951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wrong. Because the landlords are still making money. If they were renting at a cost they would have sold their places a long time ago.
I know several landlords who are net negative on their rent. Why did they buy? For the expected appreciation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place. Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people. PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.
> No surprise there’s so many homeless people. Pretty sure rent controls would have no effect on the amount of substance abuse and mental illness that plagues so many homeless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cities in Texas and Tenesee happen to be conservative I don't know anything about Tennessee, but cities in Texas are not conservative. See these maps of 2012 and 2016 election results by county: https://www.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/Map-co...
That's a very recent development -- starting around 2008. Even still -- beside Austin -- they are barely liberal. You do realize places like SF, Los Angeles, NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle etc vote democratic at rates close to 75% for like 30 straight years. Even most southern cities like Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami are well into the 60s. Even if Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Li…
Neither food nor oil actually make your point, since both are heavily subsidized by the US government.
Your point seems to be that food and oil are beneficiaries of subsidies in the US, therefore are not "ruthless capitalism".
The US government pays $20B/yr in farm subsidies. HUD has a budget of $40B, and the mortgage interest deduction is a $110B/yr subsidy to homeowners.
If food in the US is subsidized such that it is not "ruthless capitalism", then on this basis it would seem to me that housing has been subsidized well beyond the point of "ruthless capitalism" as well. Yet OP (and you) seem to think that food is subsidized to a far greater degree than housing. I challenge you to make a concrete case that this is true, either in the US or globally in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) if 5% + inflation is above market rates then this rent control is either a no-op or detrimental because it may incentivize landlords to hike rent to maximum because they won't have have the flexibility to do that in the future if the market changes. It incentivizes landlords to even out their rent increases over time, and to avoid sudden jumps. Especially for lower-income people, price shocks are devastating ; h…
>It incentivizes landlords to even out their rent increases over time, and to avoid sudden jumps. No. It doesn't 'incentivize', it mandates. Also, I have no idea why you're arguing this point, this is rent-control. This is how rent-control works. It sets a cap on what you can charge for rent. >Especially for lower-income people, price shocks are devastating; Rent-control is devastating for lower-income people. Price…
> No. It doesn't 'incentivize', it mandates.
Well, they always have the option of not keeping up with market-rate increases. Not that I think anyone will take that option.
> Price shocks are a result of spirling supply in face of rising demand. THIS DOES NOT FIX THAT.
The point isn't to "fix" the increase in price. It's to give renters a year or two to adapt to the change, either by moving out, finding new sources of income, or getting roommates.
> Landlords don't just spike prices over a month
#NotAllLandlords. But enough do to create a serious public policy problem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Market-wide price increases of 5%+inflation are rare; sustained market-wide price increases of 5%+inflation are very rare. This forces landlords to do two things: * When there is a sustained rise in fair market rent, they will need to implement that increase over time instead of falling behind, and then raising it all at once 5 years later when they realize they're leaving 20% on the table. This allows people being p…
This will still affect new units as it changes the forecasted rates over the lifetime of the loan (usually 10 year balloon) so instead of being able to forecast market rate increases the max value is now 7%. And maybe less if all units aren’t filled right away and you miss a year of increases. It’s not a huge impact but it does put a cap on the upside profits against potential huge losses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Market-wide price increases of 5%+inflation are rare; sustained market-wide price increases of 5%+inflation are very rare. This forces landlords to do two things: * When there is a sustained rise in fair market rent, they will need to implement that increase over time instead of falling behind, and then raising it all at once 5 years later when they realize they're leaving 20% on the table. This allows people being p…
This will still affect new units as it changes the forecasted rates over the lifetime of the loan (usually 10 year balloon) so instead of being able to forecast market rate increases the max value is now 7%. And maybe less if all units aren’t filled right away and you miss a year of increases. It’s not a huge impact but it does put a cap on the upside profits against potential huge losses
No sane investor forecasts an increase in rent of over 5% over a decade.
> if all units aren’t filled right away and you miss a year of increases
If a unit isn't filled, then you don't miss out; when it is filled you can immediately charge market rates.
There is no functioning market to begin with. Housing prices and rent are through the roof in California, yet supply is not rising to meet demand, largely because existing owners oppose new construction. Turnabout is fair play. If owners organize politically to control supply, tenants can organize politically to control prices.
> Turnabout is fair play. The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: government artificially suppressing supply, and government manipulating prices which has bad side effects for mamy even if its good for a few. Also, in reality, the powerful often don't get hurt, and arbitrary market manipulations just introduce new ways for them to ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not wishing anything. People ARE ALREADY struggling to afford rent in Sydney and other large cities. They have been getting bigger and bigger in the past decade yet the problem only gets worse (like building highways to solve traffic congestion). The solution is to make other places attractive for living and have hood opportunities for employment. Look at it this way: your house or apartment or whatever can prob…
In a country with freedom of movement? Never. Your wishful thinking won’t change that. But by all means go ahead advocating to build housing where nobody wants to live, and continue your NIMBY policies to price people out of desirable locations.
What needs to happen is effort put in to make other cities and towns attractive. This could mean encouraging commerce and industry to re-locate or set up new factories or offices. It certainly means ensuring city-level standards of health care and education, something that is a good thing to do anyway
Lastly there needs to be a campaign to encourage people to move to these places. Australia already has migration programs that require people to live anywhere other than the main capital cities.
Australia has a scarcity of fresh water, and low rainfall. Our inland rivers are dying because water is diverted to irrigation for farming; Sydney's water supply is pretty stretched and the option to build more dams is neither environmentally desirable nor possible, because all the rivers have already been dammed, and most are less than full due to low rainfall.
So without resorting to calling NIMBY, at what point can we say "we cannot support any more people"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Li…
Neither food nor oil actually make your point, since both are heavily subsidized by the US government.
Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
Are you in fact arguing that US farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?