The rent is too damn algorithmic — DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb is investigating RealPage, a company that helps landlords set rent prices, for potential antitrust violations::Attorney General Brian Schwalb is investigating RealPage, a company that helps landlords set rent prices, for potential antitrust violations.

  • 30mag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    9 months ago

    RealPage, however, has repeatedly denied any allegations of price fixing or antitrust violations in previous statements and legal filings.

    No shit.

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m just waiting for the day some corporation sends out a press release that says “lol, you got me bro.”

      • 30mag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        They were interviewing that General on 60 Minutes the other day and asked him what amounted to “Did you commit treason when you made the phone call to China?”

        I don’t think the General acted improperly, but, other than Trump, would you expect anyone to give any answer other than “No, of course not” when asked on national television?

  • phx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    While they’re at it, investigate the use of digital price tags on store shelves, especially grocery stores

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I would much rather have to deal with digital tags then stupid paper based ones. If they were done properly it should just be a simple “update price” and it sets to both. With paper tags you have employees that don’t update all locations so you get discrepancies.

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That… seems like a silly concern? At best I think you could pull off tricks based on specific timeslots of the day/week (e.g.: lunch rush, weekends, business hours) and most of that was already realistically feasible through bossing around normal humans – no tech required.

          Maybe I’m off-base, but it seems to me like the following things would severely hamper the efforts of anyone attempting to do this at scale:

          • Exploding the complexity and error surface across all price-setting procedures
          • Micromanaging, per location, when/how prices change to compensate for locality-specific stuff like daylight hours and foot traffic
          • Avoiding the very legally dubious scenario of prices autochanging in the time gap between taking an item off the shelf and paying at the register

          All of that effort in exchange for what? A few extra quarters on the margin if you do it right but losing a few dimes on the margin (or a class action suit) otherwise? I can already see middle-manager heads exploding in contrition. It might happen someday once active AI store management finally oozes into place… but until that day comes I think shoppers can feel safe knowing that they are merely getting gouged in the same old fashion as their forebearers.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          But what happens when they put the items in their cart and walk to a different area before walking to the checkout? Seems like that’d be difficult to track in a brick and mortar store. Online, this absolutely does happen.

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Uh not instantly. Not storewide in a moment. Make it networked and you can change prices per customer as they walk each aisle.

          • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            With paper based, they’re paying employees to go around and alter the prices, which is too expensive and time consuming.

            Digital price tags can be changed on the fly, at once, potentially even automatically.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        And with digital tags they can update at any time, so unless you’ve got a video camera running to price that bread was $3.99 and not $4.99 when you picked it up off the shelf…

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      ?? I don’t think paper was stopping them from adjusting prices as needed.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Is it really antitrust if the algorithm correctly concludes that you can effectively charge infinite money for basic needs like food, shelter, water, healthcare that humans need to survive?

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The issue is that it sets the same prices for all its clients, so they all move in tandem. The more clients in one area using it, the stronger the profit for everyone because their prices move in lockstep. It creates the prices via its collision mechanism.

      This is the same thing as those parties colluding to all raise their prices in tandem, they have just outsourced the collusion.

  • Pohl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah, competitors setting their prices collectively is classic trust. The fact that they all hire a contractor who writes software to set the price, that doesn’t change anything. This is trust and it is against current law.

  • Yewb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    10% additional tax on any second or more property you own, boom housing crisis solved

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Totally agree with this or at the very least penalize anything over a single rental property (in addition to their residence) so that middle class people can still benefit from this while rental corporations get penalized heavily.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Economics doesn’t work like that. Prices are already as high as the market will bear. Few people intentionally leave money on the table.

        More likely:

        1. Some owners will eat the tax increase
        2. Others try to raise prices
        3. They can’t get higher prices immediately because supply and demand are the same as before the tax increase
        4. They consider eating the cost or selling the property
        5. Property prices decrease due to greater supply
        6. Former renters and investors who are ok paying the tax buy the properties

        End result: more owner-occupied property, some of the tax is paid by the remaining investors and renters.

        • vector_zero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Maybe I misinterpreted your original comment. Are you suggesting a that the taxes increase by 10% of the going rate (e.g. 5% -> 5.5%?), or the taxes increase by 10% of the property value (e.g. 5% -> 15%)?

          If it’s the latter, then that makes more sense. That would be unsustainable for a landlord, because no way in hell can someone pull an extra 50k out of their ass each year on a 500k home.

  • RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    I know someone who worked for them back in the day and let me tell you. Every scummy thing I read I have no proof of but from what I know of the company I believe.

  • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Its a business model that advertises artificial price inflation for its special club of users, but it only affects the poors. This could go either way.

  • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    Any kind of algorithm used for type of thing is going to be trying to increase rents. If enough people all use the same algorithm, price fixing is what you’ll get.

    It’s not necessarily malicious intent, it’s just the way the software works, which opens the discussion about the role of using algorithms in rent calculations in general.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    We should force apartments to be run as non-profits similar to utilities with strict rent price regulations. Would this discourage new housing? No, it would just shift from developers building rentals to developers building condos.