You know what adding another middleman to the deal means? It means the prices go up. Period.
Not necessarily.
Rentberry is asking for a piece of the difference. If the landlord asks for $700/month and someone bids $800, then Rentberry gets $25/month from the landlord; whereas if the landlord asks for $700/month and the highest bid is $600, Rentberry gets $25/month from the tenant.
In the case where the price is bid up, it's only the bidding that bumps the price. Rentberry's interposition otherwise doesn't add anything to the price. Long-term, landlords would raise the rents until they lost marketability, so they're mainly closing a time gap--the price goes up sooner, which means faster price rises to meet market willingness to pay.
In the case where the price is bid down, the renter is actually lowering the price to what they're willing and able to pay. If the renter pays $725/month in that latter case, then that's less than $800/month; but the whole story is that the landlord would eventually have to lower the price to $775/month, $750/month, and then $725/month to find a price people will pay--exactly the price Rentberry gets. That closes a time gap: the price goes down sooner, which means better housing availability.
It's a strange situation because expenses aren't usually taken out of profits in any meaningful sense; prices rise to reflect costs and hold profits. For lower-demand goods, though, prices can rise essentially out of control. There are a limited number of rental properties unoccupied in any area at any given time; and the cost and risk of building excess capacity is huge. Rental properties are held and rented for decades; they're not built and sold. Because of that, rental properties act like extreme luxuries or specialized goods, like giant vacuum tubes used by TV stations and replaced once every 30 years: it's practically-impossible for anyone new to enter the business, and competitors don't have the capacity to steal more than a tiny fraction of your market, so you just charge "reasonable" rates. Landlords have to react to surrounding landlords a bit faster than some specialist goods, but they still can play to what the client can afford instead of having an ongoing price war and slim margins.
Because of all that, landlords can look to raise rents faster (more profit) and reduce rents by less (more profit) to achieve fewer empty units (lower lost profits) without really tacking the extra cost on and passing it along to the customer. This can be good for the customer (high rents come down quickly, if they're coming down at all) or not-so-good for the customer (rents reflect higher willingness to pay quickly).
Basically, this will lead to faster market reaction and larger exposure, and people are only looking at bidding up.
In the current situation, low-rent areas draw higher-income middle-class college graduates. They buy into low-cost apartments, and the landlords slowly notice the trend and start raising rents. They can't kick out existing tenants (rent control), so the rents go up for new tenants: poor people seeking a new apartment have to look elsewhere. Rents then increase.
The new situation bids the rents up or down to the demand. That means the rents will go up on a particular property immediately when tenants are willing to offer more. When there are no tenants to take an asking price, the rents go down due to underbidding.
The summary frames this as simply driving rental prices up because people will bid high to buy into apartments.
In markets where the price is adjusting, there will usually be more empty units. Empty units are a landlord risk, and are handled by raising rent on other tenants to compensate. Because a lack of demand can bid these empty units down, the minimum price a landlord can accept goes down as well: rents can get cheaper in low-rent areas, allowing distressed areas to provide housing to slightly-lower incomes. Likewise, if there is a mix of demand--a hundred units, but seventy middle-class incomes trying to bump the price up--then the rents don't uniformly increase, and some lower-income tenants can afford to stay in the area. The summary ignores this.
Likewise, the tendency for rents to increase as the market suggests tenants can and will pay already exists. While this means you can get outbid and may have to buy up into a higher-income rent area, that tends to happen anyway, just over longer periods of time. Eventually you're stuck with what people can afford, so the rent rates just shift around. A bidding system shifts the rents around faster.
All in all, this will just enable change to occur more-rapidly. For some people that will be annoying, for others it will be great, and for landlords it will be a way to squeeze out money faster. From the standpoint of rent prices, it's essentially a net-zero long-term change; from the standpoint of economics, it eliminates some inefficiencies; and from the standpoint of renters, it's somewhat more-annoying for poorer people looking to move into areas that are going to suddenly be richer-people areas soon.
There are a bunch of people walking around with screenplays in LA trying to get "discovered". We just don't have enough consumers--rather, we try to get close to 100% of consumers looking at individual things, and consume as much of their time as possible.
If we could produce 1 TV show that people spent their 8 hours of not-sleeping, not-working time watching, we could pipeline ads and product placements down the work of one writer, a small set of actors, and one small team of directors and producers. As it stands, people insist on having diverse interests, and other studios insist on competing for those interests in an attempt to make money, so we have a lot of TV shows.
That doesn't even count independent films, YouTube series, Twitch, or whatnot.
There's a large structure that goes around a good story. Introductions, build-ups, climaxes, resolutions, plot twists. They have to move in a certain way to make a piece entertaining.
Someone designed a beat sheet to demonstrate effective emotional tone control in writing, and Hollywood took it as gospel. They have it clocked to five-minute intervals now, instead of just major structure.
Of course all stories are conflict-resolution. The problem is now all the dance steps are painted on the floor and followed to precise meter.
Trump doesn't have ADHD; he has syphilitic dementia. He contracted syphilis prior to 1983.
You should watch Downfall. Adolf Hitler was suffering from dementia brought on by syphilis. There's a great point in the movie where he argues with Jodl about troop positioning. He says to send the troops to the West to defend against French and English forces, but Jodl points out the Russians on the Eastern border would have free run into the country; so he waves his hands and says, well, fine, then send everyone to the Eastern border, and they'll keep the Russians at bay. Jodl starts complaining that will leave the western border unprotected while foreign militaries move to invade, and Hitler just starts ranting that his orders should be clear enough to grasp.
Your retirement contributions now pay for current retirees - not your future retirement
Social Security has always been a flow-through system. Money has a short half-life and is not a good store of value. The Social Security administration wasn't designed to use 40 working-years of your life in which you had to pay a mortgage, health insurance, car payments, and so forth, as well as build up your luxurious lifestyle with the large amount of unnecessary income you collect, to pay for the 15-20 years of your life when you have a house and get medicare (a separately-funded program); it was designed to have 50% of the country pay base expenses for the 20% who are retired with their life-expenses paid up.
No they're all the kinds of hicks who think FEMA has coffins buried everywhere for when the liberals release the plague to kill 90% of Americans so they can herd the remainder into labor camps, and believe Denver Airport is built over the secret underground city that's going to act as the jump-off point for Obama to lead the Muslim Brotherhood in conquering America and implementing Shariah Law. Trump is a symbol of their schizotypal delusions.
Basically, it looks like the administration knows changing the H1-B policy to a protectionist policy will result in higher prices and lower growth for Americans, a decrease of middle-class wealth, and a general economic recession, so they don't want to open by screwing up the economy until they have a way to somehow blame Obama.
What Trump most wants is a $36 million annual decrease in his personal tax burden, hence his proposed tax policies. $400,000 presidental salary is nothing compared to what he can cut out of the Federal burden on his $500,000,000 alleged income.
Guilds are a medieval device to constrict the availability of labor and thus raise prices. They're basically a way for a group of people to increase the amount of money coming to themselves at the expense of others. The basic ideal in a guild is that a certain product should be more-expensive so that guild members can be richer.
Basically, TV writers are mad that apparently they're not worth as much. Maybe their TV series aren't drawing as much money because Netflix doesn't have big cable ads and doesn't charge as much, thus doesn't have the revenue. Maybe their TV series aren't drawing as much money because Amazon and Hulu are churning out tons of shovelware, and so have demanded 20% more writing, and 20% more writers showed up, and so they've spread their same resources thinner, and writer contracts have dropped by 20%. Maybe more than 20% more writers showed up, and the ones who won't take cheap contracts got passed over and are now pissy.
It doesn't matter. What matters is the industry is now not paying high rates. Guilds used to actually know about all this and try to reframe their position from "driving higher prices" to "stabilizing the market" because we can surmise that, eventually, there will be fewer writers because writing pays less, so you'll go from 6 people writing 6 crapware streaming shows in spare time to one guy making a full-time career out of doing all six shows himself. Rates might bump back up a bit after that, but nowhere near what they'd be if the guilds had their way.
This will eventually be dealt with by a reduction in wages. ESPN will only garner $200 million of revenue, and won't be able to buy $1 billion of contracts; sports teams will have to stop paying players $36M/year, and instead pay $1-$2 million.
Look at all these rusted-out cable TV factories! The death of America! Jobs are leaving, they're leaving for Netflix, they're leaving for Amazon! We need to build a wall and make Streaming pay for it!
The argument was that the Youtube viewer would have never paid to listen to your song, full stop. You gave an argument demonstrating that you have paid to listen to those songs, and still use YouTube. The music industry wants to label you as a lost sale; the OP wants to suggest that you were never going to buy the song anyway; and you demonstrated that you are a successful sale.
You also implied your use of YouTube was out of convenience, and likewise we can reasonably assume you purchased the songs out of convenience--I'm sure your Spotify, Amazon MP3, and CD purchases make it easier for you to listen to those songs in some contexts, while YouTube is quick and dirty in other contexts. This further suggests you're not a lost sale: I doubt Youtube is that much more convenient than just bringing up Rhythmbox, Banshee, Songbird, or whatever it is you kids use today to listen to actual owned music, or Spotify and Amazon Cloud Music for the streams; I would hazard the hypothesis that you wouldn't pay the extra to buy the song on YouTube when fucking around with the credit card payment gateway takes slightly longer than just pulling up an alternate music player.
I hadn't considered the royalty-per-stream angle; most independent artists cry that the royalties are shite, and I wonder how many streams a Swedish NES Chiptune artist gets per year compared to Pink Floyd. I really must restore my brain after the last six months of drugs and insomnia; psychiatric care is rough, and I'm back on a stable-enough basis that I'm well-past-due to take responsibility for how my mind functions now.
You're only stating that there are confounding variables. The question is: does this variable contribute an increase or decrease in wealth to England's position? Will removing this variable increase or decrease the wealth of England? That there are other variables only means it's somewhat harder to measure.
You wouldn't pay for the Youtube content, and Google doesn't necessarily have the money to pay (it's allocated elsewhere). You paid for the CDs and for Spotify and whatever else.
The only way that could happen is if the cost or the amount of trade decreased so much that the purchasing ability of the English population no longer supported the size of their labor force, driving unemployment up. That's going to happen; I'm not certain it'll happen to the magnitude that will force more than a minor recession. A small loss of employment will buff itself out in short order; a large one will also buff a small loss of employment out in short order.
The question is: in the last 10 years, did joining the EU make them richer? If so, then they'll be poorer than they are today. The last 1,000 years don't count.
If you start exercising when 40, become more-attractive, sleep better, become healthier, etc., and then quit exercising when you're 42, you'll get sicker, less-attractive, yadda yadda. Yes, you survived 40 years without exercising; and you were sicker, less attractive, and so on then than the 2 years you spent going to the gym.
What if he had made a $1,000 donation to legalizing gay marriage? We could fire him for that. Lots of people don't like gay people getting married; his political opinions are in opposition to theirs, and maybe that means they force him to resign.
Here's the thing: Eich never fired, refused promotion to, pressured, or otherwise took action against any of his subordinates of whom he knew were gay or supported gay marriage. He was subjected to those pressures for his non-work activities. If it's fair to press Eich into resigning for being anti-gay-marriage, then isn't it okay for Eich to refuse promotions and raises to people who support gay marriage or, worse, are actually gay?
I'll save my derision for after I see what they did and didn't add to WSL. If it still can't create socket files I'm going to lose my shit. UNIX domain sockets are a basic human right!
Slashdot Mirror
You know what adding another middleman to the deal means? It means the prices go up. Period.
Not necessarily.
Rentberry is asking for a piece of the difference. If the landlord asks for $700/month and someone bids $800, then Rentberry gets $25/month from the landlord; whereas if the landlord asks for $700/month and the highest bid is $600, Rentberry gets $25/month from the tenant.
In the case where the price is bid up, it's only the bidding that bumps the price. Rentberry's interposition otherwise doesn't add anything to the price. Long-term, landlords would raise the rents until they lost marketability, so they're mainly closing a time gap--the price goes up sooner, which means faster price rises to meet market willingness to pay.
In the case where the price is bid down, the renter is actually lowering the price to what they're willing and able to pay. If the renter pays $725/month in that latter case, then that's less than $800/month; but the whole story is that the landlord would eventually have to lower the price to $775/month, $750/month, and then $725/month to find a price people will pay--exactly the price Rentberry gets. That closes a time gap: the price goes down sooner, which means better housing availability.
It's a strange situation because expenses aren't usually taken out of profits in any meaningful sense; prices rise to reflect costs and hold profits. For lower-demand goods, though, prices can rise essentially out of control. There are a limited number of rental properties unoccupied in any area at any given time; and the cost and risk of building excess capacity is huge. Rental properties are held and rented for decades; they're not built and sold. Because of that, rental properties act like extreme luxuries or specialized goods, like giant vacuum tubes used by TV stations and replaced once every 30 years: it's practically-impossible for anyone new to enter the business, and competitors don't have the capacity to steal more than a tiny fraction of your market, so you just charge "reasonable" rates. Landlords have to react to surrounding landlords a bit faster than some specialist goods, but they still can play to what the client can afford instead of having an ongoing price war and slim margins.
Because of all that, landlords can look to raise rents faster (more profit) and reduce rents by less (more profit) to achieve fewer empty units (lower lost profits) without really tacking the extra cost on and passing it along to the customer. This can be good for the customer (high rents come down quickly, if they're coming down at all) or not-so-good for the customer (rents reflect higher willingness to pay quickly).
Basically, this will lead to faster market reaction and larger exposure, and people are only looking at bidding up.
In the current situation, low-rent areas draw higher-income middle-class college graduates. They buy into low-cost apartments, and the landlords slowly notice the trend and start raising rents. They can't kick out existing tenants (rent control), so the rents go up for new tenants: poor people seeking a new apartment have to look elsewhere. Rents then increase.
The new situation bids the rents up or down to the demand. That means the rents will go up on a particular property immediately when tenants are willing to offer more. When there are no tenants to take an asking price, the rents go down due to underbidding.
The summary frames this as simply driving rental prices up because people will bid high to buy into apartments.
In markets where the price is adjusting, there will usually be more empty units. Empty units are a landlord risk, and are handled by raising rent on other tenants to compensate. Because a lack of demand can bid these empty units down, the minimum price a landlord can accept goes down as well: rents can get cheaper in low-rent areas, allowing distressed areas to provide housing to slightly-lower incomes. Likewise, if there is a mix of demand--a hundred units, but seventy middle-class incomes trying to bump the price up--then the rents don't uniformly increase, and some lower-income tenants can afford to stay in the area. The summary ignores this.
Likewise, the tendency for rents to increase as the market suggests tenants can and will pay already exists. While this means you can get outbid and may have to buy up into a higher-income rent area, that tends to happen anyway, just over longer periods of time. Eventually you're stuck with what people can afford, so the rent rates just shift around. A bidding system shifts the rents around faster.
All in all, this will just enable change to occur more-rapidly. For some people that will be annoying, for others it will be great, and for landlords it will be a way to squeeze out money faster. From the standpoint of rent prices, it's essentially a net-zero long-term change; from the standpoint of economics, it eliminates some inefficiencies; and from the standpoint of renters, it's somewhat more-annoying for poorer people looking to move into areas that are going to suddenly be richer-people areas soon.
So it's complex and confusing.
There are a bunch of people walking around with screenplays in LA trying to get "discovered". We just don't have enough consumers--rather, we try to get close to 100% of consumers looking at individual things, and consume as much of their time as possible.
If we could produce 1 TV show that people spent their 8 hours of not-sleeping, not-working time watching, we could pipeline ads and product placements down the work of one writer, a small set of actors, and one small team of directors and producers. As it stands, people insist on having diverse interests, and other studios insist on competing for those interests in an attempt to make money, so we have a lot of TV shows.
That doesn't even count independent films, YouTube series, Twitch, or whatnot.
There's a large structure that goes around a good story. Introductions, build-ups, climaxes, resolutions, plot twists. They have to move in a certain way to make a piece entertaining.
Someone designed a beat sheet to demonstrate effective emotional tone control in writing, and Hollywood took it as gospel. They have it clocked to five-minute intervals now, instead of just major structure.
Of course all stories are conflict-resolution. The problem is now all the dance steps are painted on the floor and followed to precise meter.
Did you check that against the standard beat sheet?
Now you can't unsee it.
Anyone who thought manatees were endangered hasn't been to Florida in the past 40 years. They're everywhere!
Trump doesn't have ADHD; he has syphilitic dementia. He contracted syphilis prior to 1983.
You should watch Downfall. Adolf Hitler was suffering from dementia brought on by syphilis. There's a great point in the movie where he argues with Jodl about troop positioning. He says to send the troops to the West to defend against French and English forces, but Jodl points out the Russians on the Eastern border would have free run into the country; so he waves his hands and says, well, fine, then send everyone to the Eastern border, and they'll keep the Russians at bay. Jodl starts complaining that will leave the western border unprotected while foreign militaries move to invade, and Hitler just starts ranting that his orders should be clear enough to grasp.
He's not flitting around distracted; he's nuts.
Your retirement contributions now pay for current retirees - not your future retirement
Social Security has always been a flow-through system. Money has a short half-life and is not a good store of value. The Social Security administration wasn't designed to use 40 working-years of your life in which you had to pay a mortgage, health insurance, car payments, and so forth, as well as build up your luxurious lifestyle with the large amount of unnecessary income you collect, to pay for the 15-20 years of your life when you have a house and get medicare (a separately-funded program); it was designed to have 50% of the country pay base expenses for the 20% who are retired with their life-expenses paid up.
The legislation gives the president the power to execute an immigration policy.
No they're all the kinds of hicks who think FEMA has coffins buried everywhere for when the liberals release the plague to kill 90% of Americans so they can herd the remainder into labor camps, and believe Denver Airport is built over the secret underground city that's going to act as the jump-off point for Obama to lead the Muslim Brotherhood in conquering America and implementing Shariah Law. Trump is a symbol of their schizotypal delusions.
Basically, it looks like the administration knows changing the H1-B policy to a protectionist policy will result in higher prices and lower growth for Americans, a decrease of middle-class wealth, and a general economic recession, so they don't want to open by screwing up the economy until they have a way to somehow blame Obama.
What Trump most wants is a $36 million annual decrease in his personal tax burden, hence his proposed tax policies. $400,000 presidental salary is nothing compared to what he can cut out of the Federal burden on his $500,000,000 alleged income.
They don't have to pay their workers for the time they're on strike. Seems to me you could just replace them.
Data is the plural of anecdote. Do you not know what a survey is?
The demand for talented writers is rare. Most stuff is produced by formula today.
Money comes from the same source: consumers. It comes through a different channel.
Guilds are a medieval device to constrict the availability of labor and thus raise prices. They're basically a way for a group of people to increase the amount of money coming to themselves at the expense of others. The basic ideal in a guild is that a certain product should be more-expensive so that guild members can be richer.
Basically, TV writers are mad that apparently they're not worth as much. Maybe their TV series aren't drawing as much money because Netflix doesn't have big cable ads and doesn't charge as much, thus doesn't have the revenue. Maybe their TV series aren't drawing as much money because Amazon and Hulu are churning out tons of shovelware, and so have demanded 20% more writing, and 20% more writers showed up, and so they've spread their same resources thinner, and writer contracts have dropped by 20%. Maybe more than 20% more writers showed up, and the ones who won't take cheap contracts got passed over and are now pissy.
It doesn't matter. What matters is the industry is now not paying high rates. Guilds used to actually know about all this and try to reframe their position from "driving higher prices" to "stabilizing the market" because we can surmise that, eventually, there will be fewer writers because writing pays less, so you'll go from 6 people writing 6 crapware streaming shows in spare time to one guy making a full-time career out of doing all six shows himself. Rates might bump back up a bit after that, but nowhere near what they'd be if the guilds had their way.
This will eventually be dealt with by a reduction in wages. ESPN will only garner $200 million of revenue, and won't be able to buy $1 billion of contracts; sports teams will have to stop paying players $36M/year, and instead pay $1-$2 million.
Look at all these rusted-out cable TV factories! The death of America! Jobs are leaving, they're leaving for Netflix, they're leaving for Amazon! We need to build a wall and make Streaming pay for it!
The argument was that the Youtube viewer would have never paid to listen to your song, full stop. You gave an argument demonstrating that you have paid to listen to those songs, and still use YouTube. The music industry wants to label you as a lost sale; the OP wants to suggest that you were never going to buy the song anyway; and you demonstrated that you are a successful sale.
You also implied your use of YouTube was out of convenience, and likewise we can reasonably assume you purchased the songs out of convenience--I'm sure your Spotify, Amazon MP3, and CD purchases make it easier for you to listen to those songs in some contexts, while YouTube is quick and dirty in other contexts. This further suggests you're not a lost sale: I doubt Youtube is that much more convenient than just bringing up Rhythmbox, Banshee, Songbird, or whatever it is you kids use today to listen to actual owned music, or Spotify and Amazon Cloud Music for the streams; I would hazard the hypothesis that you wouldn't pay the extra to buy the song on YouTube when fucking around with the credit card payment gateway takes slightly longer than just pulling up an alternate music player.
I hadn't considered the royalty-per-stream angle; most independent artists cry that the royalties are shite, and I wonder how many streams a Swedish NES Chiptune artist gets per year compared to Pink Floyd. I really must restore my brain after the last six months of drugs and insomnia; psychiatric care is rough, and I'm back on a stable-enough basis that I'm well-past-due to take responsibility for how my mind functions now.
You're only stating that there are confounding variables. The question is: does this variable contribute an increase or decrease in wealth to England's position? Will removing this variable increase or decrease the wealth of England? That there are other variables only means it's somewhat harder to measure.
You wouldn't pay for the Youtube content, and Google doesn't necessarily have the money to pay (it's allocated elsewhere). You paid for the CDs and for Spotify and whatever else.
You're not a lost sale; you're a successful sale.
The only way that could happen is if the cost or the amount of trade decreased so much that the purchasing ability of the English population no longer supported the size of their labor force, driving unemployment up. That's going to happen; I'm not certain it'll happen to the magnitude that will force more than a minor recession. A small loss of employment will buff itself out in short order; a large one will also buff a small loss of employment out in short order.
The question is: in the last 10 years, did joining the EU make them richer? If so, then they'll be poorer than they are today. The last 1,000 years don't count.
If you start exercising when 40, become more-attractive, sleep better, become healthier, etc., and then quit exercising when you're 42, you'll get sicker, less-attractive, yadda yadda. Yes, you survived 40 years without exercising; and you were sicker, less attractive, and so on then than the 2 years you spent going to the gym.
It was $1,000.
What if he had made a $1,000 donation to legalizing gay marriage? We could fire him for that. Lots of people don't like gay people getting married; his political opinions are in opposition to theirs, and maybe that means they force him to resign.
Here's the thing: Eich never fired, refused promotion to, pressured, or otherwise took action against any of his subordinates of whom he knew were gay or supported gay marriage. He was subjected to those pressures for his non-work activities. If it's fair to press Eich into resigning for being anti-gay-marriage, then isn't it okay for Eich to refuse promotions and raises to people who support gay marriage or, worse, are actually gay?
I'll save my derision for after I see what they did and didn't add to WSL. If it still can't create socket files I'm going to lose my shit. UNIX domain sockets are a basic human right!