An excerpt from the article:
Ms. Jones has been scouring the West Los Angeles rental market to find a house that the family could rent for the next eight months, or longer. On Friday morning, she noticed something disturbing on the rents of at least three of the properties she had been tracking: 15 to 20 percent increases overnight.
The sudden surge in rental costs took Ms. Jones by surprise, but aligned with what she has noticed since wildfires started to tear through the Los Angeles area on Tuesday. Ms. Jones was touring a rental house in Beverly Hills with her client on Thursday when the listing agent raised the monthly cost by $3,000 — on the spot. Agents and landlords are aware that some displaced Angelenos might be willing to pay given the circumstance.
“People are so panicked and desperate to get into a house right now that they’re just throwing money into the wind,” Ms. Jones said. “People taking advantage of this. It’s horrendous.”
And now, totally unrelated to this, the definition of “parasitism”:
Association between two different organisms wherein one benefits at the expense of the other.
You are arguing about the difference between price gouging of a Toyota Corolla vs a McClaren GTS - necessity vs luxury.
The price gouging has been happening legally for years and nothing has changed or been done to fix it. The high-end clients in the article clearly own property if they’re willing to spend that much on rent.
I have no sympathy for that specific example because it’s reported like this is some novel, new experience, as opposed to it being a systemic issue that’s plagued everyone else. My sympathy goes to the others mentioned in the article who clearly aren’t in the market for luxury-class rentals.
Don’t want to be priced gouged? Don’t rent those luxury houses from the parasites. Lower your expectations and you might find something else more reasonable.
But sympathy, or lack thereof, isn’t a requirement for the practice to be illegal and action to be taken, and I never said something shouldn’t be done about it.
When the ultra-wealthy are suddenly in need of rentals and start renting regular houses and apartments, those houses can be rented for 5x the price.
The landlords will figure out that by massively increasing the rent, even with 2/3 houses empty, they’ll make more money than they do now.
In your hyperbolic, unrealistic scenario, are the ultra-wealthy going to be permanently renting?
They’re doing it for the short amount of time it’s going to take for them to buy another mansion - they’re in the rental market because of a disaster. Once they’ve recuperated, they’re gone.
But let’s say your exaggeration comes true. Do you think landlords would be able to continue renting for 5x the amount once their ultra-wealthy market dries up?
You seem to think I’m a proponent for the price gouging practice, so I’ll reiterate: I’m not arguing that the problem should be ignored, and something needs to be done about it.
I simply have no sympathy for those looking to rent where a 20% increase equates to $3000 a month.
I don’t give a fuck about the ultra-wealthy.
But I work in municipal development and have seen first-hand how housing impacts on the wealthy trickle down and screw everyone else.