And immediate consequences will result for the violators I assume?
I just read the joint legal brief, and, I have to say up front that I am not remotely a lawyer… but the document specifies how and where to identify price fixing, and that motions to dismiss those charges are to be dismissed.
So it doesn’t dictate the penalties for price fixing (I assume that’s on a trial by trial basis—but again, not a lawyer), but it makes it impossible(?) to ignore, and suggests that (to me), users of ‘RENTMaximizer’ will be in the crosshairs… while not actually stating that.
Thanks, friend. My optimism has increased by 3-5%. It now sits at 3-5%. (Seriously, thanks though. That’s some quality researching)
There will be an investigation into the algorithms you use to estimate optimism, to make sure you do not collude with Hopelords to inflate optimism quotients and rob hopees through conspiracy. Do not resist.
Does penalties in this case also mean compensation of the renters, whose wealth has been potentially robbed through illegal practices?
Mm… again not a lawyer, but I think that question goes beyond the scope of the document.
It basically gives the government permission to hold renters accountable for using software to artificially raise prices. What form that accountability takes is not addressed. Either that’s covered under existing collusion laws or is up to the courts.
So, it’s an essential ingredient to the cake that you’re describing… but unless prosecution (or whatever the term actually is) brings that up (I assume?), it won’t happen.
Only if you have the legal funds to take a landlord megacorp to court
The AZ Attorney General seems to be working on it at least.
Lots of people act like justice never comes from the Federal government to corporations, as if FaceBook isn’t paying Billions in FTC fines for the next 2 decades. Punishments get dolled out all the time, but nobody talks about it.
Why would people care? Even if we assume the fine isn’t so trivial it’s just a cost of doing business people don’t get that money nor does the federal government turn around and say “Good news everyone this means we can afford universal healthcare now!”
Even if it’s not as good as a criminal prosecution, it definitely does a lot to keep for profit companies in line. Without these various fines and rulings, the world would be a much worse place.
Even if it’s not as good as a criminal prosecution, it definitely does a lot to keep for profit companies in line.
Does it? Because gestures broadly at the entire economy.
Let us look at an example where this sort of regulation was in place, and then went away:
In March 2014, Abbott lobbied to delay implementations of and even remove FDA Regulations on baby formula which would require more frequent inspections (and therefor fines), citing that the company was already morally and monetarily incentivized to control the quality of product without the need of oversight.
Abbott Baby Formula facility in Sturgis, Michigan, was linked to the infection of 5 infants and death of 2 infants, and revealed to have shipped untested batches of formula with falsified reports from management. This lead to the inevitable shutdown of the entire facility and following nationwide shortage of infant formula.
So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.
So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.
I submit that such circumstances are rare, and that the usual case is that fines are a tiny fraction of the money companies being in by breaking the law.
Removed by mod
That type of direct agreement is not necessary to prove collusion (makes it easier to prosecute certainly) but intent doesn’t matter legally. Using a software that has an inbuilt collusion algorithm is still collusion. This is also on a larger scale than mom+pop these algorithms and software were/are used by much larger companies that own magnitudes more units.
Their stance is “if it’s illegal for a person to do it, it’s illegal for an algorithm to do it”
If you use a 3rd party to collude, that’s still collusion. Here, that algorithm is the third party
The joint legal brief clarifies that it is indeed collusion. And continues to explain how this is a technological evolution of the handshake.
Interesting. To my non-lawyer mind, use of these types of algorithms is collusion by definition.
The FTC agrees.
Yes, the person you are replying to may not have the most accurate take on the situation.
On the internet? It can’t be!
Sorry, no.
If you have any faith in the government to address maximizing profit through rent, you haven’t been paying attention to who they serve.
A capitalist economic system will always lead to capitalists in power.
/c/im14andthisisdeep
c/unnecessaryworthlesscriticism
And yet here we are.
Go back to Reddit if you don’t want to add meaningful comments.
You posted one comment too low in this chain.
Without hope, all is lost. I would rather hang on to a shred of hope than give up.
Society shouldn’t be set up to keep people renting for their entire lives. It was like 3 generations ago that you could realistically get a home in your 30’s on a single paycheck.
Three generations ago the government was giving land away to anyone that could develop it.
Yeh, but unregulated capitalism
Can’t speak for the veracity, but I’ve got two magnets with the following:
1934
Average income = $1,601.00
Loaf of bread = $.08
Gallon of gas = $.10
Gallon of milk = $.45New car = $625.00
New house = $5,972.001958
Average income = $4,650.00
Loaf of bread = $.19
Gallon of gas = $.24
Gallon of milk = $1.01New car = $2,155.00
New house = $11,975.00Interesting that pay tripled, staples like food and gas doubled, and the price of a car quadrupled in that time. Houses also dropped from 4x pay to 2.5x pay
Well the first one was in the depths of the Great Depression and the second one is the beginning of the post war boom. I would hope it looks better.
Home loans at that time were 10 year mortgages. Homes were so cheap that you could pay them off quickly. Of course homes now are much better made. Back then you might build it yourself or with some friends. A lot of homes from that time suck.
Not really arguing against cuz I’ve just got this one subjective experience, but my aunt used to live in a Sears house (bought from the catalogue) and that mf was solid as hell.
You are only seeing the one that survived. That’s the definition of survivor bias.
Also, the electric system, pipes, roof, foundation, etc. wouldn’t be up to code today. And “code” is the minimum level of quality that’s legal. Every house built back then would be uninhabitable today, either because of safety issues or because of comfort issues.
I grew up in a decent-sized house built in the 1920s. It was two stories plus a basement and an attic in the middle of a college town, in walking distance to campus, so you can imagine it was made with quality at the time.
It had to be renovated completely before my parents bought it in the mid-70s to take out things like the coal cellar full of coal dust. When they bought it, one wall was completely off the side of the house because it had to be replaced. By the mid-80s, they had to add aluminum siding on the house because that had never been added and finally build a garage rather than park on the street. We also By the time my mother sold it in the 2000s, it had to be renovated again to get things like asbestos insulation out (hooray, I grew up with that!) and then we heard that after they sold it, the main sewage pipe, which had never been replaced, burst and flooded the entire finished basement (finished during the first refurb, but it still flooded when it rained).
I loved that house, but it was full of stuff that was not up to code, was expensive to keep up, was a pain in the ass when it came to new technology (all the phone jacks were the old four-prong kind, for example) and they just fall apart eventually.
It sucks that wooden houses aren’t built to last, but they just aren’t.
Two if you’re a millennial.
You still can, you just need to leave major cities.
Unfortunately, entitlement goes both ways for renters and landlords. They think they’re entitled to maximize profit, you think you’re entitled to live in places you can’t afford.
Just unchecked greed all around, and the real people who suffer are the ones living in areas “not good enough” for you. But hey, you should get more before them, right?
Edit to all the downvoters: wake me up when somebody else solves your problems for you. I can wait.
i really wish we could mute words on here, because anyone throwing around the word ‘entitled’ definitely has sinister motives at best
yes, people are ENTITLED to a place to live without being gouged their whole lives.
people are ENTITLED to a place to live without being gouged their whole lives.
And these people have options to avoid that. The problem is, they refuse to take them because they feel they are entitled to live in places they can barely afford.
Why do you people always replace arguments with your own misunderstandings as though you have a point? I think it’s because you spend too much time on these forums and lose touch with what makes an effective argument.
Here, all that matters is that people agree with you. Being correct or logical is irrelevant.
some strong opinions you got there. got any’a them-there sources for those perfectly subjective claims?
So let me get this straight. You say people in rural areas have it the worst, yet also claim that people should leave the cities and move to rural areas where “nobody wants to live” in order to gain a better life? You’ll have to explain that logic.
Sure! No problem. I can tell reason and rhetoric is not your strong suit!
You see, if we agree that people living in rural America have it worse than those in urban America, then why should those in urban America get more before those in rural America? If they can’t afford it, especially. Why should they get more before those who have less?
Textbook entitlement. And you all pretend not to understand it because you’re in on it.
Have fun waiting for someone else to solve your problems for you.
So you’re just going to pretend that you weren’t making a completely different nonsensical argument a couple comments ago?
You want to speak about entitlement while demanding that Person A should receive aid before Person B when nobody was even talking about that to begin with?
Textbook projection.
And you all pretend not to understand it because you’re in on it.
I rest my case.
They refuse to take those options because it would involve the massive hassle and expense of moving to a place where they are not from, do not know anybody, do not like, and which has terrible public services.
Wanting to live a good life is not entitled.
Wanting to live a good life is not entitled.
Yes, but why should these people get more before others who have less? Especially if they can’t afford it.
That is textbook entitlement and you don’t understand language if you cannot acknowledge that.
“Places you can’t afford”, like teachers and nurses wanting to live in the same county as their place of employment?
How about all the retail and service workers in that area too?
You can do that outside of major cities.
You should get more life experience before thinking you have a point.
You could, and then we just let the people in cities be dumb and not have healthcare? Or we segregate the rich people into the cities and poor into the rest of the world?
Holy crap, I’m not even going indulge that.
Just keep believing what you want and living in your fantasy world. You have no shortage of losers willing to join you.
You must be a sad person, go to hell, I’ll never see your response
Sorry for calling out your greed and entitlement.
At least you’re not alone.
No one cares
Sorry homie the cities have the jobs. People need to be able to afford to live near where they work for our economy to function well. They need to be able to buy stuff to support other jobs nearby. It’s a virtuous cycle when it works, but housing costs sap that money away.
So how do people live outside of cities?
Poorly? With already earned money?
Small towns are even worse to start out in because the job situation is terrible compared to cities. People in history have never had to “commute” longer than 30 minutes, unless they were traders literally moving goods from one place to another.
Small towns are dying unless more companies move to WFH.
Really? Everyone outside a major city is living poorly or with already earned money?
Seems like you need more life experience.
It depends on what you consider a city, but yes rural areas and small towns are shrinking in population. Only those who already have money can afford to live there because they don’t need to earn money in the local economy.
It sounds like you need more life experience. The hollowing out of rural economies has been happening since the 1980s.
Metropolitan areas consist of those counties with central cities of at least 50,000, along with the surrounding counties that are economically dependent on them. They make up 36% of all counties. Between 2008, the cusp of the Great Recession, and 2017, they enjoyed nearly 99% of all job and population growth.
Nationally, 71% of all metropolitan counties grew between 2008 and 2017, but more than half of the remaining micropolitan and rural counties did not grow or shrank in population.
https://theconversation.com/most-of-americas-rural-areas-are-doomed-to-decline-115343
Only those who already have money can afford to live there because they don’t need to earn money in the local economy.
That’s crazy. The only people who can afford to live in poor areas are those who already have money?
How are these areas poor if they’re only inhabited by people with excess wealth?
Do you see how illogical your arguments are? This is why you don’t have a point. Just stop and think for a minute. Stop trying to look good in front of other children and ask yourself, “does this make sense?”
Just leave the area where your job is zzz
Hey, nobody said it would be easy!
I can tell you’re the person who only does easy things. Lol.
I’m sure you can
Yep. You wouldn’t be making that argument otherwise.
Jesus Christ let’s ignore this boomer dinosaur
Go back to reddit
“How dare he call out my greed and entitlement!”
They think they’re entitled to maximize profit, you think you’re entitled to live…
See, this is what’s called a false dichotomy, and this glaring failure in your argument is why you’re downvoted. (At least that’s why i did).
I do. I think I’m entitled to live. Yes i cut off the part where you said “where you can’t afford” because someone besides you and me (yes, you, you aren’t a capitalist, you are a wage slave just like me mayne) controls that, don’t they?
Housing is a human right, and even if you don’t believe that, it sure is a requirement for a person to work and live. Without shelter in these expensive places you describe, no one can do the labor required for the local economy in these places to thrive.
So you have an answer for this? Frankly, i don’t expect much, but id like to be surprised. Can you defend adding “where you can’t afford” as anything other than words making your inhumane statement more palatable?
Yes i cut off the part where you said “where you can’t afford” because someone besides you and me (yes, you, you aren’t a capitalist, you are a wage slave just like me mayne) controls that, don’t they?
Yes, supply and demand. You are part of that system, whether you want to admit it or not.
You are part of those with more wealth thinking they deserve even more before others who have less. This is why you think you’re entitled to handouts so you can live in major cities before those who live in places “not good enough for you.”
So you have an answer for this?
No joke, you will never admit your contribution to the problem. You are simply incapable of it and I’ve come across many people like you before. You will completely ignore logic and reason to blame anyone but yourself for your problems that you refuse to fix.
No joke, you will never admit your contribution to the problem. You are simply incapable of it and I’ve come across many…
Mmmmm that’s good stuff. Yea! Yeah! Talk down to me baby!
But I asked your to defend a specific statement and you just repeated your ad hominems from your other replies. Are you gonna engage with me or should i expect another copy pasta ya picked up from the boob tube?
I know you won’t respond to my question this time either, so Please hit me with a new ad hominem, make it something i haven’t seen? I would have you try harder
Yeah, I don’t care what you “asked.” I’m not going down your stupid rabbit holes or adhering to your ultimatums.
Lol.
Ok, i got you down to your baseline at least. A troll at heart, and easily ignored. I did have hope still, that you had an imagination.
Ive been a fool
Not a troll at all. Just smart enough to rise above children on the internet.
Wanting to live where there are jobs, grocery stores, and health care facilities within a reasonable distance is not entitlement.
Or maybe they can’t afford your suggestion. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move across the US? I’ve done it a few times and I can assure you that it’s not cheap.
Right. There are no jobs, grocery stores, or health care facilities outside of major cities.
This is why you need more life experience. It’s painfully obvious you lived in a major city all your life and think life in major cities is all that matters.
Please do not encourage people to leave the cities. I don’t want neighbors.
If you don’t like people moving to your area, you can move somewhere else.
Time to short RealPage.
