4 ms·

Isn't supporting rent control a little like denying climate change? When so much research and expert analysis shows something is bad, lay people are somehow ob

Isn't supporting rent control a little like denying climate change? When so much research and expert analysis shows something is bad, lay people are somehow oblivious "eh, I just don't believe it". Worse yet, why is it so easy for people to like the idea of rent control but dislike the idea of cash assistance? If you want teachers (or whomever) to be able to live nearby, fine then just give them a cash subsidy. Giving out cash doesn't kill the market economy, allows the benefit to be given out precisely, and anyone you want can pay for it via a tax - landlords, rich people, sales tax, whatever. Do nothing or do something, just don't do rent control which hurts everyone.

candiodari 10y ago
It has the same problem as climate change: it directly and obviously impacts their personal economics on a big scale. Global warming regulation makes companies that employ millions say they'll have to start firing people, and they will if it passes, and anti-rent-control measures mean a lot of current San Franciscans would have to move because in the short term any change in the regulations will cause their landlord to eject them (raise prices beyond what they can pay, not that raise prices by itself wouldn't be enough). People are always saying that it's bad that people don't vote for their own self-interest but forget that there is a reasonable time horizon for decisions, and it's not infinite. For people living at the margin, for whom it matters most as they'll be the ones affected, that time horizon is zero. At a zero time horizon the decision is obvious : no to change ! Yes to more rent control ! The minimum time horizon for considering these economics would be the amount of time it takes for new buildings to get built, which I imagine would be 2-3 years at least. If you consider the reasonable time needed for the building supply in San Francisco to exceed supply, we should say this measure will only start helping people when the market is oversaturated. That may never happen. Realistically, anything less than 10 years seems to me a very long shot.
- someguydave 10y ago
  " Realistically, anything less than 10 years seems to me a very long shot." Except in the case of climate change the time horizon under consideration should be more like 100 to 1000 years.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    This is known as a fallacy in economics. You should have a time horizon on your decisions, and of course, it should not exceed, let's say, 10 years less than your expected lifespan. So something like 50-60 years is the longest considered timespan. Rewards on that sort of timeframe have to be extreme (essentially 1.0450=7, as in 7 times ROI would be the risk-free rate. For an investment with minimal risk a factor 30 or so would be required)
    - someguydave 10y ago
      Indeed, I was pointing out that anti-global-warming policies are not likely to be economically viable on a living individual's time scale.

candiodari 10y ago

It has the same problem as climate change: it directly and obviously impacts their personal economics on a big scale. Global warming regulation makes companies that employ millions say they'll have to start firing people, and they will if it passes, and anti-rent-control measures mean a lot of current San Franciscans would have to move because in the short term any change in the regulations will cause their landlord to eject them (raise prices beyond what they can pay, not that raise prices by itself wouldn't be enough). People are always saying that it's bad that people don't vote for their own self-interest but forget that there is a reasonable time horizon for decisions, and it's not infinite. For people living at the margin, for whom it matters most as they'll be the ones affected, that time horizon is zero. At a zero time horizon the decision is obvious : no to change ! Yes to more rent control ! The minimum time horizon for considering these economics would be the amount of time it takes for new buildings to get built, which I imagine would be 2-3 years at least. If you consider the reasonable time needed for the building supply in San Francisco to exceed supply, we should say this measure will only start helping people when the market is oversaturated. That may never happen. Realistically, anything less than 10 years seems to me a very long shot.

someguydave 10y ago
" Realistically, anything less than 10 years seems to me a very long shot." Except in the case of climate change the time horizon under consideration should be more like 100 to 1000 years.
- candiodari 10y ago
  This is known as a fallacy in economics. You should have a time horizon on your decisions, and of course, it should not exceed, let's say, 10 years less than your expected lifespan. So something like 50-60 years is the longest considered timespan. Rewards on that sort of timeframe have to be extreme (essentially 1.0450=7, as in 7 times ROI would be the risk-free rate. For an investment with minimal risk a factor 30 or so would be required)
  - someguydave 10y ago
    Indeed, I was pointing out that anti-global-warming policies are not likely to be economically viable on a living individual's time scale.