4 ms·

"Rent control" is the idea that people already living in a city have more rights to live there than people who are not. While it may sound socially just it is

"Rent control" is the idea that people already living in a city have more rights to live there than people who are not. While it may sound socially just it is also one of most un-progressive (conservative) things you can imagine. It literally conserves the population of a given district.

vkou 8y ago
And market rents are the idea that people with more money then you have the right to live in your apartment then you do. Neither is fair, but both are unfair in different ways. Your preference for market distribution, as opposed to lottery distribution (which is what rent control essentially is) is largely an ideological one.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  The notable difference is that the market distribution causes greater incentives for construction in high demand areas, so it doesn't just affect who gets the apartments, it affects how many apartments there are to get. And only one of them makes it possible for both you and the person with more money than you to have an apartment.
- doombolt 8y ago
  Yes, it is an ideological preference. Rent control is conservative, market distribution is liberal. I just point that people really really want to be called progressive without being one. You can't be progressive and conservative at the same time! You can barely be progressive if you hold conservative view on one of the most important issues. You can only be centrist that way.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The phrase “your apartment” strikes me as the heart of the issue. If you’re renting then it’s not really yours. It’s the landlord’s, and they just let you use it temporarily. And yet that is the phrase we use, because people do feel a sense of ownership about their living space even when legally they have no ownership. A lot of these policies come down to how much we want to back that feeling up with legal rights.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > Your preference for market distribution, as opposed to lottery distribution (which is what rent control essentially is) is largely an ideological one. Can't speak for him, but if you believe a free market has the same housing results are as a centrally planned market, well, damn.
coldtea 8y ago
>While it may sound socially just it is also one of most un-progressive (conservative) things you can imagine. It literally conserves the population of a given district. Well, who said conservative is bad? It's about the interests of this or that group (e.g. given population vs people coming from outside). Arguments can be made for either, but if a given population is not protected, then those coming from outside wont be protected (from people coming from outside later on) either. People build cities to be protected and prosper long time in them, not to give opportunities to third parties to come and displace them from the places they've built and helped grow.
- doombolt 8y ago
  > It's about the interests of this or that group (e.g. given population vs people coming from outside). Arguments can be made for either, but if a given population is not protected, then those coming from outside wont be protected (from people coming from outside later on) either. > People build cities to be protected and prosper long time in them, not to give opportunities to third parties to come and displace them from the places they've built and helped grow. Well you're basically repeating Donald Trump's words when he explains why he wants to build a wall, and last time I have checked nobody calls him progressive. Just do s/cities/countries/ and you're all set.

vkou 8y ago

And market rents are the idea that people with more money then you have the right to live in your apartment then you do. Neither is fair, but both are unfair in different ways. Your preference for market distribution, as opposed to lottery distribution (which is what rent control essentially is) is largely an ideological one.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The notable difference is that the market distribution causes greater incentives for construction in high demand areas, so it doesn't just affect who gets the apartments, it affects how many apartments there are to get. And only one of them makes it possible for both you and the person with more money than you to have an apartment.
doombolt 8y ago
Yes, it is an ideological preference. Rent control is conservative, market distribution is liberal. I just point that people really really want to be called progressive without being one. You can't be progressive and conservative at the same time! You can barely be progressive if you hold conservative view on one of the most important issues. You can only be centrist that way.
mikeash 8y ago
The phrase “your apartment” strikes me as the heart of the issue. If you’re renting then it’s not really yours. It’s the landlord’s, and they just let you use it temporarily. And yet that is the phrase we use, because people do feel a sense of ownership about their living space even when legally they have no ownership. A lot of these policies come down to how much we want to back that feeling up with legal rights.
conanbatt 8y ago
> Your preference for market distribution, as opposed to lottery distribution (which is what rent control essentially is) is largely an ideological one. Can't speak for him, but if you believe a free market has the same housing results are as a centrally planned market, well, damn.

coldtea 8y ago

>While it may sound socially just it is also one of most un-progressive (conservative) things you can imagine. It literally conserves the population of a given district. Well, who said conservative is bad? It's about the interests of this or that group (e.g. given population vs people coming from outside). Arguments can be made for either, but if a given population is not protected, then those coming from outside wont be protected (from people coming from outside later on) either. People build cities to be protected and prosper long time in them, not to give opportunities to third parties to come and displace them from the places they've built and helped grow.

doombolt 8y ago
> It's about the interests of this or that group (e.g. given population vs people coming from outside). Arguments can be made for either, but if a given population is not protected, then those coming from outside wont be protected (from people coming from outside later on) either. > People build cities to be protected and prosper long time in them, not to give opportunities to third parties to come and displace them from the places they've built and helped grow. Well you're basically repeating Donald Trump's words when he explains why he wants to build a wall, and last time I have checked nobody calls him progressive. Just do s/cities/countries/ and you're all set.