I don't mean to make light of struggling to find somewhere to live, and I know it can be difficult for many due to reasons beyond their control, and this really sucks. Everyone should have a place to live. I'm interested in exploring the hypothetical, when you say:
> keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.
If Evan's kids stain the wall, then Evan's kids are more likely to stain the wall. Currently, the expectation of someone being more likely to stain the walls is "priced in" to the rental prices everywhere. People who don't stain walls pay a little more, and people whose kids stain the wall cost their owners a little more, but on average it comes out (hope you can own a lot of domiciles).
If we start to be able to measure this, doesn't this mean we can more accurately price it? People less likely will pay less, and people more likely will pay more. I think you're suggesting that "Owners will just use the likelihood of damages as a threshold, and if you're 0.01 above the Unsafe/Volatile threshold you'll not be rented to at all", but that leaves a pretty big hole in the market. If there's not enough supply, then people are being kicked out instead of Evan _now_, and if there is enough supply, then you'd rather rent to Evan at higher rates to cover your risks than to not rent at all, right?
The current situation kinda feels like an "insurance" thing, with pooled risk.
Do you have kids yourself? How much control do you ultimately have over them? How long should this metric haunt you?
When hearing how US credit scoring works I do not think it is a system worth striving for.
This quickly becomes analogue to another HN discussion today about job opportunities for felons. That is hard threshold - it is easier just to skip them.
Should we let the market forces rule freely?
If not totally free then how big a pooled risk is acceptable to you? A pool for those with kids and another for those without?
I have no kids and personally I prefer one pool. Even with those unruly kids upstairs!
When I see a society with gated communities I feel sorry for them. I live a place where we do not have them and I am grateful for that. They might be happier than me - but I do still not envy them.
I often find people who argue fair pricing are the ones who think they are in the sweet spot.
The example seems a little contrived as well. If Evans kid stains the wall he would fix it. If not - then it is when you have the deposit to mitigate that risk.
I do however get the gist of it. And personally I like the pooled risk. I think that we do much better together than as individuals. The pricing might seem unfair but sometimes it in your direct favour. And the "insurance" feels nice too.
Naturally it comes down to your own philosophy.
So while I agree that it could give a variant of more accurately pricing I do not think that kind of "precision" is healthy.
I am afraid that the privacy ship has sailed but I still think it is worth fighting as the current course have a high risk of a truly dystopian future.
I honestly think these fears are way overblown. Is a family with kids more likely to damage an apartment or simply go to bed early? I don't think anyone has these stats, and even if they did, they probably aren't material enough to overcome the added cost of complexity and social awkwardness.
> keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.
If Evan's kids stain the wall, then Evan's kids are more likely to stain the wall. Currently, the expectation of someone being more likely to stain the walls is "priced in" to the rental prices everywhere. People who don't stain walls pay a little more, and people whose kids stain the wall cost their owners a little more, but on average it comes out (hope you can own a lot of domiciles).
If we start to be able to measure this, doesn't this mean we can more accurately price it? People less likely will pay less, and people more likely will pay more. I think you're suggesting that "Owners will just use the likelihood of damages as a threshold, and if you're 0.01 above the Unsafe/Volatile threshold you'll not be rented to at all", but that leaves a pretty big hole in the market. If there's not enough supply, then people are being kicked out instead of Evan _now_, and if there is enough supply, then you'd rather rent to Evan at higher rates to cover your risks than to not rent at all, right?
The current situation kinda feels like an "insurance" thing, with pooled risk.