Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bluGill 4 days ago
What is a better option? Before your answer, remember it sometimes really is the case that the economy is down and in two years things will recover and everything will rent out again. Your answer needs to smooth that out.
3 comments

Rolling average including vacant months as $0? And if that isn't smooth enough, add some smoothing factor, count vacant months as 10% of the last paid value, or maybe the first vacant month as 50% with further months decaying. Or some other fancy accounting that makes more sense than the current method.
Nothing will happen until wealthy people are negatively affected.
"remember it sometimes really is the case that the economy is down and in two years things will recover and everything will rent out again"

Where do we draw the line between reality and fantasy then? If the terms of a deal are not reflecting the reality of the moment (i.e. the office rent market demand quotes) but some figure people come up with on their own, then let's call it what it is -- gambling (in which case it should be treated as such).

Smooth it out for who? If the answer is "the person who owns a $20 million building" then my answer is "I don't care".
Not caring is why we are in this place where rent doesn't go down. Now, maybe it is really is not your problem, but be aware that it is a problem for someone and in turn, you can raise your costs if you are shopping at those businesses. If financials doesn't pencil out, then either the business closes or they raise prices.
> Not caring is why we are in this place where rent doesn't go down.

Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that I am fine with policies that effectively force the building owner to lower the rent (if their net worth is high enough) even if it means they take a loss, because I am fine with forcing people with lots of money to take losses. So the rent will go down.