[jconley]

Housing is not a right in the US. It's a for-profit endeavor. Unless that fundamental thing changes expect rents to go up as much as the market will bear and landlords to do everything to make as much profit as possible.

Side note: I doubt this is actually "AI". Probably some heuristics.

[smt88]

> Housing is not a right in the US

Price-fixing is not a right in the US. It's explicitly illegal.

We as citizens should be strongly opposed to anything that makes housing more expensive because it contributes to homelessness, which is much more expensive than just forcing landlords to actually compete with each other (you know, like the free market is supposed to).

The biggest threat to a competitive market isn't the government in the US. It's the accumulation of power by a small number of actors who control the majority of the supply side.

[MonkeyMalarky]

Your mere existence without profiting others is practically criminal.

[sixo]

Well, no, not to defend it really, but the premise is that your use of the amenities of modern society, which people put a lot of effort into creating, is earned by providing profit to others, not merely an entitlement.

This conflicts with our moral sense (in part because there's nowhere you can go to opt out) so we backstop it with entitlement programs. But the premise is a least in principle fairly sound; not as evil as what you articulated.

[stewx]

And this is totally fine as long as the supply side of the market is allowed to react and build more supply in response.

[sixo]

Though, even if the supply side was immediately opened up, some redistribution is justified to make up for the historical lack of capacity and the inevitable decade it would take to catch up with demand.