41–50 of 326 posts
But no, instead we get this, "Rent Control Is Uniformly Bad" title which is designed to split the demo and bring in people who want to argue.
Surely we can do better!
Rent control is a failed experiment. All it does is force land lords to massively increase rent amounts when someone moves out to account for multi-year market increases. Basically, if the real market price of an apartment is ~$3,000/mo, but in 5 years it realistically would be $5,000, they will simply list it for $5,000 now, to mitigate the loss. My mother-in-law is a land lord in Los Angeles (a very fair one at tha…
Forces them? As if they wouldn't raise rents as much as they felt they could get away with anyway.
Or as if without rent control landlords would keep rents low, merely out of the goodness of their hearts.
So, because you cannot trade apartments without spending significantly more money, there's a couple of hour-long commutes instead. This is part of a general pattern - messing with prices doesn't help, since the market still has to clear. You just start paying in things other than money. Paying for things with money is great in general, since then someone else has the money. Paying for things with a longer commute is terrible, since there's no beneficiary.
Another second-order effect of rent control is increased traffic. Suppose you have two residents with significantly below-market-rate housing at the same quality level, one in downtown SF and another in Mountain View. The former starts a new job at Google in Mountain View, the latter starts a new job at a trendy start-up in downtown SF. Since they're paying significantly below market rate, they're unable to trade apa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent control removes the incentive to build new apartments. There are second order effects that make it counterproductive. Even the socialist economists agree rent control is terrible.
So as to not remove the incentive to build new apartments, in San Francisco, rent control only applies to units built before 1978. The SF rent control law (like the CA Prop 13) does allow rents to increase, but very slowly. It would be possible to have both without as strong of adverse consequences by changing the ceiling at which both are permitted to increase.
Indeed! It's also worth mentioning that this has had the perverse side-effect of encouraging people to find any and every way possible to block the removal of old buildings.
Which is to say that the incentive to build new apartments has been matches with tools designed to prevent exactly that.
Of course it is. It artificially limits supply due to long term rent squatters taking advantage of the system
It feels like the title and the thesis of the news piece is either incorrect or at least misleading.
Now, I have not read the paper, but I would have thought the free market combined with sky-high wages and demand, combined with a lack of inventory, was the cause. Rent Control surely just prevents local families from being muscled out by the tech employees?
> Rent Control surely just prevents local families from being muscled out by the tech employees? Correct. And in the process of doing so, further contributes to the lack of inventory of market-rate rental units available to the influx of newcomers/tech employees. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, this causes huge disparities for rents of similar units within a given building as landlords attempt to compens…
Now, I have not read the paper, but I would have thought the free market combined with sky-high wages and demand, combined with a lack of inventory, was the cause. Rent Control surely just prevents local families from being muscled out by the tech employees?
But rent control manipulates the free market. With rent control, people who might otherwise move, don't. Further, people who might rent a vacant apartment while they're overseas don't. Or people who start a family and move to the suburbs keep their city place as a pied a tier. So supply is suppressed, but demand is not.
I'm failing to see the problem. Unless those people would have moved for reasons other than soaring rent, them getting to keep their homes is a GOOD THING.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes the cost of intervention outweigh benefits, sometimes they don't. + Sometimes it works for a short period, as the policy reflected the economy at the time of creation, then becomes irrelevant via technology/market reaction to policy/general progress... but yet stays a policy for decades. The important point is that we rarely ever measures whether it does work or not, and policy tends to have an extremely…
Personally I think that 1) is not attainable in a practical sense. It would require resources that are not available and would just add to the ridiculous overhead of running a government. I used to believe in an ideal state as the one you describe. More recently, I think about what a system - i.e economic, political, social - that is stable (in some sense) looks like. For example, liberatarians believe that markets s…
I came to the same conclusion. Sadly many 'libertarians' often gets dismissed as disliking all forms of government and regulation, which is not the case, rather preferring a limited one. But I guess intentional/unintentional misrepresentation is a savvy and common political tactic because it's effective.
My question to you is how do you achieve a limited/small government (without a revolution)? I believe controls like this are one way to achieve it. Much like how the strict policies of the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) have limited/stopped potentially hundreds of thousands of overreaching policies in the US alone over the last two centuries.
The constitution, aka strict pre-emptive limitations, are good. But I believe post-defacto limitations and reviews are also a necessity. Because as I said, some policy does seem rational at the time - which then becomes out-of-date or a bad idea with retrospect.
We currently have no good tools to deal with those outcomes...