“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#331

Post by maxharris » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:04 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #315

maxharris wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my particular moral code says you must abide by my particular moral code It's not merely an arbitrary moral code that I'm asserting. What other way is there to live than to use your mind as best you can to make the most of your limited time? What other way is there to live than to treat others neither as masters nor slaves, but as trading partners (in love, friendship, mentorship, business)?

Arbitrariness isn't the issue. Agreement between various moral codes -- often in harmony, often conflicting -- is what matters. And often that means compromising on some things. You don't appear willing to compromise on what seems like an advocation for absolute property ownership rights.

So how would you compromise on the points I raised? What would you advocate for instead? Stating these openly might help clarify the issue.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#332

Post by sampo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:05 AM UTC

Russell91 wrote: post #21

whiteboarder wrote: post #13

Build more houses. None of this shit would happen if SF would just build more houses.

Ironically, rent control is exactly why there is so little housing available in SF. Iirc, only 30% of the voting population owns property. So how is it that the rest of us (70%) don't vote to build more? Well, because 3/4 renters are under rent control, and essentially don't care. So only 70%/4 Edit: source: http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apartm...

"The rest profit handsomely from increased home prices due to high demand."

The irony is, they would probably profit even more, if they allowed the city to grow naturally. New York City had a population of 800k (like San Francisco has now) some time in the 1850's. Do you think a piece of land in NYC would be more valuable now, if they had decided to stop the city's population to 800k back then?

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#333

Post by esrauch » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:05 AM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #233

jsprogrammer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most property, if you trace out the actual chain of transactions, originates in theft or fraud. Either a monarch or other military force took it from another group by force and parceled out pieces of it (theft) or literally just claimed it from afar (without occupation) and decided who to grant it to (fraud). Just because you are some steps removed from the beginning of the transaction chain, does not mean that you h…

- What about the software I wrote in the past year and a half for the schools I work for? - What about the designs my co-worker painstakingly worked on over the same period? - What about the reams of reports my wife wrote at her company, which makes heart valves? She gets up at 4:30 in the morning, comes home at around 5 at night, works after dinner. When there's an important deadline coming up (which is almost all t…

I believe the person you were replying to was referring to land when he said property (which is a normal term to use, if someone asked me "are you interested in looking at a property?" it would pretty unambiguously mean land / physical building).

Not that it means his stance was correct, but your argument isn't addressing his point.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#334

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:05 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #324

Kalium wrote: post #306

Earlier 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. 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…

> 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.

OK. What nuance of your stated position did I mistake? In what way do you make a profit and enrich yourself without it coming at the expense of another? Bear in mind that trading something of yours for money from someone else is very literally a trade taking place at their expense - they are spending money.

> 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.

Not when prop 13 caps are generally higher than rent control caps. Over time, a property-owner will lose ground and their margin will shrink as their costs increase faster than their incomes.

In practice, this manifests as landlords deciding not to invest in the upkeep and maintenance so they can preserve their profit margins.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#335

Post by harryh » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:06 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #296

pingswept wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you verify your assumptions about whether or not a commenter owns real estate? For example, do I own real estate in San Francisco? I think your chances of getting that right are pretty close to 50%.

You haven't made any comments about Real Estate ownership, so I can't make any guesses. I really like Warren Buffet's perspective, the rules one believes are right, should be created without you knowing what your circumstance will be . That is, if you are trying to determine what is right, or not, about rent controls, you should create without knowing whether you will be renter, or an owner. I've never met a real est…

Incidentally the technical term for what you describe is the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Most famously described by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#336

Post by cc439 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:06 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #212

orangecat wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlords can impose rent increases far beyond fair market rents for new tenants because it's costly and inconvenient to move, but (in a sellers' market) cheap to replace tenants. The market rent is exactly what other potential tenants are willing to pay. Now, you can argue that particular rent control laws are too aggressive, or that the strategy for calculating bounds on rent increases cause excessive opportunity l…

> 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 would be an insane decision on the part of the landlord though. An increase in price is either tolerable or intolerable. If the tenant is willing to pay an additional $1,000 a month, that's the new market price. If the tenant is willing to move, the landlord loses out on $500-2,000 as it takes time to bring in a new renter in even the hottest market.

The total loss of income is enough incentive for the landlord to keep rent increases reasonable. If your example held true, there would be violence in the streets across the globe but there aren't. The incentives keep increases in check in markets less insane than those in San Francisco and California at large. The policies of that city and state are the largest differentiator between them and areas with healthy markets/ Maybe we should be looking at policy beyond the veil of partisan rhetoric?

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#337

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:06 AM UTC

joeclark77 wrote: post #271

jackmaney wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> moving isn't "that" expensive. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it in a weekend with a few hundred dollar moving truck Care to show me a single company that would allow me to rent a truck for a cross country move for less than four hundred dollars? Go ahead. Take your time.

Isn't this guy getting his $12,500 security deposit returned? I think that would set you up pretty well with a U-Haul and gas.

Most people don't have $12,500 sitting around in the bank, or often even enough to rent a truck for the weekend. Some people work multiple jobs and can't even carve out a full day to move houses. Some people aren't in the best physical health (due to age or disability) and cannot actually move their own stuff.

You've described the typical SF tech worker and decided that everyone is like that. Might want to broaden your horizons a bit.

Regardless, you don't get the security deposit back until a few weeks after you've moved out. Never seen a truck rental or moving company who is all like "sure, you can pay us in a month". A bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, there.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#338

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:07 AM UTC

glesica wrote: post #327

Kalium wrote: post #245

Earlier 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…

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 som…

Rent control wouldn't be such a problem in SF if it didn't also lead to NIMBY-ism preventing the addition of more housing.

I didn't call anyone silly. I said the idea that economics cease to apply because strong emotions and italic fonts are involved is silly.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#339

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:07 AM UTC

cdcarter wrote: post #323

tptacek wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Farm Bill"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill The US Farm Bill establishes agricultural subsidies.

I don't like agricultural subsidies, but they don't make it illegal for Whole Foods to sell a carrot for $4.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#340

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:08 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #288

EpicEng wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich. Ummm... yeah, that's why I bought the place. That's why I took the risk on the investment. That's why I deal with all of the administration. That's why I keep it up to code. So... now I have to rent it for 25% market value? I'll find any way I can out of that situation, and no, it doesn't make me an asshole.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Deciding that you need a fatter paycheck at the expense of a renter who can't afford your desire -- yes, desire, not need -- for more money... yeah, in my book that makes you an asshole. Any rent increase that isn't tied to an increase in costs (sure, maybe plus a few percent for profit) or a CPI/inflation increase is just greed, plain and simple. Put another way: landlords who are al…

So, unless I'm in it to only make as little money as possible for me to have a reasonably comfortable existence (by some standard you have set), I'm a greedy asshole. I disagree. I want to be rich someday. I want to retire at 50 and travel the world, eating at overpriced restaurants along the way. I want to leave some wealth to my children.

That's why I bust my hump working a day job as well as building assets in my spare time; so that someday my investments pay my way with little effort on my end. I am indeed in it to make money; I have no interest in running self-subsidized housing. There's nothing morally wrong with charging market value. It's not that I have no empathy for these people, but circumstances change for a variety of reasons and we all have to adapt. Neighborhoods change over time; rent control won't stop that. My investment finally paid off and you want me to run a charity.

I'm sorry that doesn't jive with your political/world outlook, but that doesn't make me a bad person. There are pros and cons to any economic system, but apparently capitalism is not for you. That's fine, just drop the holier than thou attitude.