sense of quality, not in the sense of impact on the world) elite capture exists, even for crypto currencies. Ultimately we might end up with one or two private crypto currencies that have managed to bribe the elites of the gun owning apparatus well, and then that apparatus will use the guns to eliminate the crypto currencies that didn't manage to do such elite capture. We might end up with privatized, state sanctioned currencies, just as large parts of the banking system are private, or how certain parts of the elite got first row access to massive Fed loans while the masses had nothing. In the end, elite captured crypto currencies will just be the people with guns deciding to use a different mechanism to distribute the goods the guns are protecting, instead of being the innovation the pro-crypto people have been dreaming about that deprecates the need for people with guns.
Sure, but there's also a single-dotted-line from the crypto libertarian "brogrammer" class to the republican party elite.
I have the sense that a democratic legislature (Warren, et al.) are a lot more hostile to scams perpetrated against the naïve. It is why, eg., sports betting failed to pass in California.
One thing which often goes missing, somehow, in the discussion of Trump is he's a scam artist and perpetrator of old-fashioned pyramids. Not in some political muckraking kinda way, but in a has-gone-to-court-and-been-found-out kinda way.
My point being that SBT's donations should not be equivocated with endemic scam-artistry in certain segements of the elite -- which is a far more serious matter .
I have the sense that a democratic legislature (Warren, et al.) are a lot more hostile to scams perpetrated against the naïve. It is why, eg., sports betting failed to pass in California.
One thing which often goes missing, somehow, in the discussion of Trump is he's a scam artist and perpetrator of old-fashioned pyramids. Not in some political muckraking kinda way, but in a has-gone-to-court-and-been-found-out kinda way.
My point being that SBT's donations should not be equivocated with endemic scam-artistry in certain segements of the elite -- which is a far more serious matter .
You do have a point. SBF might be an interesting case because he tried to get protection from democrats even though republicans might have been more receptive to him.
TBH - I consider that people in crypto opted out of the normal system of rules, and expecting the taxpayer to spend zillions of dollars investigating offshore entities conducting obvious ponzis is a waste of money. Crypto == lawless, and demanding help from the fiat system after the fact is embarassing.
This would be better if we formalized this with Matt Levine's Certificate of Dumb Investment.
As he said:
> I am open to compromise on the details. The point is that the right general approach to the problem of people buying dumb investments is to give them much, much, much clearer and starker and scarier warnings before they invest, and then much, much, much less sympathy if they do it anyway.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/09/ge...
As he said:
> I am open to compromise on the details. The point is that the right general approach to the problem of people buying dumb investments is to give them much, much, much clearer and starker and scarier warnings before they invest, and then much, much, much less sympathy if they do it anyway.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/09/ge...
What if RealPage is not an American company? What will DOJ do? Tell them not to serve American customers? Tell American customers not to use it?
Is it just me or are there a lot more stories about the DOJ and FTC cracking down on abuse by actual big players lately?
Just you.
The stories, like this one, are about the the DOJ launching an investigation.
Wake me when they win the trial and survive appeal, or even get meaningful concessions in a consent decree.
The stories, like this one, are about the the DOJ launching an investigation.
Wake me when they win the trial and survive appeal, or even get meaningful concessions in a consent decree.
[deleted]
Why is this even needed? It is easy to look at the market and also to just look at CPI numbers and boost your rent.
This is a literal conspiracy theory, but since it plays to the right set of biases I guess it's cool on HN.
Any further explanation how it’s conspiracy theory?
Those of us that rent, or have rented, have direct experience with rent hikes far exceeding cost-of-living increases and/or inflation. I am in a much better situation now, but previously rented a location that went from 740/mo to 1100/mo over the course of two years. This was pre-pandemic in 2012 - 2014 and coincided with similar rent increases across the city.
Those of us that rent, or have rented, have direct experience with rent hikes far exceeding cost-of-living increases and/or inflation. I am in a much better situation now, but previously rented a location that went from 740/mo to 1100/mo over the course of two years. This was pre-pandemic in 2012 - 2014 and coincided with similar rent increases across the city.
It is a theory alleging a conspiracy. What part of that needs further explanation?
This fits the strict definition of "conspiracy theory" -- a theory that a group of people are working together in secret (or "conspiring") to achieve a specific goal.
You're attempting to apply a connotation -- that the theory is unfounded -- that is usually associated with the term, but not definitive. This is particularly troubling in the face of the evidence presented.
You're attempting to apply a connotation -- that the theory is unfounded -- that is usually associated with the term, but not definitive. This is particularly troubling in the face of the evidence presented.
I believe that, in modern English parlance, the idea that the theory is unfounded is the primary meaning. I doubt the strict definition was ever considered here.
I'm sure a decent chunk of HN's population has lived or lives in properties that are or were using RealPage.
Rant/Anecdote ahead:
We have recently decided to rent from a house from a private landlord after equity (a RealPage customer), "offered" us a 15% rent hike which they considered "reasonable" after massively cutting staff, service, security & amenities during covid. Practically every other building in the area (downtown Redmond, WA) has increased prices in unison so there is basically 0 competition.
These companies have turned areas they operate into upscale meat grinders that lure you with a "welcome" price only to systematically hike up your rent way beyond inflation. To slowly push you out if your salary doesn't grow faster to equal to their hikes.
Many of our friends have similar experiences.
Imo corporate landlords need to be heavily regulated and need to be broken up.