Well, like all good things, HN has passed Eternal September. Or more quaintly:
“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
321–330 of 628 posts
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good. Sure, there is a housing marketplace, which can provide some correction. But houses are also homes. People are born in them. People die in them. They love them, they cherish them, they fight for them. There's a lot of truth in the saying, "Home is where the heart is." What you're missing in that scenario is the large number of people who are displaced not just…
You can use the same argument for any good or service. Tear something away from a person and you can absolutely traumatize them. It can be a teddy bear for a little kid, a car for an adolescent, your laptop, you get the idea. You can't legislate life into some gentle state. It is what it is. You can, however, smooth out the bumps. Unfortunately, rent control does the exact opposite. It creates stupidity like this. Wh…
> Tear something away from a person and you can absolutely traumatize them. It can be a teddy bear for a little kid, a car for an adolescent, your laptop, you get the idea.
I don't understand the point: none of those things are being torn away from people due to market forces.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there are many examples of goods that are not considered "normal." The state has always regulated such vital goods, usually ensuring supply. The Farm Bill is a perfect example. Housing is another.
"The Farm Bill"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill The US Farm Bill establishes agricultural subsidies.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.
> The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. So every lease becomes a lifetime deal. Hmm. Since rent keeps going up, this means prices are going to have to go up dramatically now so that I'm not completely hosed in ten to twenty years. After all, rent control increase caps are…
> Are you aware that you just defined turning a profit as an asshole move? Perhaps you want to rethink your definition.
Nowhere did I say that, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
Actually, interestingly, you've now also defined profit as a zero-sum game across society. For some to be enriched, others must falter and be brought lower. If that's what profit is, then yes, I do believe profit is an asshole move. (But I don't think that's what profit is!)
It's entirely possible for landlords to raise rents in such a way that continues to cover their costs, continues to provide a tidy profit margin, but does not displace tenants. That's why I said it's possible to maintain your current profit (which you could consider a fixed dollar amount or a percentage, and my argument still holds) and did NOT say maintain your current rent.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The market rent is exactly what other potential tenants are willing to pay. You're not understanding the scam. Suppose you move in to a place and pay the then-market rent of $1000 a month. Let's further suppose that it cost you $2400 to move, plus a shitload of time and effort that you'd rather not repeat. If the next year the market price remains $1000/month, the landlord can still raise the rent on you because yo…
That scam isn't that common or the reasoning for these laws. Let's just assume that most renters and most landlords are fair actors. Sure they both want a better deal but most landlords don't try to factor moving costs in to the equation. Fact of the matter, and I own rental properties, you generally want to keep great renters, at least in our market, want to keep them almost to the point of not raising rent to risk…
> Let's just assume that most renters and most landlords are fair actors.
That's an insane assumption. Most landlords are companies which, if human, would be considered sociopaths.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Build where? You know there's water all around it right?
UP, for crissakes.
Well, you've got to tear a bunch of stuff down first. And I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.
What you're talking about is the idea that economics shouldn't apply because there are a lot more emotions involved in house than in most other markets. Do I need to point out that that is silly, or is it sufficiently self-evident that economics applies anyway? The real answer tends to be building enough housing for everyone. That also tends to be politically unpalatable, because the people with all the emotional att…
Economics is not value-free. Actually, economics already has a way of dealing with exactly the problem GP cites: externalities.
Taking away someone's home involves potentially massive negative externalities (emotional and otherwise). Therefore, if you want to maintain the political theater that says capitalism is designed to benefit everyone, you have to accept that it may be preferable, optimal in fact, to incur some deadweight loss. Rent control is one strategy that does just that: as long as a person lives in a place, the rent can't go up.
Is it naively optimal? Nope. But it is (or can be, if you get the implementation right) actually optimal. It is a guarantee that a house can be a home, if the tenant so chooses, and it could be used to balance the aforementioned negative externalities.
Does it? Who knows, maybe, I'm not familiar enough with San Francisco's housing laws. Just because they implemented it poorly doesn't mean the concept is unsound or irrational and it doesn't mean that anyone in favor of the concept is "silly" or deserves to be condescended.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're talking about is the idea that economics shouldn't apply because there are a lot more emotions involved in house than in most other markets. Do I need to point out that that is silly, or is it sufficiently self-evident that economics applies anyway? The real answer tends to be building enough housing for everyone. That also tends to be politically unpalatable, because the people with all the emotional att…
I wonder if economics could in some way factor in emotions besides greed.
It does. When you choose to pay a price or not, every emotion you feel is factored in.
Is a place "home" to you? You're probably willing to pay for it. Don't like a place much? You'll be less willing to spend.
This runs out after a point, though. Warm fuzzies are great, but I can't eat them, wear them, or sleep under them. I also can't trade warm fuzzies for any things I can do those with.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#329Wonder how this rental mechanism works
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#330YC sings the praises of San Fransisco, and they're right about the culture and the startup scene there. But things like this, and the cost of living overall, make me hesitate to start something out there.
It really blows my mind that young people starting new companies want to live and work out there. There are other places to live that are less expensive and have venture capital! My hometown of San Antonio, while nowhere near as inexpensive as it was 10 years ago, is a great example of this. The startup scene in SAT is blowing up and you can get a gorgeous, brand-new apartment for under $2K.
VC investment is very power law, and SV dwarfs other places: http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/06/americas-top-metros-vent... , especially controlled for population.
See also pg's "Cities and Ambition" http://paulgraham.com/cities.html. People move to SV to do startups because everyone else moves to SV to do startups. The field of economic geography studies this phenomenon.