In every other case, in every other industry, we call people who buy a limited resource, transform it in no way, and sell it at a profit a "scalper".
For a long time I thought, "maybe landlords are offering some service and not just squeezing people...." But over the past decade it's become clearer and clearer how predatory and parasitic the industry is. Things like this. Things like landlords all using the same pricing algorithms so they can raise rents in unison.
I don't order delivery food, but I recently learned my Amazon Prime membership includes GrubHub Premium membership, and fees were waived, so I said why not give it a try.
The no-fee price for the order was $70. Going directly to the restaurant website would have been $38. Item prices were higher, there was a non-fee driver fee, and there was a non-fee order fee. I shudder to think how many more fees there would have been if I were a non-non-fee member.
The only advantage I can see from DoorDash, GrubHub, Postmates et al. is that they provide a directory of places willing to deliver to me. For that, every restaurant suffers from 80% higher delivery prices, or faces the challenge of advertising itself against all the delivery platform giants. I fail to see how anyone but the platforms have benefited from this new normal.
There has to be another name for this than mere rent-seeking or scalping. Extortion?
Consider a second-price auction: everyone submits bids, the highest bidder gets the resource, and pays the price submitted by the second-highest bidder. This is incentive-compatible: everyone is incentivized to submit the maximum amount they're willing to pay, no more no less. Does it matter if the resource is being sold by its original owner or a scalper? No. Who gets the resource and how much they pay depends only on which people wanted the resource and how much. The only loser from the scalper's existence is the original owner, because they sold to the scalper too cheaply.
If there are villains in this situation, they aren't those who extract market price: a scarce resource was always going to be sold at market price. If the price is set lower, people will line up in queues and so on, to "burn" an amount of patience and time equal to the price difference in their eyes. Except in a queue all participants end up spending this "burn", so it's strictly more wasteful for society than a market where only the winner pays.
No, the real villains are those who engineer the market so the resource is scarce to begin with. In case of housing: not landlords, but people who vote for laws restricting housing construction. In other words, most homeowners. That's the unpleasant conclusion that people are trying to ignore when they blame landlords, price fixing and so on.
That’s fine as a “second order” rebuttal, but you’re leaving out _third_ order effects which are where all the action is in terms of the unique horribleness of real estate rental.
The world is full of goods that share many of the nasty features that the real estate rental market has. For example, it’s not hard to find goods where:
- The value partially derives from the limited supply
- The limited supply is artificially limited by forces that the market cannot correct for (either because law prevents entrance of new competitors, or because would-be competitors are colluding to form a cartel that is deliberately restricting it)
For instance, taxi medallions and diamonds meet these criteria.
What makes rental housing special is other qualities:
- The vast majority of a rental property’s value derives from its proximity to publicly funded resources which the seller did not create themselves. If your tax dollars pay for a new park, the value of that park is vacuumed up by the landlords near the park. (This is what it IS to be an economic rent… thus the name.)
- Demand at the low end is extremely inelastic. People have to live somewhere if their life is entangled with that city. Compare with diamonds or taxi medallions, which you can opt out of.
- In theory, most landlord-tenant relationships operate on a year-long cadence because it mixes flexibility with predictability. The renter doesn’t have to commit their life to staying in a particular city for multiple years just to please some landlord, and the landlord gets to re-auction the rental rights by re-setting the price once a year, keeping up with the going market rate. However, in practice, most renters end up wanting to stay more than one year, and are not mentally or logistically preparing to move. Thus, a substantial price increase is disruptive. You might be tempted to say that the real problem is that the renter went in blind without guarantees about what they were really getting signed up for, and thus a fix could be to secure much longer leases which schedule the rent increases up front. However, as the lease duration goes up, the chances go up that the renter experiences changes in life circumstance that make it impossible or intolerable to continue renting. Barring the creation of a society of debt prisoners, the landlord will inevitably end up enduring lease breaks. Because the switching cost is uniquely high, this creates a fundamental dilemma: people don’t want to move until they do, yet they need to be prepared to move frequently - unless they secure longer leases, which they can’t realistically promise to honor.
So yes, you have cartel behavior and supply distorted by out-of-band zoning restrictions that the market can’t correct, but those are par for the course. The real anger comes from the fact that a place to live isn’t really a “good” in the first place - everybody needs one, and while a roof over your head and good plumbing is worth _something_, the rent you’re paying is driven primarily by a segment of our society _preventing_ you from being able to live close to the public center unless you pay their troll toll. This is where the perceived injustice comes from. When you layer in the Gordian knot of lease duration, rent increase, and the high switching costs, that’s when people really start to hate you.
Buying something that is being sold for less than it is worth and then immediately reselling it for what it is worth is what I would call "arbitrage". So someone doing that would be an arbitrageur.
In your opinion, what is the difference between arbitrage and scalping?
Even grocery stores fit your definition of scalpers.
But this is even more different because they don't even sell the housing to you, they rent it to you. The service they offer is that you don't have to have capital to buy a house and you don't have to maintain it and if you move, you don't have to sell it and pay sales taxes.
Additionally, landlords don't benefit from the higher prices (ie. market rate rent) either, since that also pushes house prices up. A landlord entering the market has a higher capital cost that absorbs the higher rental return, such that typically rental yield remains about the same (at slightly higher that the cost of capital that covers their increased risk compared to a more stable investment).
Those who benefit are those who own housing at the time of market rate increases. That's just regular investment return and the risk/reward can be directly compared to any other form of investment. Current owner occupiers and current landlords benefit at the time of every increase (even if their capital gains are not immediately realised). And then every household, whether they are owner occupiers or tenants, have to pay in the form of higher capital expense. Landlords simply pass the higher rent through to pay for their higher capital expenses.
Besides what you said, it is also in landlords' interest to maintain (but admittedly with as little cost/involvement as possible) the perception that the real estate goods they're renting are (quality wise) reasonable options for their prospective clients. That means that they (may go to lengths to) fend off troublesome tenants and thus contribute to the overall quality of life for the community in the neighborhood.
Single family used to act as a check on greed. Careless institutional investment was limited to multi family. They couldn’t push multi family rents beyond single family. Once institutional got into single family, everything became uncapped. It’s harder for millions of small landlords competing for tenants to act as a cartel than it is for a few large landlords taking up marginal supply.
A 100% rate LVT would not solve, but would certainly massively improve, this situation. The free market is ill-suited for many things and has tremendous problems, but even in its theoretical ideal it simply does not work if a limited commons such as land is not properly accounted for, and instead intermediaries and speculators can extract "rent" (in the economic sense, as rentiers) without providing a service.
Actually we call them arbitrageurs and see them as helping to minimise price distortions across markets. It's only in a small number of consumer facing contexts where retailers deliberately sell goods below the price set by supply and demand that some call them scalpers.
Also landlords, even the psychotically greedy ones doing things like this article describes, are neither arbitraging nor scalping. That'd be house flippers.
The problem with the "arbitrage" argument is the scale of the arbitrage is a market maker.
When theyre constantly rent seeking you no longer have prices set by demand, rather supply set by a sustainable rate.
Thats why lawsuits against algorithmic rent setting are occiring. Part of the supply of units is being withheld by the algorithm to inflate prices and get higher ROI.
IN your pov, this is arbitrage. Real arbitrage requires an external factor no one controls.
ymmv I guess, I could "afford" much more rent than I pay (I suspect many staff+ big tech employees are in similar situations, especially if you're in a relationship with another SWE...) and when we first rented the apartment we had to submit W2s that showed we could probably buy the building if I wanted to, but rent is still going to be determined by the market
I really hate working in software sometimes. The evil that computing is enabling now is getting harder and harder to ignore and I just feel ashamed sometimes to be in the field.
My advice? Stop assuming things are good. Lose the sense of shock at evil existing. Assume it's all evil and there is no aspect of it that is not corrupted in some fashion by depravity. Nothing is new. Nothing is pure.
We should not despair that the world is still evil. It should not surprise us -- any honest reading of history should tell us this. Evil does not shock or surprise me. Instead, I'm surprised and delighted that -- despite its depravity -- any good exists in the world at all.
The world is continually evil all the time, yet I take hope and work to cultivate its redemption. Assume it's all evil, yet seek for pockets of good. Control the controllables and don't lose your head over the rest.
I don't think we can prevent evil from occurring. If all good people walked away from technology today, corporate asshats and totalitarian governments would still continue forward. We can't stop that.
If we want to have any hope of a good ending, we need upright, moral men and women at the forefront of technology working to do good in spite of bad actors existing.
I place a lot of hope in the open-source movement -- it feels like one of the only ways for good to survive and continue to grow.
If you want more encouragement along these lines, the classic article "The world is awful. The world is better. The world can be much better." [0] may be helpful.
Like all technology it is developed to further the aims of the society that produces it.
The power of software is an enabler the underlying cause is far wider. Many other industries are contributing too. Telecoms, finance, transport, cars - everyone that generates the data, or enables the funding and creation of these businesses.
Someday ordinary Americans may want to consider getting something similar to GDPR in place? Companies in the US are abusing the public's data and privacy in so many ways.
These things always result in victim blaming "you shouldn't post your data", but even if you don't it's legal for anyone to collect and sell your data. You can't protect yourself without better consumer protection laws.
That’s nothing. You should see the desperation scores that L4 engineers and above only can see. To say nothing of the fact that Apple AI will replace your face with a leaf.
In every other case, in every other industry, we call people who buy a limited resource, transform it in no way, and sell it at a profit a "scalper".
For a long time I thought, "maybe landlords are offering some service and not just squeezing people...." But over the past decade it's become clearer and clearer how predatory and parasitic the industry is. Things like this. Things like landlords all using the same pricing algorithms so they can raise rents in unison.
I don't order delivery food, but I recently learned my Amazon Prime membership includes GrubHub Premium membership, and fees were waived, so I said why not give it a try.
The no-fee price for the order was $70. Going directly to the restaurant website would have been $38. Item prices were higher, there was a non-fee driver fee, and there was a non-fee order fee. I shudder to think how many more fees there would have been if I were a non-non-fee member.
The only advantage I can see from DoorDash, GrubHub, Postmates et al. is that they provide a directory of places willing to deliver to me. For that, every restaurant suffers from 80% higher delivery prices, or faces the challenge of advertising itself against all the delivery platform giants. I fail to see how anyone but the platforms have benefited from this new normal.
There has to be another name for this than mere rent-seeking or scalping. Extortion?
I use it to see what restaurants are open on holidays or late at night then I just go to the restaurant.
But scalpers don't take money from you.
Consider a second-price auction: everyone submits bids, the highest bidder gets the resource, and pays the price submitted by the second-highest bidder. This is incentive-compatible: everyone is incentivized to submit the maximum amount they're willing to pay, no more no less. Does it matter if the resource is being sold by its original owner or a scalper? No. Who gets the resource and how much they pay depends only on which people wanted the resource and how much. The only loser from the scalper's existence is the original owner, because they sold to the scalper too cheaply.
If there are villains in this situation, they aren't those who extract market price: a scarce resource was always going to be sold at market price. If the price is set lower, people will line up in queues and so on, to "burn" an amount of patience and time equal to the price difference in their eyes. Except in a queue all participants end up spending this "burn", so it's strictly more wasteful for society than a market where only the winner pays.
No, the real villains are those who engineer the market so the resource is scarce to begin with. In case of housing: not landlords, but people who vote for laws restricting housing construction. In other words, most homeowners. That's the unpleasant conclusion that people are trying to ignore when they blame landlords, price fixing and so on.
That’s fine as a “second order” rebuttal, but you’re leaving out _third_ order effects which are where all the action is in terms of the unique horribleness of real estate rental.
The world is full of goods that share many of the nasty features that the real estate rental market has. For example, it’s not hard to find goods where:
- The value partially derives from the limited supply
- The limited supply is artificially limited by forces that the market cannot correct for (either because law prevents entrance of new competitors, or because would-be competitors are colluding to form a cartel that is deliberately restricting it)
For instance, taxi medallions and diamonds meet these criteria.
What makes rental housing special is other qualities:
- The vast majority of a rental property’s value derives from its proximity to publicly funded resources which the seller did not create themselves. If your tax dollars pay for a new park, the value of that park is vacuumed up by the landlords near the park. (This is what it IS to be an economic rent… thus the name.)
- Demand at the low end is extremely inelastic. People have to live somewhere if their life is entangled with that city. Compare with diamonds or taxi medallions, which you can opt out of.
- In theory, most landlord-tenant relationships operate on a year-long cadence because it mixes flexibility with predictability. The renter doesn’t have to commit their life to staying in a particular city for multiple years just to please some landlord, and the landlord gets to re-auction the rental rights by re-setting the price once a year, keeping up with the going market rate. However, in practice, most renters end up wanting to stay more than one year, and are not mentally or logistically preparing to move. Thus, a substantial price increase is disruptive. You might be tempted to say that the real problem is that the renter went in blind without guarantees about what they were really getting signed up for, and thus a fix could be to secure much longer leases which schedule the rent increases up front. However, as the lease duration goes up, the chances go up that the renter experiences changes in life circumstance that make it impossible or intolerable to continue renting. Barring the creation of a society of debt prisoners, the landlord will inevitably end up enduring lease breaks. Because the switching cost is uniquely high, this creates a fundamental dilemma: people don’t want to move until they do, yet they need to be prepared to move frequently - unless they secure longer leases, which they can’t realistically promise to honor.
So yes, you have cartel behavior and supply distorted by out-of-band zoning restrictions that the market can’t correct, but those are par for the course. The real anger comes from the fact that a place to live isn’t really a “good” in the first place - everybody needs one, and while a roof over your head and good plumbing is worth _something_, the rent you’re paying is driven primarily by a segment of our society _preventing_ you from being able to live close to the public center unless you pay their troll toll. This is where the perceived injustice comes from. When you layer in the Gordian knot of lease duration, rent increase, and the high switching costs, that’s when people really start to hate you.
Buying something that is being sold for less than it is worth and then immediately reselling it for what it is worth is what I would call "arbitrage". So someone doing that would be an arbitrageur.
In your opinion, what is the difference between arbitrage and scalping?
Even grocery stores fit your definition of scalpers.
But this is even more different because they don't even sell the housing to you, they rent it to you. The service they offer is that you don't have to have capital to buy a house and you don't have to maintain it and if you move, you don't have to sell it and pay sales taxes.
Additionally, landlords don't benefit from the higher prices (ie. market rate rent) either, since that also pushes house prices up. A landlord entering the market has a higher capital cost that absorbs the higher rental return, such that typically rental yield remains about the same (at slightly higher that the cost of capital that covers their increased risk compared to a more stable investment).
Those who benefit are those who own housing at the time of market rate increases. That's just regular investment return and the risk/reward can be directly compared to any other form of investment. Current owner occupiers and current landlords benefit at the time of every increase (even if their capital gains are not immediately realised). And then every household, whether they are owner occupiers or tenants, have to pay in the form of higher capital expense. Landlords simply pass the higher rent through to pay for their higher capital expenses.
Besides what you said, it is also in landlords' interest to maintain (but admittedly with as little cost/involvement as possible) the perception that the real estate goods they're renting are (quality wise) reasonable options for their prospective clients. That means that they (may go to lengths to) fend off troublesome tenants and thus contribute to the overall quality of life for the community in the neighborhood.
> Additionally, landlords don't benefit from the higher prices (ie. market rate rent) either, since that also pushes house prices up.
You’re forgetting the large contingent of “landlords” sitting on and renting out 1-5 residential properties,
but doing absolutely nothing to them, and buying no new properties, for the remainder of their lifetime,
besides emergency repairs that the tenant demands.
Single family used to act as a check on greed. Careless institutional investment was limited to multi family. They couldn’t push multi family rents beyond single family. Once institutional got into single family, everything became uncapped. It’s harder for millions of small landlords competing for tenants to act as a cartel than it is for a few large landlords taking up marginal supply.
Its not hard now. Thats why lawsuits are happening: PDF Policy Memo: Rent-Setting Software Algorithms https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download/Agenda/7100/5075/Pol...
https://nevadacurrent.com/briefs/trump-doj-settles-apartment...
In economics its rent seeking.
The question is, whose gonna stop them
A 100% rate LVT would not solve, but would certainly massively improve, this situation. The free market is ill-suited for many things and has tremendous problems, but even in its theoretical ideal it simply does not work if a limited commons such as land is not properly accounted for, and instead intermediaries and speculators can extract "rent" (in the economic sense, as rentiers) without providing a service.
Actually we call them arbitrageurs and see them as helping to minimise price distortions across markets. It's only in a small number of consumer facing contexts where retailers deliberately sell goods below the price set by supply and demand that some call them scalpers.
Also landlords, even the psychotically greedy ones doing things like this article describes, are neither arbitraging nor scalping. That'd be house flippers.
The problem with the "arbitrage" argument is the scale of the arbitrage is a market maker.
When theyre constantly rent seeking you no longer have prices set by demand, rather supply set by a sustainable rate.
Thats why lawsuits against algorithmic rent setting are occiring. Part of the supply of units is being withheld by the algorithm to inflate prices and get higher ROI.
IN your pov, this is arbitrage. Real arbitrage requires an external factor no one controls.
ymmv I guess, I could "afford" much more rent than I pay (I suspect many staff+ big tech employees are in similar situations, especially if you're in a relationship with another SWE...) and when we first rented the apartment we had to submit W2s that showed we could probably buy the building if I wanted to, but rent is still going to be determined by the market
The name of the company that provides this service needs to be provided, would be interesting.
I really hate working in software sometimes. The evil that computing is enabling now is getting harder and harder to ignore and I just feel ashamed sometimes to be in the field.
My advice? Stop assuming things are good. Lose the sense of shock at evil existing. Assume it's all evil and there is no aspect of it that is not corrupted in some fashion by depravity. Nothing is new. Nothing is pure.
We should not despair that the world is still evil. It should not surprise us -- any honest reading of history should tell us this. Evil does not shock or surprise me. Instead, I'm surprised and delighted that -- despite its depravity -- any good exists in the world at all.
The world is continually evil all the time, yet I take hope and work to cultivate its redemption. Assume it's all evil, yet seek for pockets of good. Control the controllables and don't lose your head over the rest.
I don't think we can prevent evil from occurring. If all good people walked away from technology today, corporate asshats and totalitarian governments would still continue forward. We can't stop that.
If we want to have any hope of a good ending, we need upright, moral men and women at the forefront of technology working to do good in spite of bad actors existing.
I place a lot of hope in the open-source movement -- it feels like one of the only ways for good to survive and continue to grow.
If you want more encouragement along these lines, the classic article "The world is awful. The world is better. The world can be much better." [0] may be helpful.
* [0] https://ourworldindata.org/much-better-awful-can-be-better
Like all technology it is developed to further the aims of the society that produces it.
The power of software is an enabler the underlying cause is far wider. Many other industries are contributing too. Telecoms, finance, transport, cars - everyone that generates the data, or enables the funding and creation of these businesses.
Well no. It furthers the aims of the controllers of the technology, which is de facto tied to capital.
What is the service name providing this spying for landlords?
sounds like a privacy/GDPR issue to me. In EU, you would be able to extract apartment's buying cost just because they overstepped privacy laws...
nevertheless, housing (especially rental) is not cheap in EU. Mostly because there is limited supply.
Someday ordinary Americans may want to consider getting something similar to GDPR in place? Companies in the US are abusing the public's data and privacy in so many ways.
These things always result in victim blaming "you shouldn't post your data", but even if you don't it's legal for anyone to collect and sell your data. You can't protect yourself without better consumer protection laws.
The linked reddit post appears to be about Australia
[dead]
More reddit conspiracy theories
That’s nothing. You should see the desperation scores that L4 engineers and above only can see. To say nothing of the fact that Apple AI will replace your face with a leaf.