That's the behaviour of the completely rational homo economicus which does not exist in real life. A certain amount of landlords of walk-in business space in Manhattan have a fixed price in their mind and will not go below, no matter what.
This is why there are no examples of any towns where rent is less than it was decade ago regardless of population decline. It is why there are rising numbers of working homeless in towns with rising vacancies.
It is the chief mechanism driving ever increasing rental profits which is probably why merely mentioning the existence of the service, its ubiquitous use and success draws such silent ire. Silent because of course anyone can just google for the service. It also does not match the standard narrative which no doubt annoys people in inarticulable ways.
Likelihood is a real measurable quantity with a real number attached. You can obtain it by counting the defection rate: the number who lower their rent. This number is observably zero.
Regardless, do you have a source on the claim that housing prices never go down, even with a declining population? I'd be curious to see if they adjusted for inflation or not.
But indeed, "Never" is to strong a term. "Typically in the US" would be more correct.
in 2000, the average US rent was $600 and the vacancy rate was 7.8%
in 2018, the average US rent was $1400 and the vacancy rate was 7.5%
I can not list every city in the country that has lost population but I can start with two: As I mention elsewhere, Flint Michigan has lost some 20% of it's population since 2000 and rent has still risen. And searching California for cities with declining population (there are not many) the first I found, Citrus Heights CA, has had a net drop in population in the last 20yers yet rent has increased four fold.
At any rate, the down votes make it clear this information is not welcome here.