3 ms·

It doesn't hinder affordability for the people living in the apartment. Do they not count? It's pretty sad that the HN thought police have downvoted this into

by timr 8y ago

It doesn't hinder affordability for the people living in the apartment. Do they not count? It's pretty sad that the HN thought police have downvoted this into the dirt. Why don't you try answering the question, instead?

rdlecler1 8y ago
A large portion of the market is paying way below market rates. In some cases it’s ridiculously affordable. Supply constrictions inflate the affordability of everything else.
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  The term "ridiculously affordable" is really a rich one. Anyways I think you're implying that removing rent stabilization would have a net downward pressure on prices. While that may be true and it seems reasonable, I'd like to see some data to back that up. You do realize that a major reason rent stabilization exists is to protect people from being evicted out of their homes as the price of the surrounding area increases, right?
dajohnson89 8y ago
People want an easy scapegoat. Either that, or jealousy.
- hnaccy 8y ago
  Does this also apply to criticism of income inequality?
wan23 8y ago
It does hinder affordability for the people living in the apartment as well. It makes it look unreasonably expensive to move to anywhere else and incentivizes them to stay put, even if their heat doesn't work or if they are too old for their fifth floor walkup or any of the other reasons people move.
- timr 8y ago
  "It does hinder affordability for the people living in the apartment as well." You're arguing that people staying in affordable apartments makes their own apartment less affordable. Really. I love the logical backflips people will do to justify an ideological belief. Do I really need to state the obvious? If someone is living in an undesirable situation solely because the rent is low, it's likely because they can't afford something better.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    You're right! It's blatantly farcical to suggest that people being able to afford to stay in their home is to their detriment. Might there be something more subtle here, though? Is it possible that we could be looking at a scenario where people being unable to find another affordable home is linked to lots of other people having affordable homes that they can't afford to leave? Perhaps people might be considered harmed if they do not have the option available to change their living situation in a way that fits with their needs? Again, you're completely right. It's plainly obvious that people who put up with shitty situations do so because they don't think they have a choice that fits their needs. It just might be worth considering that this behavior pattern might have a greater impact when a large number of people behave this way.
    - timr 8y ago
      "Is it possible that we could be looking at a scenario where people being unable to find another affordable home is linked to lots of other people having affordable homes that they can't afford to leave?" You can certainly argue that rent-regulation (fun fact: virtually no NYC apartments are rent controlled, but ~50% are rent-regulated, which is very different) disfavors newcomers. This is what the article actually argues, and I don't really dispute the premise (though the magnitude of the impact is certainly up for debate). Here's the thing: if you're going to argue that this is bad for everyone, you've got to do better than make some hand-wavy assertion that new people can benefit more from slightly cheaper units than the old people benefit from their existing, below-market rents. Basically, this argument always boils down to new people complaining about old people.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
A situation that benefits a small, essentially random group of people while hurting a larger, equally random group is a bad situation overall. You're getting downvoted because your question is both obvious and irrelevant to the point being made.
sctb 8y ago
I think you'd have better luck phrasing the question earnestly and thoughtfully, refraining from complaining about voting, and without dodging responsibility for the quality of your comment by invoking “thought police”.
- timr 8y ago
  My comment was voted to -2 before I added the remark about voting. "I think you'd have better luck phrasing the question earnestly and thoughtfully" My remark was honest, and it was thoughtful. It just wasn't something people agree with on HN.

by timr 8y ago

rdlecler1 8y ago

A large portion of the market is paying way below market rates. In some cases it’s ridiculously affordable. Supply constrictions inflate the affordability of everything else.

dajohnson89 8y ago
The term "ridiculously affordable" is really a rich one. Anyways I think you're implying that removing rent stabilization would have a net downward pressure on prices. While that may be true and it seems reasonable, I'd like to see some data to back that up. You do realize that a major reason rent stabilization exists is to protect people from being evicted out of their homes as the price of the surrounding area increases, right?

dajohnson89 8y ago

People want an easy scapegoat. Either that, or jealousy.

hnaccy 8y ago
Does this also apply to criticism of income inequality?

wan23 8y ago

It does hinder affordability for the people living in the apartment as well. It makes it look unreasonably expensive to move to anywhere else and incentivizes them to stay put, even if their heat doesn't work or if they are too old for their fifth floor walkup or any of the other reasons people move.

timr 8y ago
"It does hinder affordability for the people living in the apartment as well." You're arguing that people staying in affordable apartments makes their own apartment less affordable. Really. I love the logical backflips people will do to justify an ideological belief. Do I really need to state the obvious? If someone is living in an undesirable situation solely because the rent is low, it's likely because they can't afford something better.
- Kalium 8y ago
  You're right! It's blatantly farcical to suggest that people being able to afford to stay in their home is to their detriment. Might there be something more subtle here, though? Is it possible that we could be looking at a scenario where people being unable to find another affordable home is linked to lots of other people having affordable homes that they can't afford to leave? Perhaps people might be considered harmed if they do not have the option available to change their living situation in a way that fits with their needs? Again, you're completely right. It's plainly obvious that people who put up with shitty situations do so because they don't think they have a choice that fits their needs. It just might be worth considering that this behavior pattern might have a greater impact when a large number of people behave this way.
  - timr 8y ago
    "Is it possible that we could be looking at a scenario where people being unable to find another affordable home is linked to lots of other people having affordable homes that they can't afford to leave?" You can certainly argue that rent-regulation (fun fact: virtually no NYC apartments are rent controlled, but ~50% are rent-regulated, which is very different) disfavors newcomers. This is what the article actually argues, and I don't really dispute the premise (though the magnitude of the impact is certainly up for debate). Here's the thing: if you're going to argue that this is bad for everyone, you've got to do better than make some hand-wavy assertion that new people can benefit more from slightly cheaper units than the old people benefit from their existing, below-market rents. Basically, this argument always boils down to new people complaining about old people.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

A situation that benefits a small, essentially random group of people while hurting a larger, equally random group is a bad situation overall. You're getting downvoted because your question is both obvious and irrelevant to the point being made.

sctb 8y ago

I think you'd have better luck phrasing the question earnestly and thoughtfully, refraining from complaining about voting, and without dodging responsibility for the quality of your comment by invoking “thought police”.

timr 8y ago
My comment was voted to -2 before I added the remark about voting. "I think you'd have better luck phrasing the question earnestly and thoughtfully" My remark was honest, and it was thoughtful. It just wasn't something people agree with on HN.