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

Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#101

Post by mindcandy »

archagon wrote: post #95
mindcandy wrote: post #73

Maybe my feed is biased. But, I’ve been seeing good arguments lately that “The rent is too damned high!” is largely a problem created by voters. And, I don’t know how we’re going to fix that. Ex: https://youtu.be/yoT76zITRx8 TLDR: 60% of both left and right wing voters like rent control. 98% of economists oppose it. Even liberal lefty economists. Even though they support price controls elsewhere like utility monopoli…

Rent control doesn’t “feel good” — it allows for housing stability in a volatile economic environment. Without rent control, I would be de facto evicted from my home with a 50–100% rent increase from the recent AI boom. (This is literally happening to other folks in my neighborhood.) Why on earth would I vote against it? Because some economist said so? (And no, it’s not 98%, you made that figure up.) Fortunately, you…

Economists don't say no one would ever need to move without rent control. They do say the situation is a whole lot worse for all of the other folks in your neighborhood because you have rent control. And, in the long run, rent control is likely to be detrimental even to you in ways that take more than a single sentence to understand.

I didn't make up 98%. I got it from the video who got it from https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/ Reading more closely, I stated it wrong. 2% agree rent control has helped. 81% explicitly do not, then there are the "other" categories.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#102

Post by archagon »

mindcandy wrote: post #101
archagon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control doesn’t “feel good” — it allows for housing stability in a volatile economic environment. Without rent control, I would be de facto evicted from my home with a 50–100% rent increase from the recent AI boom. (This is literally happening to other folks in my neighborhood.) Why on earth would I vote against it? Because some economist said so? (And no, it’s not 98%, you made that figure up.) Fortunately, you…

Economists don't say no one would ever need to move without rent control. They do say the situation is a whole lot worse for all of the other folks in your neighborhood because you have rent control. And, in the long run, rent control is likely to be detrimental even to you in ways that take more than a single sentence to understand. I didn't make up 98%. I got it from the video who got it from https://kentclarkcente…

OK, but as rental pressure increases, people will vote to protect themselves from arbitrary eviction. Period. No amount of hand-wringing over abstract economic theories will change this.

No renter should have to live with the constant threat of losing their housing due to perturbations of the local economy or the whims of their landlord. As is often the case, economists are asking the wrong question.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#103

Post by louthy »

willmadden wrote: post #100
louthy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc. People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish. I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic…

You didn't read my post objectively. My point is that the current governments, with the exception of some local governments, do not represent or serve their constituencies; in fact, they actively subvert them. I'm assuming your European, that's especially true for you.

That’s just cynical nonsense and a blatant framing of the argument because you want to pay less tax:

“I pay tax to the government. The government doesn’t represent or serve its constituents (me). Therefore I should pay less (or no) tax”

The play is so transparent. But in reality you said absolutely nothing of substance, you’re just throwing out Randian sound bites to see what sticks.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#104

Post by mindcandy »

archagon wrote: post #102
mindcandy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economists don't say no one would ever need to move without rent control. They do say the situation is a whole lot worse for all of the other folks in your neighborhood because you have rent control. And, in the long run, rent control is likely to be detrimental even to you in ways that take more than a single sentence to understand. I didn't make up 98%. I got it from the video who got it from https://kentclarkcente…

OK, but as rental pressure increases, people will vote to protect themselves from arbitrary eviction. Period. No amount of hand-wringing over abstract economic theories will change this. No renter should have to live with the constant threat of losing their housing due to perturbations of the local economy or the whims of their landlord. As is often the case, economists are asking the wrong question.

Exactly. The problem I don't know how to fix is that voting for rent control is short term thinking that ends up causing rental pressure to become much worse in the long run. There are few things more difficult than convincing large numbers of people to think long term.

So, here we are. Living today in the long-term consequences of decades of voting for more rent control while opposing urban real estate development. And, the solution everyone is calling for is more rent control while opposing urban real estate development.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#105

Post by mancerayder »

petcat wrote: post #76
hylaride wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That also means if they sold it right now at that $20k "loss" then they effectively paid $333/month plus upkeep to live somewhere for 5 years! This also ignores the costs in buying/selling, including agent fees, lawyers, etc. You should probably only buy if you plan on living in a single place for at least a decade.

Unless you are willing to enter into some kind of a special arrangement, closing costs are almost always negotiated and usually paid by the seller.

That isn't true. States levy taxes and buyers brokers are a thing in some states, and in some cases they're less fully paid by seller (less than the customary 2.5-3, leaving buyer to provide 1 or 1.5). Closing costs include mortgage costs, too.

I've only ever heard of that stuff paid by seller if seller was a sponsor, and the market was a down market. Think new build in 2020 or in a depressed housing market today.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#106

Post by archagon »

mindcandy wrote: post #104
archagon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but as rental pressure increases, people will vote to protect themselves from arbitrary eviction. Period. No amount of hand-wringing over abstract economic theories will change this. No renter should have to live with the constant threat of losing their housing due to perturbations of the local economy or the whims of their landlord. As is often the case, economists are asking the wrong question.

Exactly. The problem I don't know how to fix is that voting for rent control is short term thinking that ends up causing rental pressure to become much worse in the long run. There are few things more difficult than convincing large numbers of people to think long term. So, here we are. Living today in the long-term consequences of decades of voting for more rent control while opposing urban real estate development.…

It is my experience that renters in my cohort (SF yuppie) are very much pro urban development. It’s the homeowners who are the biggest NIMBYs. They want their home values to increase and rent to go up. Reduced housing stock is a benefit to them; it’s not a benefit to renters.

Also: no amount of “thinking long term” will convince a renter to vote for their own eviction in order to make housing (maybe) cheaper for someone else many years down the line. It makes no sense. That is absolutely the wrong way to frame the problem.

There is a path where we expand rent control and incentivize housing development. They are not inherently contradictory policies.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#107

Post by willmadden »

louthy wrote: post #103
willmadden wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't read my post objectively. My point is that the current governments, with the exception of some local governments, do not represent or serve their constituencies; in fact, they actively subvert them. I'm assuming your European, that's especially true for you.

That’s just cynical nonsense and a blatant framing of the argument because you want to pay less tax: “I pay tax to the government. The government doesn’t represent or serve its constituents (me). Therefore I should pay less (or no) tax” The play is so transparent. But in reality you said absolutely nothing of substance, you’re just throwing out Randian sound bites to see what sticks.

No, you are putting words in my mouth. I would gladly pay more taxes for representation that had me and my peoples' interests in mind. I'm not a libertarian idiot.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#108

Post by mindcandy »

archagon wrote: post #106
mindcandy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The problem I don't know how to fix is that voting for rent control is short term thinking that ends up causing rental pressure to become much worse in the long run. There are few things more difficult than convincing large numbers of people to think long term. So, here we are. Living today in the long-term consequences of decades of voting for more rent control while opposing urban real estate development.…

It is my experience that renters in my cohort (SF yuppie) are very much pro urban development. It’s the homeowners who are the biggest NIMBYs. They want their home values to increase and rent to go up. Reduced housing stock is a benefit to them; it’s not a benefit to renters. Also: no amount of “thinking long term” will convince a renter to vote for their own eviction in order to make housing (maybe) cheaper for some…

Sure, it's possible. But, rent control is a serious disincentive to housing development. It requires correspondingly serious investment from the politicians to overcome that. In practice, what is done is to disincentivize for short term gain, not invest in long term gain, and complain that it's going terribly in the long term.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#109

Post by greenie_beans »

linkregister wrote: post #92
greenie_beans wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are correct that we need to increase supply, and socialized housing creates more supply. great idea

Socialized housing is a management technique. It does not inherently create housing. Read about Stockholm's situation if you are interested in learning about the topic. It is indisputable that there have been successful socialized housing schemes. It is also indisputable there are successful free-market housing systems; for example, Minneapolis.

also indisputable that market forces cause developers to not build because the ROI is not there or it's too risky

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#110

Post by eudamoniac »

bobson381 wrote: post #4

30 year mortgage is founded partly on the idea that your house will be worth more in the future when you sell it. That you can lock in a lower price now. Number cannot always go up. We are at the top of the carbon pulse. Financialization has taken us far from the material baseline of the rock we are flying through space on. Debt will only get us so far. For this and many other reasons, why would you believe a house "…

The number can definitely go up for more than 30 years. There is a lot of wealth out there and the land is not getting any bigger.
Post reply on HN