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

How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

cato.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#91

Post by calambrac »

benl wrote: post #67
gnaritas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health is very different from other services, profit should not be the goal. Business does not attempt to help people, but to maximize profit, which does not necessarily mean increasing availability or lowering prices at all. It might be more profitable to dump the lower income people and jack up the prices on those who can afford it. Unlike other industries, getting service is often a literal life or death issue, yo…

Profit is the world's way of signaling that you are doing something in an efficient, effective, and long-term sustainable way. So, given that health care is one of the most fundamental individual needs, profit most definitely should be the goal. But health care is not the most fundamental need -- that would be food. I find it puzzling that people don't apply the same arguement to this need. Why not say that profit sh…

You have to be kidding. Regarding food production, go read the Omnivore's Dilemma, go read up on issues with food patents, go read up on the costs of raising meat (which, in effect, only the wealthy can afford to eat). You are in a deep, delusional fantasy if you think the world's food industry is a paragon of efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#92

Post by fallentimes »

r7000 wrote: post #90
fallentimes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ticket scalping also involves equally fun acts & regulations. Luckily the laws are changing (for the better) which is one reason why it was a good idea to invest in us :-D.

Ticketing has been a weird market. There is a strong expectation among consumers that there is a 'fixed price' (face value) and that anything else is 'unfair'. Demand is constrained completely by a venue's capacity leading to all the obvious problems for over-subscribed events.

We deal with this every day. An interesting trend is that we've seen more people buying from ticketmaster (since events are selling out & season ticket sales are down) even when tickets on the secondary market are cheaper and "below face".

It's ridiculous how obsessed people are with face value even when it's arbitrary and doesn't really mean anything; it gives them a sense of fairness.

Also, venues have incentive to sell out as higher margins are associated with concessions, alcohol sales and merchandise. Teams might tell the newspapers they hate the secondary market, but in reality, the majority of them love it. Some even cater to it.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#93

Post by benl »

gnaritas wrote: post #81
benl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit is the world's way of signaling that you are doing something in an efficient, effective, and long-term sustainable way. So, given that health care is one of the most fundamental individual needs, profit most definitely should be the goal. But health care is not the most fundamental need -- that would be food. I find it puzzling that people don't apply the same arguement to this need. Why not say that profit sh…

The problem with that viewpoint is it assumes people are inherently good; they aren't. When profit is the goal, people suffer. I find the idea that seeking profit automatically creates the best good rather naive and idealistic. Of course people don't apply the same argument to food, food isn't scarce for most of us and few have problems acquiring it and the ability to produce it can't be easily collected in the hands…

You've got it backwards -- the very reason that food is plentiful is that there is profit to be made in growing and selling it.

Your statement:

"food isn't scarce for most of us and few have problems acquiring it and the ability to produce it can't be easily collected in the hands of a few, anyone can grow their own food"

is directly contradicted by the millions who starved to death when food production was collectivised under various profit-hating communist regimes.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#94

Post by benl »

calambrac wrote: post #91
benl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit is the world's way of signaling that you are doing something in an efficient, effective, and long-term sustainable way. So, given that health care is one of the most fundamental individual needs, profit most definitely should be the goal. But health care is not the most fundamental need -- that would be food. I find it puzzling that people don't apply the same arguement to this need. Why not say that profit sh…

You have to be kidding. Regarding food production, go read the Omnivore's Dilemma, go read up on issues with food patents, go read up on the costs of raising meat (which, in effect, only the wealthy can afford to eat). You are in a deep, delusional fantasy if you think the world's food industry is a paragon of efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability.

"the costs of raising meat (which, in effect, only the wealthy can afford to eat)"

I guess the 99 cent hamburger must also be part of my delusion, then.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#95

Post by gnaritas »

benl wrote: post #93
gnaritas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that viewpoint is it assumes people are inherently good; they aren't. When profit is the goal, people suffer. I find the idea that seeking profit automatically creates the best good rather naive and idealistic. Of course people don't apply the same argument to food, food isn't scarce for most of us and few have problems acquiring it and the ability to produce it can't be easily collected in the hands…

You've got it backwards -- the very reason that food is plentiful is that there is profit to be made in growing and selling it. Your statement: "food isn't scarce for most of us and few have problems acquiring it and the ability to produce it can't be easily collected in the hands of a few, anyone can grow their own food" is directly contradicted by the millions who starved to death when food production was collectiv…

A statement I'm making about us in the present, is not contradicted because at sometime in the past in some other country under totally different conditions it wasn't true.

That may serve as a counter example, but it doesn't contradict what I said. America is not Russia and just because it went down that way for them does not mean that's how it'll play out for us. Knowing some history is one thing, trying to predict the future from it is another.

You seem to be hung up on extremes, that's not the real world. If I say the free market isn't the solution to every problem it doesn't imply I think it's the solution to no problem and suddenly I'm a communist.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#96

Post by yummyfajitas »

calambrac wrote: post #64
yummyfajitas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates." Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider. Absent rent control, the incentive for any individual housing supplier would be to build more houses and cash in. By your logic, dell should (in the absence of computer-price control laws) cut back on computer production…

"Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider." Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units. Plus, maybe you live in the neighborhood yourself, and you'd hate to see soulless apar…

"If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units."

So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses. And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit.

They sound like the villain in a poorly written movie. (I should be more specific; it's not all builders, since condos do get built. I guess these problems only apply to the rental market.)

"Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control."

It's probably not very bad by this time. Why should I continue to get the reward?

"I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in."

Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy?

And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?

As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#97

Post by calambrac »

mmmurf wrote: post #80
calambrac wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just addressing the on-topic portion of your comment (not that the rest wouldn't be worth commenting on, just not enough time or energy) - I really don't understand your criticism of rent control. "It causes higher prices for everyone not under rent-control." Yes, but that's almost the whole point of rent control - people aren't being displaced by the folks bidding up the price of all the other apartments to absurd l…

The point is that rent control (over time) drives up the price of rental dwellings, a phenomenon which greatly harms the poor. Here's why: In many cities, new buildings are exempt from rent control if they are "luxury" buildings. So the supply of luxury housing increases. Meanwhile, the incentive to build non-luxury buildings is greatly diminished b/c those buildings fall under mandatory rent control. Also, there is…

New properties are exempt at least in NYC and SF, the main cities the article harps on. I don't know about elsewhere.

A place deteriorating over time happens, but from the POV of the tenant whose alternative is getting booted to the curb, this seems like a reasonable tradeoff, doesn't it?

The over-consumption of housing space is a pretty lame argument, and it's contradicted by the point that other people are making about a black-market rising up for illegal subletting & etc.

"Supply and demand functioning properly" is a bit heartless in this context, don't you think? I mean, we don't exist so that some theoretical system can work in a way we can easily describe. When people get kicked out of the place they live, that has a cost - even if we haven't figured out how to put a price tag on it yet. I'm more than happy to say "screw the newcomers" in favor of the established citizenry.

As for rent control being a slippery slope: this is bullshit (sorry). Despite free-market dogma to the contrary, reasonable government policy is not the enemy of the good. See: the recent credit crunch. What would something similar look like for a community? Let's see: an area of town becomes trendy, young folks with lots of disposable income bid up the prices like mad, all the old tenants leave, an economic downturn hits or the neighborhood loses its trendiness, all the young folks who have no real ties leave, and then...

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#98

Post by calambrac »

benl wrote: post #94
calambrac wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be kidding. Regarding food production, go read the Omnivore's Dilemma, go read up on issues with food patents, go read up on the costs of raising meat (which, in effect, only the wealthy can afford to eat). You are in a deep, delusional fantasy if you think the world's food industry is a paragon of efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability.

"the costs of raising meat (which, in effect, only the wealthy can afford to eat)" I guess the 99 cent hamburger must also be part of my delusion, then.

Yes, it is, actually. It's amazing that you would cite McDonald's while arguing against a form of government subsidies. Seriously, go read the Omnivore's Dilemma.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#99

Post by calambrac »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #96
calambrac wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider." Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units. Plus, maybe you live in the neighborhood yourself, and you'd hate to see soulless apar…

"If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units." So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses. And superpowerful, able to prevent a…

"So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses."

Yes. Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should.

"And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit."

When you're out of new land to build on (NYC or SF, for instance; interesting how those are the two cities we keep coming back to, isn't it?), and other greedy people would have to buy your land or building, then yes.

"Why should I continue to get the reward?"

Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad. It's not like you're paying the same amount that you used to - rent does still go up in rent-control environments - you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation.

"Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?"

I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing? The thugs hassling your friends walking home? Homeless people? Are they reliable taxpayers? And as for people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, there are noise laws in most places...

"As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile."

You said that people don't move to Harlem because they don't want to get hassled by the undesirable locals. I was just saying that those undesirable locals are probably just as undesirable for the current locals as well. I assumed you meant criminal, since the example you gave was your friends being threatened on their walk home - nobody should have to put up with that.

"I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile."

Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#100

Post by benl »

gnaritas wrote: post #95
benl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it backwards -- the very reason that food is plentiful is that there is profit to be made in growing and selling it. Your statement: "food isn't scarce for most of us and few have problems acquiring it and the ability to produce it can't be easily collected in the hands of a few, anyone can grow their own food" is directly contradicted by the millions who starved to death when food production was collectiv…

A statement I'm making about us in the present, is not contradicted because at sometime in the past in some other country under totally different conditions it wasn't true. That may serve as a counter example, but it doesn't contradict what I said. America is not Russia and just because it went down that way for them does not mean that's how it'll play out for us. Knowing some history is one thing, trying to predict…

Don't worry -- I didn't call you a communist. I can cite counter-examples without name-calling.
Post reply on HN