Live data from Hacker News

In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

nytimes.com

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#61

Supply and demand explains all. When more people want something than there are available, prices increase - until the price increases enough to ration the available supply to the highest bidders. For those calling for rent control, they are advocating a different method of rationing the available apartments... leaving multiple interested people for one apartment. Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rati…

There's also the argument that economic diversity is good for everyone. Non-market solutions to maintaining space for people of different income levels in the area might have positive externalities.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#62
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rationing based on who is willing to pay the most? It's not. But rationing by price has little advantage if you're not going to allow anybody to build more housing: the basic benefit of the price mechanism is that higher prices recruit more resources to employ towards increasing supply. But if you're going to fix supply though a NIMBY-dominated political process, th…

I'd argue that higher prices also mean the resources are consumed by those with the greatest need (as demonstrated by willingness to pay). Take another example. After Katrina hit, some stores got investigated for "gouging" on water. Obviously, water is a necessity of life, post-Katrina municipal water supplies were unavailable in many areas. Now, imagine that it was selling for $1/gallon two weeks prior to Katrina. W…

Allowing the price to float will ensure that someone who really needs water will be able to buy it

That isn't going to be true in the extreme. Three people need water. Two are wealthy, one is not. The two wealthy buyers bid up the price to the point the non-wealthy buyer is priced out o the market. Without some for of rationing (or a change in supply), the non-wealthy buyer dies from dehydration.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#63
post #61

Supply and demand explains all. When more people want something than there are available, prices increase - until the price increases enough to ration the available supply to the highest bidders. For those calling for rent control, they are advocating a different method of rationing the available apartments... leaving multiple interested people for one apartment. Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rati…

There's also the argument that economic diversity is good for everyone. Non-market solutions to maintaining space for people of different income levels in the area might have positive externalities.

Just as a fun thought experiment, let's say we price all the service workers at current income levels out of the market so they all move away. At some point, people will be willing to pay more for service work due to a strong demand for limited services.

It almost seems pernicious to have low income housing since it allows employers to get away with lower wages to cover an artificially low cost of housing, at the same time, service workers retain a poor quality of life because outside housing everything else is expensive.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#64
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rationing based on who is willing to pay the most? It's not. But rationing by price has little advantage if you're not going to allow anybody to build more housing: the basic benefit of the price mechanism is that higher prices recruit more resources to employ towards increasing supply. But if you're going to fix supply though a NIMBY-dominated political process, th…

I'd argue that higher prices also mean the resources are consumed by those with the greatest need (as demonstrated by willingness to pay). Take another example. After Katrina hit, some stores got investigated for "gouging" on water. Obviously, water is a necessity of life, post-Katrina municipal water supplies were unavailable in many areas. Now, imagine that it was selling for $1/gallon two weeks prior to Katrina. W…

Yes, you're right, more or less. (And this is the reason I edited my post to claim "little advantage" rather than "no advantage" from increased prices, possibly after you replied to it.)

But analyzing the effect you've described is much more difficult than analyzing the effect of price increases in a market in which supply is not artificially constrained: some people have more or less money than others, and are more or less ready to spend it on this or that, for various reasons. And it is not nearly as straightforward to say that there will be a social benefit (in whatever sense you prefer) in letting the highest bidder claim a resource when the proceeds will go fully into someone's pocket rather than when they are likely to lead to higher production of the resource, and thence to an obviously greater social benefit from its higher consumption.

Of course, I expect that you are right in at least the sense you meant: in the presence of a constraint on supply, the price mechanism will still broadly incentivize people who derive a greater benefit from consuming the resource actually to consume it: higher rents will mean more tech types in the Bay Area.

I must point out here that nothing happens in isolation. Higher rents in the Bay Area will incentivize employers to move jobs elsewhere, all else equal. (I have seen several instances of this is my home, Kansas City, which is becoming a popular place to park back-office jobs for San Francisco firms of national scope.) And, yes, providing that incentive to move out is a good thing, relative to the theoretical alternative of paying higher rents without that option, and consequently transferring resources to property-owners with no net social benefit. But it's still a poor alternative to letting higher prices do what they want to do in the absence of artificial constraints: increase supply of a resource whose higher consumption benefits society on net.

Still, if you want to limit development and push people to move to Kansas City because San Francisco's rents are too damn high, please, do. It's a much more appealing place than costal ignorance would lead you to believe, and we will welcome the newcomers.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#65

Supply and demand explains all. When more people want something than there are available, prices increase - until the price increases enough to ration the available supply to the highest bidders. For those calling for rent control, they are advocating a different method of rationing the available apartments... leaving multiple interested people for one apartment. Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rati…

A market-based approach would make a lot of sense in a world that doesn't have Prop 13. Then property owners would be forced to balance their objections to new development with the fact that the lack of new development will push up property values and increase property taxes. But with a cap on property taxes, existing property owners are free to block, stall and otherwise prevent new development without any financial disincentive.

As you've pointed out, supply and demand explains all. But supply has been limited by forces that need to be fixed. We either need some financial pressure that convinces property owners that new development is in their best interests or we need to stop giving existing property owners input on new development. Because demand is increasing, whether we like it or not. And in the face of that, there are only two options, build more or let rents spike. When even Google employees are feeling the pain of high rents, it's obvious we're not striking the right balance between those two options.

It's annoying to see the focus on stuff like rent control when the underlying cause is so clear. Prop 13 is at the core of these problems and needs to be addressed directly rather than tangential half measures like rent control.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#66
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work remotely in SF. I live here because I like not owning a car, walking and biking most places, and non-tech things to do. I'm just lucky I can afford it. The solution is to build more good US cities that aren't car centric. I'm not aware of any. Build a from scratch city with a target of at least 250k residents on the California coast and I'll move. I don't know how many people think similarly, but there's still…

The best way i've seen this framed is: in all of the US, there are only about 2,000 blocks of housing with sufficient density & walkable services to support car free living. This is some of the most sought after and expensive real estate in the country, but zoning codes won't allow more of it to be built. Example zoning restrictions: mandatory building setbacks, mandatory parking requirements, mandatory building sepa…

Manhattan alone is on the order of 2000 blocks, I don't know where you came up with that figure.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#67
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work remotely in SF. I live here because I like not owning a car, walking and biking most places, and non-tech things to do. I'm just lucky I can afford it. The solution is to build more good US cities that aren't car centric. I'm not aware of any. Build a from scratch city with a target of at least 250k residents on the California coast and I'll move. I don't know how many people think similarly, but there's still…

US cities that aren't car centric: Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston. Nearby: Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto. Afar: London, Paris, Berlin. Arguably San Francisco is the most car-centric of the bunch with its comparatively non-functional transportation system.

As somebody who lives in Portland it still seems very much "car centric". There are some people who are able to get along without a car. There are others who can commute via bus or bike.

But it's really difficult to get around without a car. What sucks is that the city is making it more difficult to get around by limiting the number of cars on streets (Glisan, Division, heading into town on Burnside, soon Foster) without providing much in the way of alternatives. Buses aren't running more often and they don't have protected right-of-ways that would let get around traffic jams.

I'll agree that what they're doing on NE Broadway, protecting bicyclists, looks good. But they're doing it that very rarely.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#68
post #7

Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?

A big example is the almost-universal rent control in the USA during WWII to help keep wages down and production up. This was an emergency measure designed to be temporary (although there was never a guarantee it would be). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration...

Which is famously why the U.S. ended up with health insurance tied to one's employer-- a workaround to the limits of price controls (employers could offer this additional perk, but not additional money).

Yet another unintended consequence that continues to impress generations later. (I wonder why they didn't simply let wages rise.)

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#69
post #47

Supply and demand explains all. When more people want something than there are available, prices increase - until the price increases enough to ration the available supply to the highest bidders. For those calling for rent control, they are advocating a different method of rationing the available apartments... leaving multiple interested people for one apartment. Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rati…

> Why is the non-price way of rationing better than rationing based on who is willing to pay the most? It's not. But rationing by price has little advantage if you're not going to allow anybody to build more housing: the basic benefit of the price mechanism is that higher prices recruit more resources to employ towards increasing supply. But if you're going to fix supply though a NIMBY-dominated political process, th…

Thanks for the book recommendations. Obviously, I haven't read them yet, but I think my next point will still be valid.

In situations of natural fixed supply, think real estate in times square, water after Katrina, rare collectors items - the price is still extremely important for rationing. And the price does lead to the highest value activities performed.

For example, in times square, you see mass market wide popularity businesses - you don't see niche computer parts stores (which you might if rent was capped at $500 per store per month). Nothing to do with NIMBY.

In this case, if rent control was established, people that would be willing to commute from further away might end up living closer, while those who want to pay more to commute less may be forced to live further away. Exactly the sub-optimal economic situation.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#70
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work remotely in SF. I live here because I like not owning a car, walking and biking most places, and non-tech things to do. I'm just lucky I can afford it. The solution is to build more good US cities that aren't car centric. I'm not aware of any. Build a from scratch city with a target of at least 250k residents on the California coast and I'll move. I don't know how many people think similarly, but there's still…

The best way i've seen this framed is: in all of the US, there are only about 2,000 blocks of housing with sufficient density & walkable services to support car free living. This is some of the most sought after and expensive real estate in the country, but zoning codes won't allow more of it to be built. Example zoning restrictions: mandatory building setbacks, mandatory parking requirements, mandatory building sepa…

  high minimum lot sizes.
I'm confused. I can hardly think of an area with smaller average single family house lot areas than SF.
Post reply on HN