551–560 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers. The better estimate is 993,588.
The population actually grew from 2021.
Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say. In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium. In practice that equilibrium is quite close to the original cost so it doesn't fix the issue traffic. But if that same number of people had driven befor…
> ... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say. That perhaps you shouldn't assume that kindergarten-level theories always correctly describe complex markets? > In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium. So go on, do continue this line of thi…
Even then, I’m curious as to what point you were trying to make with the building roads thing.
Isn’t it a good thing that more roads are built even if induced demand is observed? More people are able to use the roads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation. Another reason is high demand in locations where offer is limited due to physical limitations. There’s always demand to live in Broadway, and offer can never catch up due to its physical limitations.
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. Nowhere in the economic theory there is a proposition stating that prices should fall below affordable levels, given enough competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. Nowhere in the economic theory there is a proposition stating that prices should fall below affordable levels, given enough competition.
We are not talking about economic theory. We are talking about house prices. Time after time it has been seen that free-enough market can lower the prices to affordable levels.
[flagged]
There are many mistakes here. The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers. The better estimate is 993,588. The population actually grew from 2021. Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?
I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals.
If you have better population estimates for these years that use the same consistent methodology, I'm all ears.
> Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?
In SF rents fell even more. Without significant new construction.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: houses sell for $1,000,000 because there are more people with $500,000 (and every other number less than $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
How is that a counterpoint? It says the same thing with different words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say. That perhaps you shouldn't assume that kindergarten-level theories always correctly describe complex markets? > In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium. So go on, do continue this line of thi…
Your previous comment is misleading and incorrect. Even then, I’m curious as to what point you were trying to make with the building roads thing. Isn’t it a good thing that more roads are built even if induced demand is observed? More people are able to use the roads.
You got more people into the place. Now more employers move in, as they have access to a bigger pool of employees. What's next?
Put yourself into the shoes of a real estate developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be far more efficient to simply tax away all rent collected from land instead of grossly warping markets and creating terrible incentives for all involved. The reason is that you can’t produce more land. Fixed supply will also warp economic markets and create terrible incentives (land speculation). If you want the best solution, you implement a land value tax. If you want the 2nd best solution, tax property…
Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem. The workaround is to build more dwellings, and rc generally is not an inhibitor there. Funny enough 'wealth taxes' may actually be the worst of tax of all - aka a double negative - like a double negative. What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent control is the wrong solution to the right problem (ie affordable housing). It creates all sorts of problems that wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, if you've been in a rent control house or apartment for 10+ years and are paying significantly less, what happens if you want to move? Or just need a bigger place? It's a huge impeediment to mobility and flexibility. Also, you have an adversarial relationship wi…
The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it. To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'. 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part). The answer to…
Nope, you don't. You just do your best to foresee that outcome in advance before renting and pick a house you can afford. And if rents start to move against you, you plan to move out well in advance of getting "kicked out" by unaffordable prices. But that's actually easier than the status quo since no rent control means (1) lower rents overall for the same quality housing! and (2) everyone gets a home for the right price, there is no hidden privilege or lottery aspect to it. Of course it should be paired with higher property taxes or LVT so the rent itself isn't just value-capture by landlords, but that's politically doable. Just a matter of not picking the wrong political fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem. The workaround is to build more dwellings, and rc generally is not an inhibitor there. Funny enough 'wealth taxes' may actually be the worst of tax of all - aka a double negative - like a double negative. What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking…
> it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' A market in this case isn't a literal street market with vendors hawking their goods. The word "market" describes the relationship between people who have more than they need selling to people who need and would prefer to exchange their money (or vouchers etc.) to acquire it. Housing can't not be a market anymore than food or labor could not be a market. It'…