A friend on dating apps recently said she is often presented with men who are lying about their age — or rather, as they tell it, being forced to lie. The culprit, they are eager to explain, is the algorithm.
“I am actually 57,” reads one profile she showed me, “but lowered my age, because of the [algorithms] algos, LOL.”
What is disturbing about her story is not that so many men are pretending to be younger than they are (What else is new?), but that they do not seem to know what an algorithm is. Their problem is not a sinister program preventing them from finding a younger woman. It is that many women set an age range they do not fall into. The algorithms are just doing their job, which is optimizing to find a solution for a given set of data.
Illustration: Constance Chou
Yet algorithms have become the villain of this technological era — blamed for depriving us of love, manipulating us on social media and increasing our rent. US Vice President Kamala Harris has issued a plan to address that last problem, proposing to crack down on real-estate companies that use “algorithmic price fixing” software to raise rents.
Algorithms are used throughout the economy to set prices and manage supply. Lowering the cost of housing is a major objective of the Harris campaign, so it not surprising that it is focusing on their use in real-estate. However, it is far from clear that algorithms are to blame for rising rents.
About one-third of rental units are priced using rent-setting software that is powered by algorithms that make use of lots of data from the local and comparable markets. The alternative — that is, landlords setting rents by looking at listings of comparable units and talking to brokers — is less precise.
PRICING SOFTWARE
The concern is that, if everyone uses pricing algorithms, landlords can collude and set above-market prices. Rising rents would seem to confirm the presence of collusion. As algorithms have become more common, rents have gone up.
In 2011, about 15 percent of rental units were priced using software, property management company RealPage said; by 2021 this figure was 30 percent. At the same time, the US population grew during this decade, as did the desire to live in popular areas, while the supply of housing lagged demand. This is a far more plausible explanation for the increase in rents.
Management companies that use pricing software tend to be more responsive to market conditions: They raise rents more when the market booms, but also cut rents more (and have fewer vacancies) when it falls, a study from two professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School showed. This suggests they are not colluding so much as maximizing profits.
At the same time, the study shows that landlords who use pricing software affect the behavior of landlords who do not. In markets where more landlords use pricing algorithms, occupancy rates were lower and rents were 3 percent higher.
Harris supports a bill that would prohibit landlords from using the services of any company that coordinates pricing and supply information. It defines coordination as collecting data from multiple landlords, calculating a price based on that data with a “process that uses computation,” and recommending those lease terms. This would all be illegal if the lease terms were in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, it is easy to foresee a situation where a landlord has to worry about being sued by his tenants anytime he uses data and a computer program to decide what rent to charge.
HOUSING SUPPLY
What the bill calls “consciously parallel pricing coordination,” most economists would call “using technology to set prices more efficiently.” The bill effectively bars landlords from using the best tools and available data to discover the right price for their units. This would indeed make landlords less profitable. However, it would also make them less inclined to build more, or to lower rents when times are hard.
Besides, the main reason why rents increased was not collusion — it was a market short on supply, and that raises prices and leaves buyers with less market power. The way to restore power to tenants is not to outlaw the use of data. It is to encourage more building so consumers have more choices.
Algorithms do reflect market conditions. As housing markets across the US faced shortages in recent years, they contributed to prices rising even faster than they would have. However, algorithms are not the root cause of the problem.
Of course algorithms can be used for nefarious purposes, in real-estate or any market, and when people use them to collude or manipulate prices, they should be prosecuted. However, it is not clear this has happened in real-estate. Algorithms are often vilified, but they are a valuable innovation that can help markets become more efficient and offer more choices.
In either the housing market or the dating market, algorithms are not to blame. All they do is bring forth the underlying data that reflects a mismatch between demand and supply — whether the product is reasonably priced apartments or honest bachelors.
Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS