Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 326 posts

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#201

Post by AnimalMuppet »

classwarsteve wrote: post #185
jules wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you start a communist commune? You can do that in a capitalist system. You can't set up a capitalist commune in a communist system because they'll put you in the gulag.

Actually you should check out the long history of western capitalist supported right wing death squads that have been sent to break up communist governments. https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5...

And how does that answer jules' point? You sound like you're just looking for a chance to spew your talking points, rather than actually having a conversation with us.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#202

Post by michaelchisari »

kemiller wrote: post #133
michaelchisari wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother-in-law is a land lord in Los Angeles I'm a tenant in Los Angeles, and a staunch supporter of rent control. Knowing that my rent (which is already high) can only go up so much year-over-year provides some bit of stability as the tech industry devours eastward from Santa Monica.

Would you rather have rent control, or just lower rents overall? For the sake of argument. Because that's the thesis: rent control is partially responsible for the out of control rents.

I'd rather tackle things like speculation and improper use (high volume airbnb) before going after rent controls.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#203

Post by adrianratnapala »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #156
nerfhammer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term for this is called "labor mobility". Instead of increasing commute times, more typically it involves simply not taking jobs that are further away. Restricting labor mobility is really bad for obvious reasons: people not being able to move where the jobs are means jobs not being filled even as unemployment increases. There is overwhelming evidence that labor mobility has gotten drastically worse in recent dec…

China is a bad example with its hukou system in place. Sure you can migrate to the city for a better job but you have to leave your kids behind (no public school without hukou). Labor mobility but at great costs.

China is a bad example of a place getting policy right to favour labour mobility.

It is an extreme example of a place where labour mobility is so valuable it happens in spite of restraints. In fact it is so extreme that it is hard to draw lessons for modern western countries (although it has obvious resemblances to urbanisation in Europe a few centuries ago).

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#204

Post by adrianratnapala »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #194
spike021 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is exactly my current dilemma: I live in San Jose, I commute to SF 3 days a week (super thankful for the chance to work remote 2x a week). My current apartment (a 1BR I live in by myself) costs a bit less than 1k a month and is rent-controlled. The equivalent in SJ is probably worth 2-2.5x as much per month, and in SF (or somewhere in-between) it can be worth anywhere from 2.5-4x as much. I've been hun…

Real question, why not look for a different job closer to San Jose?

And here we see nerfhammer@ point being made. Your question is good. And that shows that the laws discourage people from seeking work far from where they currently live.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#206

Post by classwarsteve »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #201
classwarsteve wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you should check out the long history of western capitalist supported right wing death squads that have been sent to break up communist governments. https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5...

And how does that answer jules' point? You sound like you're just looking for a chance to spew your talking points, rather than actually having a conversation with us.

My point is that Jules is wrong that capitalists will permit you to set up a communist society. Perhaps you should revisit the cold war. In addition, a commune within a capitalist society would still be reliant on the labor of an external, exploited proletarian class. Communism is internationalist. Ultimately this is the failure of first world social democratic programs that provide decent gains for their working classes but do so at the expense of oppressed peoples in the global south.

Referring to them as talking points without refuting them sounds a whole lot like trying to dismiss the argument without dealing with the contents. Don't get upset and fall back on procedural obfuscation if you're trying to have a conversation with me.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#207

Post by anthuswilliams »

noobermin wrote: post #170
jules wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of blame, it's a question of the results of a particular policy. Rent control creates an incentive for landlords to bully their tenants. You can create another government agency to police this, but in reality that is extremely difficult because you can do a lot of bad things legally, and trying to police that will have negative unintended consequences in itself. It also causes bad behavior that wo…

You're going to have to help me. I don't know what you mean by "bad behavior that would be[...]undesirable to police." It seems very abstract, and because of that, is less than convincing. Please give me an explicit example of that. For example, how does, "rent-control => neglect the state of housing" That happens already without rent-control.

It's true that there are many landlords who provide ill-managed, neglected housing even in areas without rent control. However, rent control exacerbates that problem, in my opinion, for two reasons:

1) It incentivizes the landlord to shorten the amount of time a particular tenant will inhabit the property, because it is only when a tenant leaves and a new one comes in that the landlord is free to jack up the rent to market rates.

2) It compels the landlord to lower his expenses in order to ensure that his investment stays profitable. Ordinarily, a landlord is constrained by a desire to keep a property that will attract and retain good tenants, but since that is no longer (as much of) a factor, he will avoid making repairs and enhancements except in emergency situations where the law requires him to.

Source: landlord (albeit one who has never worked in an area with rent control policies)

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#208

Post by klipt »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #156
nerfhammer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term for this is called "labor mobility". Instead of increasing commute times, more typically it involves simply not taking jobs that are further away. Restricting labor mobility is really bad for obvious reasons: people not being able to move where the jobs are means jobs not being filled even as unemployment increases. There is overwhelming evidence that labor mobility has gotten drastically worse in recent dec…

China is a bad example with its hukou system in place. Sure you can migrate to the city for a better job but you have to leave your kids behind (no public school without hukou). Labor mobility but at great costs.

Seems comparable to immigration controls between countries.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#209

Post by AnimalMuppet »

classwarsteve wrote: post #206
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how does that answer jules' point? You sound like you're just looking for a chance to spew your talking points, rather than actually having a conversation with us.

My point is that Jules is wrong that capitalists will permit you to set up a communist society. Perhaps you should revisit the cold war. In addition, a commune within a capitalist society would still be reliant on the labor of an external, exploited proletarian class. Communism is internationalist. Ultimately this is the failure of first world social democratic programs that provide decent gains for their working cla…

> My point is that Jules is wrong that capitalists will permit you to set up a communist society.

The non-communist countries tried to sabotage the communist ones, true. (And vice versa - a cold war is like that.) That is not at all the same as saying that, within a capitalist countries, the capitalists will not permit you to set up a commune. Your argument (and link) therefore do not actually address jules' point at all.

> In addition, a commune within a capitalist society would still be reliant on the labor of an external, exploited proletarian class.

How does that address jules' point (or even mine)?

> Communism is internationalist. Ultimately this is the failure of first world social democratic programs that provide decent gains for their working classes but do so at the expense of oppressed peoples in the global south.

How does that address jules' point (or even mine)? Starting a commune in the US doesn't exploit the oppressed in the global south whatsoever.

This is why I say it looks like you're just looking to spew talking points. You're saying a lot, but it's not relevant to the subject.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#210

Post by saryant »

tooltalk wrote: post #134
tomohawk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heinlen in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" introduces the idea of a legislature with 2 chambers. One for creating laws and the other for getting rid of them. The threshold for creating them being higher. The way it is now, everything is geared towards "doing" things, and credit is received for "accomplishments". Its usually much harder to undo things. It would be refreshing to have specialists in undoing things.

IMO, there should be automatic sunset provision in every law passed in this country, like the one existed for the Patriotic Act, and reviewed, renewed or expired every 5 or 10 years.

Texas has a form of this. Every state agency (with a handful of exceptions) will automatically be abolished every 5-10 years absent explicit action by the legislature.
Post reply on HN