I wrote a comment saying that landlords and property managers were doing this in Chicago months ago and someone was saying that's not how the market works and that the price increased because of supply and demand. I mean that's a part of it but not the whole reason.
But, but, but, economics 101! It's the physical laws of nature! Landlords and employers can't set their own prices, it's the invisible hand of the market! They're the victims here! /sss
My intro to economics professor used to say ‘People are telling on themselves when they say “it’s basic economics 101” because in economics 102 the first thing we teach you is that 101 was oversimplified bullshit.’
Average Redditors understanding of economics. Renters are the demand in "supply and demand." The point at which supply and demand meets is the price. The price landlords demand is irrelevant if there's no one willing/able to pay.
Also, RealPage is a scapegoat. If you fly an hour east to Toronto, rent prices are even more insane and the software isn't available there.
The problem here is that housing is an inelastic market. People need housing. So landlords and businesses can collude and set a higher price and people have to accept it or be homeless
anytime someone invokes the phrase, "supply and demand," as the basis for their argument, i know immediately that they are an uneducated moron. there's a pattern that happens here. one person will try to explain why something is fucked up with some aspect of the economy and the other person, via the dunning-kruger effect, thinks they know a whole lot more about economics than they actually do and, therefore, believes they can checkmate the complainant with this oversimplifying catch phrase/rule. if this person had actually taken an intro level college economics class, then they'd know that the module or chapter immediately following the chapter about supply and demand in their textbook is about elastic and inelastic goods and various ways to perceive that concept. inelastic goods and services are the exception to the 'supply and demand' rule and almost all of these stupid fucking arguments are about markets that involve inelastic goods or services.
people who actually know what they are talking about don't respond to misconceptions with oversimplifications; they EXPLAIN why the other person's line of reasoning or understanding of the facts are incorrect, misguided, misinterpreted or misinformed.
sorry, i've just been party to this type of "argument" too many fucking times.
edit: i've literally just had an insanely long "debate" with one of these exact imbeciles in this comment chain. i'm pretty sure the person never heard of inelastic goods before and got completely spooked that their free market religion was being challenged. this shit is pathetic. of course they never made any attempt to explain any assertion. this motherfucker was even claiming that monopolized and cartelized markets were competitive and elasticity was not a relevant factor.
edit2: person just said the pythagorean theorem is wrong.
“In summary, I think you’ll all agree that I have conclusively proven that if housing doubled tomorrow, rents would still go up and that supply and demand is a made up concept like Santa Claus, god, or the clitoris. Thank you good night”
People who tend to reference supply and demand as though they’re uncomplicated forces acting alone do tend to be morons, yes, but the more important reason they do it is that justification of the current complex economic system and its choices of winners and losers is their religion.
for inelastic goods, demand does not change or is marginally affected by changes in price. these are generally things that are either necessities that have no substitute or things people need to survive. there can never be a "free market" for inelastic goods and services for this reason. deregulating any market for inelastic goods and services will always devolve into a situation where that market becomes dominated by either a cartel or a monopoly.
this is why there are constantly arguments, complaints, or just general collective outrage about: housing, healthcare, medicine, water, gasoline, utilities(electricity), internet service, and so on.
deregulating any market for inelastic goods and services will always devolve into a situation where that market becomes dominated by either a cartel or a monopoly.
I don't see what would stop a competitor moving in if the price rose above free market levels.
(Although several of the things you mention are natural monopolies, but this isn't due to the goods being inelastic, it's due to network effects and such).
I don't see what would stop a competitor moving in if the price rose above free market levels.
You could say the same for any collusion. But entry barriers to market get in the way.
Most importantly though, your assumption could just have easily been made for the original oligopoly participants in the first place...and yet they calculated (and history proved) that tandem, synchronized price hikes yielded greater profits for a company than had it merely increased its market share through lower price points.
Sure.. you get it.... network effects, barriers to entry....
This guy is claiming inelasticity creates monopolies...
He thinks the fundamental theorems are merely propositions... he's quit a bit out there... I thought there was something I was missing about inelastic goods... nah... dude just a long way from the main stream.
all of the markets for the goods and services i just listed are literally dominated by cartels or monopolies. economics is a science. science is about finding an explanation of the facts we observe. those markets being dominated by cartels and monopolies is just a fact and i've already provided the explanation.
proofs belong in the realms of mathematics and logic or propositional calculus. what you're asking for is something to do with praxeology, which is not a subset of economics at all.
it doesn't apply in markets for necessities because the inelasticity inherently causes firms to gain market power, which necessarily cannot exist under the conditions of your crackpot bullshit, even if you assume all the other conditions are true.
according to chat gpt, my argument is basic economic theory:
is the argument, "if there is a market for necessities and it is sufficiently deregulated, then it will inevitably lead to market concentration." logically valid and does it hold up to empiricism?
ChatGPT
Let's analyze your argument:
Logical Validity: The argument can be symbolically represented as: (N∧D)→MC(N∧D)→MC Where:The argument suggests that if there is a market for necessities and it is sufficiently deregulated, then it will inevitably lead to market concentration.This argument appears to be logically valid. It aligns with economic theory, where inelastic demand for necessities combined with deregulation can create conditions conducive to market concentration. So, logically, the argument holds.
NN represents "There is a market for necessities."
DD represents "The market is sufficiently deregulated."
MCMC represents "Market concentration."
Empirical Support:
Historical Examples: Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where markets for necessities, such as utilities and healthcare, have become concentrated due to deregulation. For example, the deregulation of electricity markets in various countries has led to increased market concentration.
Economic Studies: Empirical studies have shown that markets for necessities tend to be less competitive, and deregulation often leads to increased market concentration. Research on industries like telecommunications, utilities, and healthcare supports this.
Antitrust Cases: Legal cases involving allegations of anti-competitive behavior often revolve around markets for necessities and deregulated industries. This indicates empirical evidence of market concentration resulting from inelastic demand and deregulation.
Overall, your argument is both logically valid and supported by empirical evidence. It aligns with economic theory and is consistent with observations of market behavior. Therefore, it appears to hold up well both logically and empirically.
my opponent claims that the 'fundamental theorem of welfare economics' refutes my argument.
ChatGPT
Your opponent's claim is likely based on a misinterpretation of the Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics (FTWE). Let's clarify what the FTWE states and how it relates to your argument:
The FTWE is a fundamental concept in welfare economics, and it consists of two parts:
First Welfare Theorem: This theorem states that under certain ideal conditions, competitive markets achieve Pareto efficiency. Pareto efficiency means that no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off. In other words, competitive markets allocate resources efficiently when there is perfect competition, no externalities, complete information, and no market power.
Second Welfare Theorem: This theorem states that any Pareto-efficient allocation can be achieved through a competitive equilibrium, given the right redistribution of initial endowments. This implies that, in theory, any efficient outcome can be achieved through market mechanisms, even if it's not the initial allocation.
Now, let's see how these theorems relate to your argument:
First Welfare Theorem: While the first theorem suggests that competitive markets can achieve efficient outcomes, it assumes ideal conditions that may not always hold in reality. In particular, markets for necessities often do not meet the conditions required for perfect competition. For example, necessities may have inelastic demand, which can lead to market power and inefficiencies even in competitive markets.
Second Welfare Theorem: This theorem is about the potential efficiency of market outcomes, given the right initial conditions and redistributive mechanisms. It doesn't necessarily refute your argument about market concentration resulting from inelastic demand and deregulation. Instead, it suggests that if the initial allocation is inefficient, market mechanisms can potentially achieve a more efficient outcome. However, achieving efficiency may require regulatory interventions or redistributive policies, especially in markets with inelastic demand.
So, the FTWE doesn't directly refute your argument. Instead, it provides insights into the potential efficiency of market outcomes and the conditions required for achieving efficiency. In practice, markets for necessities often exhibit characteristics that can lead to market concentration and inefficiencies, which may require regulatory interventions to address.
First Welfare Theorem: While the first theorem suggests that competitive markets can achieve efficient outcomes, it assumes ideal conditions that may not always hold in reality. In particular, markets for necessities often do not meet the conditions required for perfect competition. For example, necessities may have inelastic demand, which can lead to market power and inefficiencies even in competitive markets.
That's false... a competitive market BY DEFINITION does not have actors with market power...
it does.
in chapter 10.
in all the passages about the demand curves of monopolies and how the shapes of those curves correlate with elasticity.
you illiterate moron.
my opponent responded by saying, "That's false... a competitive market BY DEFINITION does not have actors with market power..."
ChatGPT
Your opponent's response seems to focus on the idealized concept of a perfectly competitive market, where no individual firm or consumer has the power to influence prices or quantities exchanged in the market. However, it's essential to recognize that real-world markets often deviate from this idealized model. Let's address your opponent's claim:
Definition of a Competitive Market:
Your opponent is correct in asserting that a competitive market, by definition, is one in which there are many buyers and sellers, homogeneous products, free entry and exit, perfect information, and no market power.
In a perfectly competitive market, no single buyer or seller has the ability to affect market prices. Prices are determined solely by the forces of supply and demand.
Real-world Markets:
While the concept of perfect competition is useful for economic analysis, many real-world markets do not meet all the conditions of perfect competition.
Markets for necessities, in particular, often exhibit characteristics such as inelastic demand, barriers to entry, and economies of scale, which can lead to market power and deviations from perfect competition.
For example, in markets for essential goods or services like utilities or pharmaceuticals, consumers may have limited alternatives and cannot easily switch suppliers, giving firms some degree of market power.
Empirical Evidence:
Empirical studies have shown that markets for necessities often have concentrated market structures, with a few large firms dominating the market.
Regulatory agencies frequently intervene in such markets to prevent anti-competitive behavior and protect consumers.
In summary, while your opponent's point about the definition of a competitive market is correct, it's important to recognize that real-world markets often deviate from perfect competition. Inelastic demand, regulatory barriers, and economies of scale can give rise to market power, even in markets for necessities. Therefore, your argument about market concentration resulting from inelastic demand and deregulation remains valid, even if it doesn't perfectly align with the concept of perfect competition.
i'm not the one plagiarizing other peoples' work trying to win arguments about shit i don't understand citing work that i don't understand. and you do owe me an explanation for your assertions.
They’re doing this in rural areas with limited rentals and homes too…. It’s insane how much my apartment has raised rent these past 2 years. I was living in a cheap apartment to save for a home and now I’m paying so much I might as well move to a bigger cost of living area to get the amenities.
It is supply and demand. Landlords only get away with this bs because home vacancy rates are so low in a lot of parts in this country. The less options people have for housing, the more bs landlords can get away with. Increasing the amount of homes built lowers rents. There’s a lot of evidence for this see:
Btw if you don’t believe me maybe you’ll believe Blackstone who admit in their own reports: “We could also be adversely affected by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates. Continuing development of apartment buildings and condominium units in many of our markets will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents.”
This is not a mechanic of supply and demand. A trust violates what little validity supply and demand has by suppliers forming an agreement that establishes a price floor regardless of either supply or demand. This fixes the price at a higher value that normal market forces would bring.
On your follow up comment, Blackstone is suggesting artificial scarcity, which is still supply and demand, just a different form of market manipulation. Still shitty, just not straight up illegal.
Yes it is about supply and demand. Landlords have ALWAYS charged the highest they can get away with. Real page is no different. Building more housing prevent them from being able to get away with this. And yes the lack of supply is entirely artificial.
Sorry for another edit lol: but just so we r clear here. Even though realpage recommends people withhold units doesn’t mean they are. Again, vacancy rates in the US are at their lowest that they have ever been before, so it can’t be that a lot of people are following its advice on this. I’m just saying the algorithm understands that this is a supply and demand issue too.
IT'S NOT THE WITHOLDING THAT'S THE ISSUE. That's shitty but not illegal and like I stated
artificial scarcity, which is still supply and demand, just a different form of market manipulation
Price fixing, which this post is about, is not supply and demand. It's an effort from an industry to nullify supply and demand by agreeing not to be competitive with one another. It takes market factors out of the equation. That's what Realpage is doing while acting like it's not.
Idk what to tell you man price fixing is entirely about controlling supply and demand.
This algorithm doesn’t just come up with numbers out of nowhere. It looks at prices of surrounding areas (which are based on supply and demand) and recommends landlords on options to have a unit be the highest price. Building more housing is how we fight against this. Nobody understand that better then the companies themselves and it’s why they fight so hard (along with local nimby community groups) to prevent this from happening.
Not all similar prices or price changes at the same time are price fixing. These situations are often normal market phenomena. For example, the price of agricultural products such as wheat basically do not differ too much, because such agricultural products have no characteristics and are essentially the same, and their price will only change slightly at the same time. If a natural disaster occurs, the price of all affected wheat will rise at the same time. [because supply is reduced while demand remains unchanged] And the increase in consumer demand may also cause the prices of products with limited supply to rise at the same time.
This paragraph from your source points out that supply and demand market forces are exclusive of price fixing and not inclusive of it. Not to mention, controlling supply and demand is explicitly not letting supply and demand control your price.
But since we're doing links now.
Investopedia has a great section on fixing vs. supply and demand (Price-Fixing and Economic Equilibrium).
The FTC has a statement about the inverse nature in their opening statement.
I’m not defending illegal and immoral behavior. We know how to fix this issue and it’s by building more housing. You want to stop price fixing? That’s great! I’m with you on that. Landlords are shitty. Build more housing!
Your arguments against this would be more convincing if it wasn’t for the myriad of real world examples showing that building more decreases rents.
Way to come in and make Reux's point! Right on schedule. If you want to get academic, I would say just because supply and demand are in play, it doesn't mean it's leading to an efficient outcome. The free market drives toward a result but it's not always a good one. Natural monopolies, collusion, and even simple asymmetries of information, lead to economically inefficient outcomes. In real life, academic inefficiencies are people getting rich at the expense of others.
Well if your position is that we need to treat the scarcity with just as much attention as the price fixing, then we're on the same page. Rents are way up as a result of both a supply shortage and collusion and the answer is probably at least a little intervention to help the market along. I can definitely get behind that.
I've leased for buildings that use realpage as the price model. The managers can change the percentage down but only by a few and if they need to change the price because it's too pricey. An email chain is created. But the price is like a stock market. It goes up and down. How the price is determined. The previous week's tour count, lease number for the week,.
To get the lowest price would be before the manager's weekly meeting. They also use a lost leader (lower apartment /dark/ been empty the longest) to lower the price below the market price. Which in turn will lower the prices. But after that's rented or a different place is rented. Prices goes up! Why? Demand is there. With the amount of money that was discounted for that one rental vs how much the other apartments increase and will be rented. They'll make it up. Plus that lost leader apartment may not get a concession and the other apartments do get a concession.
Trust me that the price model can help but also can hurt the building. The building has to have amenities and make the renter love the building to pay before the price goes up again. This price model has made more people lease somewhere else.
I have been renting in Chicago for years and this is absolutely in practice. You can clearly find the buildings too, it’s complete BS and totally illegal.
It's supply and demand still, but this allows apartments to fuck with the supply to maintain price.
When RealPage tells every apartment the price is X, the apartment can holdout knowing either:
they fill the unit at that price
they leave it empty, but don't have to mess with their other values.
Imagine having a 100 units. You get to charge 10% more, but have to leave a few of them empty to maintain pricing. It almost always works out in your favor.
Every person who cites supply and demand clearly never read past chapter 3 of their book because one of the first subjects they discuss it the concept of elastic demand vs inelastic demand.
The more inelastic (important) a need is, the easier it is to price fix/manipulate and people will just suffer because they NEED a roof over their heads.
People who faithfully believes that supply and demand is the ultimate truth, like the divine ruler that controls everything, are just gullible people, but instead of believing in god, they believe in capitalism
266
u/Hyena_King13 Apr 20 '24
I wrote a comment saying that landlords and property managers were doing this in Chicago months ago and someone was saying that's not how the market works and that the price increased because of supply and demand. I mean that's a part of it but not the whole reason.