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

Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–326 of 326 posts

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#321

Post by closeparen »

spike021 wrote: post #312
closeparen wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I looked at some of these complexes - similar rents to new construction in downtown SF (and similar unit sizes). Why? Schools, maybe?

Many complexes along El Camino on the peninsula seem to be increasing rent wherever possible. They "renovate" (add stainless appliances basically) and it lets them increase rent for a unit by a few hundred dollars at least. They also charge 200-300 more for a parking spot (I've spoken with complexes before where one unit without parking was 200-300 less than another with one spot, or a unit with an extra/second spot)…

Right, but why are people willing to pay as much/more for these complexes relative to a shiny high-rise in downtown SF?

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#322

Post by spike021 »

closeparen wrote: post #321
spike021 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many complexes along El Camino on the peninsula seem to be increasing rent wherever possible. They "renovate" (add stainless appliances basically) and it lets them increase rent for a unit by a few hundred dollars at least. They also charge 200-300 more for a parking spot (I've spoken with complexes before where one unit without parking was 200-300 less than another with one spot, or a unit with an extra/second spot)…

Right, but why are people willing to pay as much/more for these complexes relative to a shiny high-rise in downtown SF?

They may have more square footage, pools, warmer climate during summer, more parks for children/pets, better schools in some areas as mentioned.

That's part of why I'd prefer living on the peninsula than in downtown SF. Weather is consistently better in the summer months. More space/less people (except for rush hour traffic). More parks for recreation. Pools aren't necessarily a deal breaker for me, but it's a nice extra.

A shiny high-rise is nice but unless you can afford a penthouse or similar you're probably looking at a small unit. Less space, fewer parks, more people everywhere (tourists, homeless, etc.)

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#323

Post by mdpopescu »

taneq wrote: post #280
mdpopescu wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

price = f(cost) is incorrect cost = f(price) is correct This is basic economics. (Seriously, this is in the easy stuff like Hazlitt.) For an example, see joe's response.

Just to check that I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the cost of producing a product is a function of its sell price?

Yes. Costs are determined by the sale price, not the other way around. For example, if the sale price of a product increases, the demand for its components raises, which raises their cost.

If a would-be producer cannot source materials that would cost him less than the sale price, he just won't build the product.

[1] has more details on the subject.

[1] https://mises.org/library/whats-cost-got-do-it-0

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#324

Post by [deleted] »

aninhumer wrote: post #301
taysic wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UBI truly is basic income that is livable then labor costs will go up, and thus production costs go up.

It's not that simple though. On the one hand, UBI will make people less willing to accept work, but on the other hand it will also make them able to have a higher quality of life with a lower wage. If someone is currently on $25k and gets a $10k basic income, their employer can lower their salary to $20k and they'll still be getting $5k more than they were before. (This won't happen immediately because people will be…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#325

Post by klipt »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #233
klipt wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, immigration controls are also similar to the movement controls of Apartheid. They're just more socially acceptable because pretty much every country does it.

Sure. But discriminating on your own citizens based on where they were born (or where their parents were born in china’s case) is extra douchey.

I believe you can change Hukou after a few years so it's not strictly where they were born.

Many American state universities discriminate against students based on where their parents live (e.g. charging in-state vs out-of-state tuition).

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#326

Post by seanmcdirmid »

klipt wrote: post #325
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But discriminating on your own citizens based on where they were born (or where their parents were born in china’s case) is extra douchey.

I believe you can change Hukou after a few years so it's not strictly where they were born. Many American state universities discriminate against students based on where their parents live (e.g. charging in-state vs out-of-state tuition).

A. Yes but it’s very hard. You have to marry in it or be a grad from a good university in a good major.

B. Yes, but you easily get residence by living there for less than a year. Also,public K12 schools can’t discriminate like they do in china.

Post reply on HN