31–40 of 62 posts
Rent control is nativism just like prop 13. Provides special economic benefits unavailable to newcomers.
For arguments sake - is nativism inherently immoral?
Bizarre to not mention the long-standing, broad consensus among economists that rent controls do more harm than good. Courtesy Wikipedia, here’s Paul Krugman in 2000: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... Surely if economists were so widely in support of such policies, the Times would have highlighted that fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in Montréal you can get a $400USD 1 bedroom apartment in a good part of town I find that extremely hard to believe
I pay $500 Canadian + electricity/heating ($80) / month for an apartment (half of top floor in duplex) in a good part of town, 20 minute walk from the very best part. That's 439.43USD including all utilities for a one bedroom, or '3.5' as it is called here (kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom). & I know many dozens of people in the same scenario, or who pay less. There is definitely more expensive stuff out there…
>In fact I shit you not, my neighbour who has kept their place since the early 90s, pays 246.22 USD + electric for the same apartment as me. . .
Undoubtedly those that have rent controlled apartments do well. But that does not mean one can go and get an apartment and pay a rate similar to the one that they have.
Rent control is nativism just like prop 13. Provides special economic benefits unavailable to newcomers.
For arguments sake - is nativism inherently immoral?
But if you suggest that, it reveals the NIMBY hypocracy. “We want the economy to keep growing just no more people moving here...” ie the existing residents want to get rich by extracting wealth from the job creators in their region via restriction of housing supply.
In Québec we've had province-wide rent control since at least the early 70's. Landlords are allowed to raise rent annually up to a certain percentage determined by inflation (last year, up to 2.5%). Rent raises can also be appealed to the housing board if they seem unfair, or if the landlord has not been keeping up with maintenance. Prices can go up if significant renovations occur (which they almost never do), but e…
> in Montréal you can get a $400USD 1 bedroom apartment in a good part of town I find that extremely hard to believe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never met anyone in the US who has enjoyed their experience in public housing or low rent apartments.
Here are some examples from outside of the US of luxury public housing. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/beautiful-public-housing-red-...
When traveling abroad, it's amazing how clean everything is. The amount of trash on US highways, city sidewalks, public parks, etc. is pretty noticeable when you return.
I'm sure we could build beautiful housing pretty affordably, but I'm not sure we could keep it beautiful unless we treat affordable housing as an ongoing investment and not just build it and forget about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I pay $500 Canadian + electricity/heating ($80) / month for an apartment (half of top floor in duplex) in a good part of town, 20 minute walk from the very best part. That's 439.43USD including all utilities for a one bedroom, or '3.5' as it is called here (kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom). & I know many dozens of people in the same scenario, or who pay less. There is definitely more expensive stuff out there…
Do you have a link to an example? >In fact I shit you not, my neighbour who has kept their place since the early 90s, pays 246.22 USD + electric for the same apartment as me. . . Undoubtedly those that have rent controlled apartments do well. But that does not mean one can go and get an apartment and pay a rate similar to the one that they have.
Why do governments go this direction when it causes so many problems? In a market economy, which includes both housing construction and home rentals, price is the signal by which demand is measured. Rent control either eliminates or severely distorts that signal. I’m going to predict that:1) fewer new homes will be constructed and 2) rents will sky rocket where it’s possible (tenant turnover).
Economic analysis that does not take these factors into account is not worth very much. It also fails to offer any useful solution for the underlying problem of rents rising faster than incomes.
Bizarre to not mention the long-standing, broad consensus among economists that rent controls do more harm than good. Courtesy Wikipedia, here’s Paul Krugman in 2000: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... Surely if economists were so widely in support of such policies, the Times would have highlighted that fact.
And yet the market seems not to have magically provided a supply of housing that is adequate for the market to reach an affordable equilibrium. I agree the article should have mentioned it and am also skeptical about the efficacy of rent control, but other approaches don't seem to be working out as hoped.