Remix.run Logo
WalterBright 3 hours ago

The key to understanding the effects of rent control is understanding the Law of Supply and Demand.

Artificially holding down rents will result in housing shortages. The lower the rent controlled price, the worse the shortage.

If the rent goes too low, the building owner will stop doing maintenance. Eventually, the building gets abandoned.

freefaler 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is a good paper about the effects:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...

Basically if you're in a "rent controlled" unit, you benefit, but live in a dumpster, because the owner don't have the reason to invest in the place.

But the supply of new units is down & all other renters are paying higher rates, because there is no incentive to build new units. NIMBY-ism has the same effect.

999900000999 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On the flip side section 8 acts as a price floor.

No easy solutions here. I do think if rent exceeds half your earnings as a minimum wage worker that’s a failure of the social contract.

Want people to have kids, make it possible to raise them on a working class wage.

Rationally , since it’s impossible to raise a family on what most people make , people aren’t making people anymore. Not at replacement rates anyway.

aurareturn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep. Rent control benefits the people who are already there, but punishes everyone else.

It will increase the price for new comers, lower the quality of buildings due lack of maintenance funding, and decrease new construction.

Rental control is NIMBY for renters who are already there.

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Rent control benefits the people who are already there

Not always. It can trap the person in the apartment, such as constraining where they can work.

aurareturn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It can't trap the person in the apartment because they can leave at anytime.

"Trap" here means the deal is so good that they don't ever want to leave.

jjav an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> "Trap" here means the deal is so good that they don't ever want to leave.

Yes. I know someone who has a huge rent controlled place in San Francisco and has had it for many decades. Probably worth like 10K/month if you rented it today. I don't know what his rent it, but he says it is so low that he'll never give it up. He no longer lives in San Francisco, lives elsewhere. The SF place gets used occasionally on weekends. So it remains empty, mostly unused, off the rental market because it would be insane to let it go. This is what rent control does. It's great for him and I don't blame him, I'd do the same too. But it's the wrong incentive.

WalterBright an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Trap is when it is too expensive to leave, so they put up with a lower quality of life, such as not being near their jobs.

usernametaken29 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then again we have high rates of abandoned or unused housing as investment properties that sit idle even with uncapped markets… might as well cap the market if the effect is the same but people pay less rent

Danox 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Laughable the one thing that all the English speaking capitalistic countries share today is that most of its citizens most of whom don’t have rent control by the way are headed for a lifetime of being a renter all their life.

They are also headed towards paying more than 50% of whatever income they make to rent that’s the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland.

I can’t speak for the other countries, but in United States, the so-called luxury apartment is in fashion, and there is nothing luxury about them, except for the amount of money you will be charged to live there.

The shortage of affordable housing has nothing to do with rent control because over most of the country there is no real rent control effective rent control.

America is the land of luxury apartments currently popping up everywhere. What is also ironic is the fact that there are very few states that have anything like Prop 13 in California, which took a ballot initiative passed by the electorate and was not passed by the legislator’s who supposedly represent the people in short, there will be nothing forthcoming for the majority of people across the country. It’s sink or swim for most you are on your own in poverty.

WalterBright an hour ago | parent [-]

> The shortage of affordable housing has nothing to do with rent control

Oh, it absolutely does. The abandonment of rent properties in NYC is ample evidence.

uoaei 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Supply and demand is and always has been a useful first-order approximation. Reality is a lot more complicated.

Dear reader, never believe anyone who says a serious societal problem is "just" anything. Especially on the internet when they use merely a pesudonym to assert their authority.

Especially when the person behind the pseudonym is a one-time washed-out author desperately clinging to their housing stock in Atherton.

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Reality is a lot more complicated.

It's still the Law of Supply and Demand. Just like F=ma always applies, even if the results are complicated.

uoaei 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it's not a law in the same way as physical laws. Most of the failures in economics of the past 50 years can be mostly directly attributed to a fatal overcommitment to the belief that these attributed relations are incontrivertible.

What really exists, closest to the limit we will call "hard science" or "physics", is the microcosmic focus on individuals interacting in a market. Everything else -- supply and demand as a theory definitely included -- is a statistical extrapolation from micro-scale interactions. Hence the label of "dismal science". It's dismal because every hardline assumption is inevitably contravened by real life physics.

WalterBright an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The supply and demand curves are different for every person and every business. That makes it complicated - but not wrong.

danaris an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No, no, see, of course it's a law! Now, I'll explain it to you:

First, assume a spherical economy in a frictionless vacuum...

(/s)