We replaced rental brokers with software and filled 200 vacant apartments

Post by admax88q » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #200

admax88q wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Unrelated as I'm not saying anything is perfect or aspiring to that - I'm just showing the pattern of how the business operates.

Post by 988747 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #288

988747 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of those things happen regardless of who formally pays the fee: one side of the transaction has a desirable good (apartment) the other side only has money to bargain with, so it's obvious from who's pocket the fee will come from. Many times the buyer would openly raise that argument in negotiations: "You know, I have all those fees to pay, can you lower the rent a bit?". It's not like sellers are completely obli…

> so it's obvious from who's pocket the fee will come from. Yes. The problem is that the one whose pocket the money comes from is not the one who selects the broker . Thus the person with the financial incentive to make that choice wisely is not the one making the choice. This is why it's a principle-agent problem.

Post by idiot900 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

subpixel wrote: post #365

bko wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On average, in certain locations. In others, not so much. And let's not forget surge pricing. Or people living, or wanting to get to a place, along low-profit routes. Or people with disabilities. You can always take a regular cab. Low profit routes were pretty much impossible to get pre-Uber. I am almost certain that Uber is more likely to obey disability laws than "Joe's taxi" with a few cars. > Depends. Regular t…

> Low profit routes were pretty much impossible to get pre-Uber. In cities, that's absurd - car services existed for decades serving just this part of the market, and they let you schedule in advance! In the suburbs and exurbs, probably less so, but this is where everyone has a car as a prerequisite for living in a house with a multi-car garage.

Post by yunohn » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #384

yunohn wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most business only absorb the minimum amount of margin loss they can, and for very short terms. No business aims to operate at a loss unless propped up by outside investments. All businesses will increase prices to maintain the profits they need, up until what the market will bear - which is why taxes will also not end up pushing it too far, the gov isn’t stupid.

Again, it depends on elasticities. Businesses can't just raise prices and expect demand to remain at old levels. People quickly substitute goods and services in the face of price changes. In the case of mcdonalds price increases cause people to cook or eat food that doesn't need to be prepared. In the case of rent, supply is fixed, so landlords are already charging monopoly prices. There is very close to zero wiggle…

Post by colinmhayes » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

yunohn wrote: post #407

colinmhayes wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it depends on elasticities. Businesses can't just raise prices and expect demand to remain at old levels. People quickly substitute goods and services in the face of price changes. In the case of mcdonalds price increases cause people to cook or eat food that doesn't need to be prepared. In the case of rent, supply is fixed, so landlords are already charging monopoly prices. There is very close to zero wiggle…

> There is very close to zero wiggle room for landlords to raise prices. This is disproved very easily by reality - most places have increasing rent YoY. Same goes for house prices. Because of low supply and large demand, like you say, landlords can charge monopoly prices. Not sure why you claim they don’t go up?