• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that “exceeded all expectations”. Probably less than 1/3 of employees.

    So if it’s good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it’s good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      My old company’s “top” level required the VP to sign off on. So maybe 1-2 people in a department of 150 got it.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      One of the issues is if material costs to maintain the property increase steeper than this cap.

      Though the solution is pretty practical – cap it at inflation.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Don’t really care honestly, since the prices they’re charging now are nowhere near their operating costs as it is.

        They can take a hit to their profit. Or sell an “unprofitable” property.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          This is the truth. You need to create conditions that make renting unprofitable and unsustainable, and all of a sudden property prices will begin to fall as landlords sell. This happened in London after WW2, when renting was over-regulated and most of the residents ended up owning their own apartments as landlords sold off property. After deregulation, the reverse trend began again.