Hacker News Reader

Comment by thr0wawayf00 | Hacker News Reader

The big problem with this argument is that tech is everywhere now.

Housing? Look at the pressure that companies like Zillow are applying to housing market by buying up houses and holding on to them without providing any real value to the market. Healthcare? Google and Amazon are both making inroads to capturing and owning various aspects of healthcare data transfer and management, which is one the most cumbersome and expensive aspects of healthcare today. Education? Several big tech companies are involved there as well.

You can't separate big tech from any of the industries you just listed because their hands are in all of them, which is one of the big reasons we're having this conversation now.

View on HN

In defense of Zillow, they are in fact providing a service -- liquidity. If you need to get out of your house now, Zillow makes that possible.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think this is good for society as a whole, but they do provide value to someone -- they aren't just sitting in the middle rent seeking.

Zillow does many things, some of them useful and beneficial to individuals and society, others not so much. Back in the good old days society tended to realize that we have the power to collectively determine which activities are allowed and which are not, but it seems like somewhere along the way we forgot that we have this power.

On the other hand, they are impossible to compete with pushing normal people with local money out of the market. Very few individuals can, or will put in an all cash offer, as-is, no inspection

I agree, I don't think it's beneficial to society as a whole, but they do provide a service that some people find useful.

Wow that’s so great. If you’re filthy rich

And companies like Black Cube that run psyops campaigns on social media are providing a service too, someone absolutely benefits from it. That doesn't automatically mean it's beneficial to society.

I never said what Zillow does is good or beneficial, just that they do add value.

Sure, they add value for those that own property at the expense of everyone else.

When you go to defend a company that essentially acts to exclude large swaths of the community from home ownership by accumulating real estate assets and driving prices up $400+/sq ft in many communities without actually doing any work to these houses, it's important to distinguish who exactly benefits here, because it's not most people that benefit from this.

Defending a company that adds value exclusively to the wealthier, property-owning class to everyone else's detriment by arguing that they "add value" is a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it?

I’d consider providing liquidity a negative. Doesn’t that prevent people from selling for lower values and help prop up housing prices?

It's a negative for the local housing market, but it's a positive for the seller as well as a positive for the housing market the seller is moving to, because now they have cash to buy in the new market.

Like I said, I think it's a net negative for society, but there are people who get value from it.

Isn't liquidity good for buyers and sellers? They're essentially acting as a market maker, no?

Are you really making the argument that Zillow is the cause of housing prices going up? They bought 2,373 homes out of 6.5 million sold in 2020... Housing prices went up because of low interest rates (caused by the government).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com