Right, this indirection seems to give them a "throat to choke" the next time this goes to court. Opt out: https://employees.theworknumber.com/employee-data-freeze
I wish I could opt out. Unfortunately, my company refuses to provide such information except through The Work Number. So, the next time I apply to rent a home, I'd be out of luck with income or employment verification.
What I call opt out they call a freeze, a la a credit freeze. Perhaps it's possible to unfreeze/thaw/opt-in when you need the service?
I think it should be illegal to be registered for this by employer without explicit consent from the employee, forcing employees to opt out.
Yes, living in one of the, if not the, most desirable cities on the planet comes with additional costs.
> Yes, living in one of the, if not the, most desirable cities on the planet comes with additional costs. Being housed is highly desirable and has sharply driven up the cost in places where people are housed.
I wish I could opt out. Unfortunately, my company refuses to provide such information except through The Work Number. So, the next time I apply to rent a home, I'd be out of luck with income or employment verification.
What I call opt out they call a freeze, a la a credit freeze. Perhaps it's possible to unfreeze/thaw/opt-in when you need the service? I think it should be illegal to be registered for this by employer without explicit consent from the employee, forcing employees to opt out.
D'oh. In my tiredness, I misread it as freezing them receiving data, but now I see it's like the other firms, where they continue to receive and store data but stop honoring requests to share it.
> If a company is able to price a product above their competitors and still succeed (e.g. by investing more in marketing), that's legal too. Yes, but it also runs counter to the idea that free markets tend to drive prices down through competition. In reality, 1 of 2 things happens: a) companies try to differentiate their products enough to not be direct competitors (e.g. exclusive content on streaming platforms, or p…
No, your time horizon is too short. Prices go up in the short term, which increases profits, which incentivizes competition, which brings prices down in the long term. A few years of increased prices is worth increased efficiency over decades. Prices are going in most industries, US markets are generally quite competitive.
I would also like to point out that the "long term" is just a collection of several "short terms", so if the short terms are only price increases (which they are), then the long term will also just be that.
This is moronic. Economic theory is a self-reinforcing veneer of soft science studying observed human behavior with wild variance between different cultures, geographic markets, and individual people. The "laws of supply and demand" are not empirical laws of physics. They are general principles with well-known exceptions and flaws of their own. You should lay off the microdosing.
to anyone even remotely studied in economics - this is astoundingly ignorant. And the hubris is incredibly cringey. Please provide a counter example to the soft science law of supply and demand?
This is moronic. Economic theory is a self-reinforcing veneer of soft science studying observed human behavior with wild variance between different cultures, geographic markets, and individual people. The "laws of supply and demand" are not empirical laws of physics. They are general principles with well-known exceptions and flaws of their own. You should lay off the microdosing.
Supply & demand is such a basic emergent property of, well, anything involving life as we know it, that I have a hard time imagining opposition to it. If a vendor anywhere in the world has more stock than their customers want, the price goes down. If more people want it than the vendor can provide, the price goes up. If there's more food than animals that want to eat it, animals eat their fill and the rest rots. If t…
Emergent property != laws of physics yet to be broken. All I meant was equating economic principles to empirically proven scientific theory is deeply misleading. I agree with your last paragraph. I liken it to the saying, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”
to anyone even remotely studied in economics - this is astoundingly ignorant. And the hubris is incredibly cringey. Please provide a counter example to the soft science law of supply and demand?
> running models to determine the highest possible vacancy rate for an area that will lead to the highest possible market rate In my view, holding units vacant intentionally in order to increase profit should be illegal. Vacancy taxes don't go far enough; landlords who do this should be forced to sell any units they've decided to keep vacant, or see their properties seized. Optimizing profit around providing people s…
That is very easy to cheat though. Two obvious ones: a different unit is held open every month; or these units are closed for remodeling. Until you get to long term 40% vacancy it is really hard to tell - and be careful not to kill rural small towns that no longer have demand and so apartments that will never be full anymore get torn down thus harming the few renters who remain (since it isn't worth replacing the bui…
Allow up to 1 apartment or 3 separate units of house ownership per person. And only allow 1 unit vacant per apartment after the initial year after the construction, or multiple units up to 3 months per 5 years (must be simultaneous in all affected units with a tolerance of 15 days from either side to the simultaneity, no tolerance to the per-unit duration, or should be considered intentional vacancy) for maintenance and remodelling.
The optimal rent for who? The point is that if Everyone has higher prices, because you can't not have a place to live people will be forced to pay more
The market clearing price on supply-demand curve.
No, the highest possible price that anyone would be willing to pay.