Hacker News Reader

As others are pointing out, your original comment is rife with blaming statements: "probably illegal", "live with himself", "people who don't know", "everything that is wrong". If you don't understand what that means, it means you are making up shit and saying it for someone else. <----- this is an example of a blaming statement as I imply you don't understand what I just said before you actually have a chance to reply.

How about doing a real analysis on this?

The screenshot had $90 a night with 13 nights highlighted. Assume $100 so I can do math late, and 16 nights rented a month. Assume blocks of stays, say 3 days average each (it's Vegas) and that means you get 4-5 'stays' by visitors a month. That's a one bedroom apartment, free of personal clutter - it would probably take 2 hours tops to travel to and clean it up with one person. Do that 4 times a month and that's ~8 hours of work for someone a month. Washing sheets at home is easy - takes me 30 minutes of my time to do a load of laundry and fold it.

200/9 hours = $22 an hour. This 3 times minimum wage in Nevada.

I agree that the 'hate' is unnecessary on the OP's part, but you are grossly underestimating the labor/time/costs of doing someone else's laundry, managing a property and cleaning a unit. Have you ever hired someone to clean your home before? $200 even for 5 visits is a steal... not to mention that he has tacked on the $35 cleaning fee per the actual listing. If he has 6 separate stays, he makes a profit on the cleaning.

I understand 'it's just business' and I personally don't have an ethical 'beef' with what he's done... but he really is getting a great deal on the cleaning service and his margin was already pretty amazing on the property. I think he could afford to spend $300 on cleaning/managing and he would probably still break even from the fees. This is a microcosm of the inherent problem with 'trickle-down' economic principles... the person with capital will not spend more than is necessary.

It's not like the cleaner is working 40 hours / week at this guy's place. Depending on how the booking is for the month, she might have to go in and do some cleanup like 10 times per month. Combine her tasks like laundry with other clients to optimize time usage and she can probably handle 20 clients / month.

You made so many assumptions about this guy.. Don't try and assume...

It's even more abusive because the listing says, "$35 cleaning fee." If he rents it to 6 different people, he has already recouped his costs and the rest will be profit.

Edit: I don't think I communicated my meaning well here. Bottom line is, Hilton doesn't charge me to clean the room--it's a cost of doing business and is rolled into the cost of the room. The practice of adding on a 'cleaning fee' reeks of profit grabbing... similar to an airline charging for checked bags, except that this is a fee that is a requisite for staying in the room.

Seriously? It's abusive because he makes a profit and doesn't do all the work himself?? Watch out, all of business, ever!!

It's abusive because he is passing the cost of cleaning the place to the user... which in fairness should then be variable based on its usage. 1 OCD person gets charged the same fee as multiple slobs that brought their pets and smoked in the apartment. That 'fee' should be rolled into the rental cost/cost of doing business. He is using it to augment his profit.

It's abusive because he is passing the cost of cleaning the place to the user...

All costs of a business are passed to the consumer. Where do you think the money a business makes comes from? Sure, if there's a cost increase, a business can decide to lower the profit margin to avoid increasing the price, but the costs are still being passed on.

which in fairness should then be variable based on its usage

Why? When did it become wrong to charge flat fee for a service? The cleaning lady is also charging a flat per hour fee even though it's cheaper for her to do a single 3-hour job instead of 3 1-hour ones, is she being unfair too?

Nobody who offers a service can or should be required to charge proportionally to the costs. It's irrational to demand that.

That 'fee' should be rolled into the rental cost/cost of doing business.

I suggest he eliminates the cleaning fee and raises the prices by $35/visit. Apparently the morality of a fee depend on whether it's itemized.

He is using it to augment his profit

The nerve.

It is relatively common for vacation properties to be priced this way because, well, it tends to reflect the owner's costs in that someone is paid to thoroughly clean the property when the renter checks out. (And it's either not cleaned or cleaned much more cursorily on a day to day basis.)

The distinction is that the cleaning fee is per stay; I'd agree that it would be smarmy if the fee was per night.

So if you stay one night you pay $35 and if you stay seven nights you still pay $35. Raising the per night rental fee would mean penalize people who stay longer than the average stay.

I'm not seeing the abuse here. How is it abusive to make a profit if he gets enough volume? I am not aware of any commonly held moral value that forbids potentially making money on an honest business venture. My boss makes money on my work. Do you think he'd continue paying me if that were not the case? I would sincerely hope not.

Frankly, it's a little offensive to assume these people are being taken advantage of and don't have any idea. It's entirely possible they know exactly what is going on, and don't need a galant white savior to tell them how oppressed they are.

Those evil white men up to no good again. When will the evil white man ever understand his evil? He won't, because evil never knows itself. It's in his nature after all.

In other words, yawn.

If he's offering $200/mo and she accepts, it's the best she can get. If she were being offered more by someone else I imagine she "knows" enough to determine the bigger of two numbers and accept the better offer. Her options range from $0/mo to $200/mo. You think her best option, the one she chose, should be taken away by force because after reading a blog post you know how to make better life decisions for her? I find that morally objectionable.

What's your opinion on minimum-wage laws, and about the thought process that went into creating them?

You apparently have no fucking clue why some people come to the U.S. The overprivileged assumptions so many Americans make are just completely out of touch with what goes on in many parts of the world. There are plenty of people not eating who would be happy to work hard so they live better than that.

Just out of curiousity what about pre 1913, when there was no income tax and no minimum wages? Were all those people exploited? Was that all immoral or illegal? It was then that the American wealth was created, at the rates that seem incredible now?

I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that large parts of the American wealth before 1863 were not created immorally. 1913 is not very much later.

Maybe you're being sarcastic, though, since _The Jungle_ was published in 1906.

Before destroying jobs that people -- such as the cleaning lady -- may need to feed their families, can you try to back up your accusations with something more than racial remarks?