Hacker News Reader

Comment by mustacheemperor | Hacker News Reader

If you're a renter, recovering $500 a month in funds probably looks like cutting back on entertainment, switching to cheaper brands at the grocery, declining to visit those friends in the East Bay to save on gas, tolls, and/or Uber.

If you're a landlord, you can just force a $500/m increase on your tenants. Done.

Since everyone has felt the squeeze after the pandemic, those of us who represent a potential X% increase in monthly revenue to the person we depend on for the roof over heads are going to get squeezed on their behalf.

I dunno about that other commenter's theorized 'mass migration' overseas, but sheesh, a personal migration to Stockton is starting to feel pretty reasonable.

View on HN

> If you're a landlord, you can just force a $500/m increase on your tenants. Done.

Only if there is a tight supply of housing, otherwise another landlord will accept a lower rent rather than have an empty unit.

The problem with rent is one of supply, not greedy landlords. Ask your local planning commission why they aren't approving more housing developments.

There doesn't even need to be a tight supply of housing...just a predominance of landlords using the same crooked software.

https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...

I've found that with housing, prices are often set "at the margins". If even one landlord is asking $4k for an 800sqft 2BR, it might sit unrented for a while but other landlords will notice and nudge their prices of similar units towards that. This definitely happens faster in tight markets.

Additionally, institutional investors have bought up around 5% of the SFH market so far, some estimates say they will own up to 40% by 2030. [1]

I would not be surprised if they already have significant pricing (signaling-)power and can already influence prices with just their 5% ownership, eg only Blackrock by itself.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-singl...

Landlords will happily leave a unit open if the lost revenue is offset by higher rents on the filled units, particularly if filling the open unit would require renovation. This is easier when property owners collude to raise and maintain high prices (which they have been doing) and when they can offer superficial discounts that disappear upon lease renewal (which is common practice).

I would wager the few extra bucks I have that a majority of renters don't have $500 in monthly discretionary funds to cut back. Saving even a couple hundred is a matter of eliminating non-pirated entertainment (if one hasn't already), significantly modifying one's diet (not simply switching to cheaper brands, but changing grocery stores, changing food, reducing meal sizes and counts, and (I've heard, in some extreme cases) limited shoplifting), and having no social life that more affluent family/friends aren't paying for. IME, you are also trying to pick up odd jobs or gig work, selling possessions, and picking non-rent bills to put off.

All this to say: as bad as you think it is, it's worse.

It's way worse

> a majority of renters don't have $500 in monthly discretionary funds to cut back

The no one will pay an additional $500 in rent

Essentially.

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/15/homelessness-increase-rent-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com