Submitted by buried_lede t3_ydt5jd in Connecticut
This is for the renters out there. Maybe you'll find something in this story that's useful for Connecticut
Comments
buried_lede OP t1_itv0jr2 wrote
I agree. I think they are suing the software company, not the landlords. It certainly isn’t an old fashioned kind of price fixing, more new territory thanks to gobs of data and AI. But there were also meetings with some of the largest owners/landlords who probably understood their data was in the mix and on some level shared. Of course they all research each other’s prices anyway. Will be interested to see where this goes. I think renters are being exploited definitely, treated extremely poorly
imjustasaddad t1_itujv3k wrote
Few things worse than Landlords.
CTrandomdude t1_itvfqb6 wrote
I know what’s worse. No landlords. You know people that put their own money up to provide housing. That would leave only buying and public housing options. And we all know how nice public housing projects are.
imjustasaddad t1_itvob8u wrote
Landlords provide zero public equity. Those buildings could be owned by a single individual and then operated by them. Instead, it is a parasitic relationship in which an individual relies on another individual to pay for the full extend of their bills, and providing them with additional profit.
Landlords are inherently immoral.
Private housing should not be a commodity.
eldersveld t1_itvyry8 wrote
Affordable housing, as an essential need, should not be subject to the whims of "the market", nor should its construction depend on speaking sweet-nothings into the ears of inherently untrustworthy and predatory private developers.
In a state, hell, in a country with its priorities straight, government would mastermind the building of such housing all over the place, have its upkeep be well-funded—and remove the social stigma associated with it (which, as with so many things, has its roots in racism). People wouldn't have to rely on capitalist entities whose goals are directly in opposition to the public good.
imjustasaddad t1_itvztg6 wrote
Bingo.
CTrandomdude t1_itvxfsv wrote
Your ignorance is astounding. The landlord is risking their investment and property. They take the risks when the prices go up or down. When the renters trash the property and don’t pay forcing eviction and months of no income to cover expenses.
In what world do you get a better product if there is no financial incentive to risk your capital.
imjustasaddad t1_itvzz56 wrote
Or, alternatively, it is not a public commodity and then we don't have to fake crocodile tears for a Landlord leasing property to someone while they are so very brave and "take the burden of risk".
CTrandomdude t1_itw1ha6 wrote
Explain how housing would work in your utopian society? As no private money can be used it must all be taxpayer money and run by the government right? Which government agency is it that works well, costs less, and provides good service? Please explain.
imjustasaddad t1_itw1nfu wrote
No. I don't think a conversation with you, based on your post history, has any merit or intent to be done in good faith. Thank you for engaging, however. Have a good day!
Selena_B305 t1_itvwf22 wrote
Not sure how this is any different than realtors setting market prices for house listings.
At any time a house on one street. 3 blocks from another with the same square footage and amenities could be listed for thousands more than the other.
CTrandomdude t1_itvwz2k wrote
Realtors do not set the market price. Market prices are based on units that sold and have nothing to do with asking price. Further the ultimate decision on price is up to the property owner who is listing the property.
Selena_B305 t1_itwxpdw wrote
Here's a 🍪
buried_lede OP t1_itytbbu wrote
Why the us vs them? Why the either or? Either charge nose bleed rents or sell the property? Not all landlords would agree
EarthExile t1_itutuit wrote
Landlords are one of those leftover concepts from feudalism that future generations will hopefully laugh at us for keeping.
HeavenIsOtherDogs t1_itvg4zs wrote
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities, makes a third ” - Adam Smith
"The interest of the landlord is always opposed to the interests of every other class in the community. His situation is never so prosperous, as when food is scarce and dear: whereas, all other persons are greatly benefited by procuring food cheap." - David Ricardo
“And this is the economic constitution of our entire modern society: the working class alone produces all values. For value is only another expression for labour, that expression, namely, by which is designated, in our capitalist society of today, the amount of socially necessary labour embodied in a particular commodity. But, these values produced by the workers do not belong to the workers. They belong to the owners of the raw materials, machines, tools, and money, which enable them to buy the labour-power of the working class. Hence, the working class gets back only a part of the entire mass of products produced by it. And, as we have just seen, the other portion, which the capitalist class retains, and which it has to share, at most, only with the landlord class, is increasing with every new discovery and invention, while the share which falls to the working class (per capita) rises but little and very slowly, or not at all, and under certain conditions it may even fall.” - Karl Marx
“The businessman is only tolerable so long as his gains can be held to bear some relation to what, roughly and in some sense, his activities have contributed to society.” - John Maynard Keynes
gatogrande t1_itv6lfg wrote
huh?
EarthExile t1_itv7cxw wrote
I can help you with any words you find confusing, but Google will do it even faster
gatogrande t1_itv7wxi wrote
Dunno man...the googler said something about entitled spencerboys, who say things like "super" and "i feel like" wanting everything handed to them. Cant be true
EarthExile t1_itv8e60 wrote
Well now I'm confused. Are you some kind of joke bot that I'm not understanding?
Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_itu1fvg wrote
Very scared about this. AI is going to destroy a lot of things, affordable renting included. Already destroyed artists with Dalle 2.
Very scary times ahead. People really don't understand how much AI is going to fuck life up.
RoboticGreg t1_itu57bp wrote
Dalle 2 did not destroy art in any conceivable way. What a ridiculous statement.
It's like saying the electric oven destroyed baking.
Devonai t1_ituahm6 wrote
If you're not using a wood-fired brick oven what are you even doing
Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_itu6v43 wrote
It definitely did, or will within the year. The quality I could get with Dalle is insane compared to paying an artist. And it's instant.
The only way art continues is the niche category of people that care that it was human created. For all practical purposes machines now own this medium.
RoboticGreg t1_itu98bs wrote
There is zero evidence this is happening at all
Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_itu9i4e wrote
I'm not sure how you can say that. It's already coming in first place in art competitions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html
RoboticGreg t1_itub796 wrote
Competition is not destruction. Dalle is a tool that requires weilding. CNC machines did not destroy sculpting or woodworking, they created and added another category.
Also, it doesn't matter. Art is expression. Art is contextual. You saying the exact same thing as me is a different expression because you said it. It might make it harder to commercialize Art, but technology has always done this.
Pristine_Coconut1688 t1_ituue3z wrote
This guy has manufactured a world where art is now dead, he's not living in reality.
[deleted] t1_ituuowl wrote
[deleted]
RoboticGreg t1_itv9xkc wrote
Yeah, well the horse manure removal industry took a major hit when cars took over, then cabs took a major hit when Uber moved in. Markets change, entire professions go in and out of existence, and for people that REALLY want to do something where tech has built a better mousetrap, they can do that too, their customer base just shifts from necessity buyers to buyers who purchase hand made things because it's important to them.
Commercial illustration has had the corners nibbled away from it for over a century and never been eliminated. Standardized fonts, Commercial typesetting, lots of things have morphed, reduced and reinvented the creative fields in Commercial, but it's never been eliminated.
[deleted] t1_itvf9qw wrote
[deleted]
RoboticGreg t1_itvh3vk wrote
no, thats not true at all. try re-reading, maybe out loud to yourself, if that will help clear things up. Art is not dead, we should care and protect it. Monetization of art is a completely different story. it sounds like YOU are actually saying art isn't important unless its monetized.
buried_lede OP t1_itu56wi wrote
I’m pretty wary of it too. I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. The controversies are real and demand that people pay attention. It’s a big deal
iCUman t1_itvbumm wrote
To start, I wish we'd stop calling it AI. It's not. It's advanced programming at best, and even that is being generous.
GoOnNoMeatNoPudding t1_itupswk wrote
Lmao I’m scared for you
ThePermafrost t1_itubbu0 wrote
As a property manager, I know that the major property management softwares like Yardi have an option to have AI set rents. It says it calculates the best rent according to market trends and is so adaptive that rents can change daily. I had not considered how easily Yardi could use this to just fix prices, being the dominant market shareholder for PM software.
The PM’s might not have know it was price fixing, they were just using the software as intended.