Is there an actual issue? I've seen compelling arguments that places that banned the practice of algorithmic rent setting did not see any appreciable drop in rents. I'm almost convinced the problem is entirely supply side.
Naively, if I knew everyone’s salaries were about to double, I’d hope to be holding a fair amount of real estate going into that doubling.
But mainly it is that you would need to remove or decrease benefits for those who do not work in order to have room for higher salaries. That is not a problem for the unemployed because higher salaries means that the only people without work are those who do not want to work. But it is a big problem for those who do not want to work and for example would like to live off their real estate.
The gut reaction to higher salaries is that people would have more money to purchase real estate or pay rent, but I think the downwards effects for real estate are much stronger. And the evidence is that in every country which has seen a period of high salaries for workers, real estate has been cheap during that period for workers to buy.
Real question. Do we have evidence of this from anything except developing economies pulling countries out of poverty? Like a first world country sort of thing. Because to me it seems like higher salaries comes first, and the property would lag for a bit while the market reaches its new level. Does that make sense?
High salaries and cheap housing was the reality in I think every first world country when they developed after WWII.
But since the wealth gap keeps widening, fewer and fewer workers can afford this, as they get priced out of locations that offer good employment. At the same time the rich keep investing their money into higher-margin industries. Consider that for landlords owning enough housing, building more can have a negative RoI, and they all know that they all know this!
If you don't believe me, think about just how quickly the datacenter boom became reality. All that money was waiting around, and evidently could have been turned into a lot of building activity in a short amount of time.
The only answer is to build more housing and have a high property tax in unoccupied housing.
You could build as much more housing as you want, but if those houses only become accessible to purchase for those who already own real estate instead of for those who work, then nothing will change.
I don’t think this is really true. It’s naively true if you just look at the number of homeless people vs the number of empty units, but misses:
1. That markets need some portion of empty units for fluidity.
2. That many people aren’t homeless, but living in situations where they would take more housing if it was available. (Living with roommates, ex-partners, family, etc.)
3. Many places simply don’t have enough housing for everyone who wants to live there. If they did, people would move from other places.
Of course, that also shows the problem: it haircuts pensions as well, since they are a large part of the rent seeking class.
If inflation is too low or doesn’t exist, then there’s less incentive to do anything with your money. If I have bunch a money that I don’t need to spend immediately, and I just want to keep it secure, why would I not keep it in a safe or non-investment account if it’s not losing value over time? What’s my incentive to risk it by lending it out to someone else?
Sure, I could say that my incentive is the interest rate, but my alternative is zero risk. Inflation turns “zero risk” into being more like a certainty of slow value loss, so that holders of capital are incentivized to do something at least minimally risky with that money (e.g., lend it to the government in the form of treasury bonds or deposit it into an insured bank account).
Debt has something of a bad reputation and obviously it can be overused and abused, but it’s also something that helps the efficiency of economies. It maximizes the amount of money actively participating in the economy rather than sitting.
The risk of missed purchases isn't zero and the risk of missing investment profits isn't zero either. From motivational point of view, inflation and deflation aren't different, they're the same thing in a mirror image.
Deflation is rare as hen's teeth, harmless and extremely easy to fix. Inflation, on the other hand, is the most corrupt economic phenomenon by far, it's hard to fix and it has ruined numerous economies, caused wars, destruction and famines.
> Debt has something of a bad reputation and obviously it can be overused and abused, but it’s also something that helps the efficiency of economies.
This is a strawman, nobody said debt as such was bad. However, since you started, let me correct you - as it is, debt not only "can be overused and abused" - it is routinely abused and overused and inflation is a huge part of it.
Could you explain? If you work. You're not renting. You're not on a pension. You're not ... then what is bad about inflation?
Work or no work doesn't matter, inflation steals everyone's savings, wages grow slower than inflation - so they get stolen too, it causes a run on assets, feeds on itself and feeds corruption-driven bubbles, the funds extracted via inflation lead to monopolization and oligarchy-zation, inflation can be used to install Hitlers and manipulate elections, the list goes on.
> You're not renting. You're not on a pension. You're not...
Right, if you're not living, inflation doesn't matter, in all other cases it does. I don't know what you are talking about here or rather, I know that you don't know what you're talking about.
It's crystal clear that you have no idea what the role of banks in the economy is and what it's supposed to be. Without that understanding you're going to keep presenting pompously mysterious arguments which are nonsensical even by the low-bar measure of mainstream economics. I cannot type a whole econ 101 course here, you're supposed to figure out on your own why we have banks, how they work and what they're supposed to achieve.
Luckily working people's savings are essentially nothing and you have a wage. Which means it won't affect poor working people. But yes it will destroy savings, which is why it hurts rich people and doesn't hurt poor people: the rich have savings you and I don't have. The rich have savings the state does not have.
Wages grow slower than inflation - that's the point, the government would shortcut this by overpaying, so that wages would grow at the pace or even faster than inflation.
> to keep presenting pompously mysterious arguments which are nonsensical even by the low-bar measure of mainstream economics ...
Still have my original (1970) economics textbook. This is what it says should be done. Explicitly raising inflation to 10% or so helps poor people by destroying their debt, and it hurts every kind of savings in the economy, which is why rich people don't want it. It equalizes everyone.
Besides I don't understand why you're even making this argument. Neither the US nor EU governments will balance the budget. Both are ~4 years off from the point where they will need to pay back more than they can lend, in other words, the point where NOT having something like 10% inflation will directly hurt their budget. And then they'll do what every big organization does when hit in the budget: do whatever to increase inflation. And if the government tried to cause inflation ... it's easy. Very, very easy.
In other words: you can't stop it. I can't stop it. One of 2 things will happen: either governments balance their budgets NOW or 10% inflation will happen. Since the idea of a balanced budget is laughable, that only leaves option 2.
Lucky them, due to inflation constantly eroding their incomes, they can't save. I repeat, wage growth trails inflation, see housing and everything else.
> Which means it won't affect poor working people.
Untrue, as I've explained twice already.
> But yes it will destroy savings, which is why it hurts rich people and doesn't hurt poor people: the rich have savings you and I don't have. The rich have savings the state does not have.
Untrue, rich people don't have savings, they have properties and investments, inflation is how they acquire more of them, the poor are forced to sell cheap to survive, the rich swallow it all.
> Explicitly raising inflation to 10% or so helps poor people by destroying their debt,
More falsehoods from you - poor people, poor on collateral, borrow small amounts all the time, think payday loans at rates rising with inflation and several times higher than the rates for the rich - inflation does help the rich who borrow large sums at long intervals but it doesn't help the poor at all, for them, it's more inflation -> more wage erosion -> more (and more expensive) debt. You can't outrun your shadow, do you understand?
> and it hurts every kind of savings in the economy
It doesn't hurt the assets of the rich because they appreciate faster than inflation, especially if you include their siphoning of more assets due to the financially depressed poor.
> which is why rich people don't want it. It equalizes everyone.
The falsehoods are getting out of hand. The rich have vastly more debt than the poor, they borrow against their appreciating assets at vastly better interest rates and longer terms, so the more inflation - the less they repay, they love inflation more than anything, it makes them richer. If you're incapable of understanding my words, hear an authority with experience - by Trump's words: "Inflation made me very rich"
> Still have my original (1970) economics textbook.
Shoddy econ books are a dime a dozen. Give me the author and title, I love to make fun of sloppy econ books, there are so many of them, so much fun.
> Besides I don't understand why you're even making this argument... You can't stop it
Finally a sensible argument, kinda, as much as inevitability can be an argument. However, I'm not trying to stop inflation, I'm analyzing its systemic origins with an eye on systemic fixes. If it can't be stopped this time around, we should not allow it to happen again. Besides, I want to explore all options.
And by best friends I don't mean "run in the same circles" but "go on vacation together with their kids", "are in each other's wedding parties", "are godparents to each other's children".
And then they have the audacity to act surprised when the public is pissed that, despite traffic studies showing that there's no road capacity and no room for adding lanes to arterials, despite environmental impact studies about the shoreline showing negative effects, that the commissions sign off on their buddies and their developments without even a hint of hesitation.
There’s basically no political will anywhere to make it easier to build.
Yes. That’s a problem.
Landlords have an inherent trade off between holding out for a tenant who would pay a higher rent and not having the unit vacant in the meantime. Holding out for longer than that helps the other landlords at your expense. Meanwhile there are a large number of landlords, there is no way for the ones using a given system to force the others to do the same, and a significant percentage of them don't.
So if the system tells the landlords using it to do the thing that would increase rents if every landlord was using it, the "defectors" who don't use the system win out over anyone using it, which means using the system rather than defecting would cause you to lose money and everyone would have the incentive to defect.
Whereas if all the system is doing is suggesting the optimal point in the trade off between holding out for a higher paying tenant and renting the unit sooner, without assuming the other landlords are being required to use the same system, that's the same thing an individual landlord would do if they're not colluding.
The actual way landlords collude is through zoning boards, because then they have an enforcement mechanism, i.e. if someone is trying to defect by adding new units to alleviate the limited supply then the other landlords can sic the government on them, having passed the various laws against constructing those units there.
This is precisely what happened. Quoting from my comment at the time (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39579488) --
Subscribing to a pricing data service: legal.
Using data feed to guide pricing and set initial figures: legal.
Agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to let the pricing data feed set the price floor: collusion.
Leaving units unsold and refusing to lower the price despite insufficient demand: usually a bad business decision, possibly indicator of a market failure.
Leaving units unsold to maintain agreed-upon price floor despite insufficient demand: collusion, market manipulation. Congratulations, you are a cartel.
Almost always.
The trick is figuring out where the failure is coming from, and whether your society can find a lever to pull to fix it.
You're assuming they were the first kind of fools rather than the second kind.
> Leaving units unsold to maintain agreed-upon price floor despite insufficient demand: collusion, market manipulation. Congratulations, you are a cartel.
Which is the thing that doesn't work when many other landlords aren't in on it, because then they get to fill their vacancies while you're stuck with the empty units.
Notice also that antitrust prohibits attempts to monopolize. Fools are quite capable of doing something which is still a violation of antitrust laws despite being ineffective and unprofitable.
In general the homeowners are more numerous but the landlords are somewhat more organized.
The homeowners are also being taken for a ride, because less restrictive zoning reduces the value of units (since you can increase the supply of them) while increasing the value of each piece of land (since you can now build more units on it). And the homeowners (and small landlords) are typically the ones with a high ratio of land to units, but they get hornswoggled into demanding the thing that really benefits the corporate landlords who own the existing high density buildings.
If the only market forces are landlords keeping half of their units empty so they can keep $1400 units priced at $2400 because that’s what the software (and indeed service) are pushing them to do, that’s price fixing.
There’s extra steps, it’s a new form, but the price is fixed, and the point of allowing housing to be built isn’t being fulfilled.
Not everything is "Economics 101."
No, the IRS doesn't allow tax deductions for the "missing $2400 rents" of unrented units. IRS only allows deducting ongoing expenses such as "maintenance, insurance, taxes, and interest," :
Voting at a polling place might, but I’m just the messenger, just telling you what’s out there.
I’m speculating the price would be closer to $1,400 per unit.
The price across this hypothetical town is $2,400 per unit (let’s say it’s a 2 bed 2 bath apartment), “suggested”/set by RealPage software.
Because that’s how using their product worked.
Half of them sit empty because their business model doesn’t care (tax deductions on other income, while still increasing total assets in their portfolio).
There is…a good amount of evidence of landlords doing this, and how:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-r...
and
these landlords coordinated through a variety of means, including:
Directly communicating with competitors’ senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics. In one example, Greystar supplied Camden with information not only about very recent renewal rates, but also its approach to pricing for the upcoming quarter, its acceptance of RealPage’s pricing recommendations, use of concessions and competitively sensitive information about occupancy. Likewise, executives at Camden and LivCor communicated over the course of months about their pricing strategies, including plans for certain price increases. Regularly conducting “call arounds.” During these discussions, euphemistically referred to as “market surveys,” property managers called or emailed competitors to share, and sometimes discuss, competitively sensitive information about rents, occupancy, pricing strategies and discounts. Participating in “user groups” hosted by RealPage. For instance, landlords discussed via user groups how to modify the software’s pricing methodology, as well as their own pricing strategies. In one example, LivCor and Willow Bridge executives participated in a user group discussion of plans for renewal increases, concessions and acceptance rates of RealPage rent recommendations. Sharing information with competitors about parameters in RealPage’s software. As an example, at the request of Willow Bridge’s director of revenue management, Greystar’s director of revenue management supplied its standard auto-accept parameters for RealPage’s software, including the daily and weekly limits and the days of the week for which Greystar used “auto-accept.”
What kind of insanity is this? Your entire argument is based on landlords not caring about occupancy, when that is actually the number one thing they care about. You obviously have no idea how any of this works and your linked source does not say a damn thing about landlords intentionally leaving units vacant.
The evidence for that, if you want it, is as easy as opening the 5 newest developments in any major metro, and see how many units are available, despite masses of families constantly looking. It’s kind of appalling.
PS it’s not me you’re debating, it’s the DOJ.