Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 646 posts

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#241

Post by medvezhenok »

Manuel_D wrote: post #135
0x457 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, rent control and affordable housing mandates that require a certain % of units to be rented at below market rates. The issue that we have here - market rates controlled by RealPage. Since everyone uses RealPage, in terms of price for renters it's essentially the same as if every building was owned by the same company. I'm appalled how long it took for this lawsuit to be filed. We knew about this price…

Apparently, RealPage only serves 10% of the rental market in San Francisco: https://jacobin.com/2024/08/realpage-software-housing-landlo... > The company has reported that it provides these services to 10 percent of the rental market in San Francisco. RealPage doesn't have nearly enough market share to engage in price-fixing. If it tried, its units would stay vacant as other renters flock to the 90% of units that are…

Sure, but what matters is what percentage of the apartments with vacancies RealPage controls. Many apartments don't turn over year-to-year, so that 10 percent might or might not be misleading.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#242

Post by medvezhenok »

SmartJerry wrote: post #218
toomuchtodo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profits are fine, excessive profits at the cost of people who need housing are not. There is no silver bullet, but increasing supply along with strong regulation to protect renters is welcome vs them being cattle to be squeezed by for profit entities. Human rights are a thing, there is no right to profit. > The six largest publicly traded apartment companies in the U.S. — all of which are linked to an alleged rental…

Excessive profits are actually the catalyst for competition. THe cycle of capitalism and free markets looks like this: earn excess profits -> people build more supply -> prices come down and excess profits dry up -> people stop building -> earn excess profits. When you fix the 'prices come down and excess profits dry up' all you get is people stop building.

That works in a well functioning, liquid market. If there are barriers to entry for new competitors (like regulatory hurdles, or zoning), this free-market theory falls flat on its face.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#243

Post by Manuel_D »

medvezhenok wrote: post #240
Manuel_D wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so I was right: "protect renters" was indeed referring to price controls. Price controls coupled with what sounds like blatantly nativist policy: > Dynamic price control of rents to prevent them from accelerating beyond what wages can support (existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants... Can you elaborate on what you mean by "existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants"? Does this mean tha…

I think GP is pretty clearly implying more akin to Prop 13 but for renters (i.e. Prop 13 locks in increase in property taxes to 2% a year), this policy would do something similar for rent. It benefits existing renters because new entrants (new renters) would have to pay market price, but existing renters might be behind market rent if market rents are increasing too quickly. Same way that Prop 13 works. Dynamic in th…

> I think GP is pretty clearly implying more akin to Prop 13 but for renters (i.e. Prop 13 locks in increase in property taxes to 2% a year), this policy would do something similar for rent.

It's called rent control. That's literally describing the existing rent control policies in SF: rent is fixes save for an extremely minor increase around 2%. Allowing a fixed price increase is still a form of price controls.

I really want the previous comment to elaborate on this:

> existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#244

Post by bluGill »

gen220 wrote: post #221
bluGill wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a competitive market. However supply is often supply constrained (both by bad zoning and that some places are just better than others). The cartels only work because supply is constrained enough that they have power, if supply was less constrained the cartel could not raise prices as much (when supply is constrained you need less members in the first place). I support looser zoning rules as reducing supply cons…

If we loosen zoning, and a half-dozen skyrises go up that are owned by a ~cartel~ group of friendly property developers, with X% of housing required to go to low-to-middle income households with a govt-required vacancy rate on that segment, do you think that would make rental prices go down? Because we've run this experiment in Downtown Brooklyn for the last ten years, and rent has only gone very significantly up. I…

A half dozen isn't much. The real question is how would it be different. I contend it would have been worse but we cannot know.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#245

Post by [deleted] »

Manuel_D wrote: post #232
asadotzler wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of businesses make less than stock market index returns. You can be a builder that doesn't want to beat the S&P and still support your family doing it. Not everything has to be about massive accumulation of wealth or "growth at all costs". Plenty of people are OK doing a day's work for a day's creature comforts and leaving it at that.

Sure you can deliberately invest in a way that doesn't generate the best returns. You can be a philanthropist and build housing for free! But the vast majority of people are indeed looking to maximize returns.

[deleted]

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#246

Post by EasyMark »

This is definitely one of those companies I would love to see be completely taken down. We need to revise monopoly and cartel laws because I suspect the current Supreme Court will not see eye-to-eye with the DOJ on this as they are strict textualists now. If the law doesn’t say “cartel by intention of digital equivalency” or something else descriptive I don’t think SCOTUS will bite any longer or apply common sense interpretation as any good judge should.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#247

Post by coding123 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #196
andrew_eu wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy also works in the opposite direction. If a gas station is selling at $4.10 a gallon and another down the street is selling at $4.15, the first gas station could happily up their price to $4.14. 1% more revenue and they're still the cheapest on the block.

And if there is a third also selling at $4.10? Unless they privately coordinate and collude, its hard for this to work for artificial price increases.

I think one thing that's weird to me is that Shell and Exxon or 76 or whatever all somehow got their gas to be somewhere in the same ballpark. You'd expect to see that some gas companies can't get their shit together and can't figure out how to extract, purify, and distribute gas at anything less than $500 per gallon. Now, naturally you'd expect those companies to just go out of business. And you'd also expect to see at least one that figures out how to do all of that for $1 per gallon. Yet, here they all are, selling it around the same price. It's too strange in my opinion. There is collusion happening in many markets. I suspect they are all producing it for way less which is why one of them doesn't suddenly go out of business, but the fact that they're not selling it so low that the competitors simply go out of business - again a collusion signal.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#248

Post by switch007 »

chgs wrote: post #228
switch007 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I note you don't link to your sources. You need better sources and/or better research skills. 100 per year is way off. Have you confused 100 with 100,000? I think even that is low Yes the Conservatives stopped building council homes, mostly through neoliberal ideology that the government shouldn't provide housing. The private market houses are far worse quality

The number of new council house starts dropped in the 70s, before thatcher. The trend continued into the 80s but blaming thatcher and neoliberalism is simplistic at best. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/... Table 2A, housing starts by FY. 1970 185k. 110k in 1978/79 before thatcher’s landslide. By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k. The starts are what’s important as…

From your source, this is the number dwellings "Completed - Local Authorities" from 1979 to 1997:

89,630 (1979)

88,540

68,330

40,080

39,170

37,580

30,410

25,380

21,820

21,450

19,350

17,870

11,230

5,700

3,360

2,880

3,440

1,740

1,550 (1997)

You're going to claim the Conservatives of that era didn't stop building council houses?

Compare with the 18 year period before Thatcher:

119,350 (1961)

132,070

126,240

156,830

167,300

179,170

202,860

190,670

182,380

179,280

157,380

122,360

104,570

124,140

152,470

153,750

145,070

113,660 (1978)

> By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k.

I don't recognise this 58k. What is the exact cell of that number?

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#249

Post by chgs »

switch007 wrote: post #248
chgs wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of new council house starts dropped in the 70s, before thatcher. The trend continued into the 80s but blaming thatcher and neoliberalism is simplistic at best. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/... Table 2A, housing starts by FY. 1970 185k. 110k in 1978/79 before thatcher’s landslide. By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k. The starts are what’s important as…

From your source, this is the number dwellings "Completed - Local Authorities" from 1979 to 1997: 89,630 (1979) 88,540 68,330 40,080 39,170 37,580 30,410 25,380 21,820 21,450 19,350 17,870 11,230 5,700 3,360 2,880 3,440 1,740 1,550 (1997) You're going to claim the Conservatives of that era didn't stop building council houses? Compare with the 18 year period before Thatcher: 119,350 (1961) 132,070 126,240 156,830 167,…

Starts are important, not completions, when looking at policy impact. I added local authority and housing associations together as they are basically the same concept.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#250

Post by switch007 »

chgs wrote: post #249
switch007 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your source, this is the number dwellings "Completed - Local Authorities" from 1979 to 1997: 89,630 (1979) 88,540 68,330 40,080 39,170 37,580 30,410 25,380 21,820 21,450 19,350 17,870 11,230 5,700 3,360 2,880 3,440 1,740 1,550 (1997) You're going to claim the Conservatives of that era didn't stop building council houses? Compare with the 18 year period before Thatcher: 119,350 (1961) 132,070 126,240 156,830 167,…

Starts are important, not completions, when looking at policy impact. I added local authority and housing associations together as they are basically the same concept.

Oh you moved the goalposts. Got it.

Council houses and housing associations are completely different. Have you ever lived in either? I have

Post reply on HN