> The author thinks low-income people's incomes are rising and that is false. The author doesn't specifically mention low-income people - she just says that 'i

> The author thinks low-income people's incomes are rising and that is false. The author doesn't specifically mention low-income people - she just says that 'incomes rise': But then incomes rise, and rents don’t. People with higher incomes have more resources to pursue access to artificially cheap real estate: friends who work for management companies, “key fees” or simply incomes that promise landlords they won’t have to worry about collecting the rent. Your observation that poor people's incomes are stagnant actually strengthens the authors point above, because a growing income gap gives rich people 'more resources to pursue access to artificially cheap real estate'. > The rest of the article is fallacious because of this. There are some points in the article that are not dependant on rising incomes. For example, Meanwhile, price ceilings reduce the supply because they decrease the incentive to build, and can make it downright imperative to remove rental housing from the market and turn it to some other use -- condos, warehouses, anything that won’t trigger the rent controls.