5 ms·

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 t

by 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.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      Could it be worth considering that those benefiting from rent-regulation (control or stabilization) might also benefit from being able to find a new place at a similar price? I can see it being useful leverage to get a landlord to fix something, or to move closer to an aging family member, or find additional space at a reasonable rate for a new baby. It seems to me that having the option to move might benefit a wide variety of people in diverse life situations. I would love to hear if I've overlooked something!
      - timr2 8y ago
        "Could it be worth considering that those benefiting from rent-regulation might also benefit from being able to find a new place at a similar price?" If rent-regulated tenants are getting a market-busting deal on their cheap apartments then by definition, they aren't going to do better on the free market. If they aren't getting a great deal, then they aren't really affecting the market. As for these theories about raising people's rents to "help" them move somewhere else...we're really getting deep into the doublethink here. (posting on another account because rate limits)
        Kalium 8y ago
        Can you help me with something? Where did I suggest that people might be "helped" by having their rent raised? I feel like I missed something critical I said in this conversation and thus I don't understand. Can you help me with what I've missed? I had this strange little idea in my head that people are, in general, better off if housing markets function well enough to provide a range of options at a range of prices to suit a variety of diverse personal, family, and community needs. But if this is just unreasonable, I'd be happy to abandon it. To get back to my question, it sounds like you agree that people are harmed by a lack of options all other things being equal. Did I read your comment correctly?
        sctb 8y ago
        Your main account is rate limited because you start and stoke flamewars. Please stop.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by wan23 8y ago

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.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Could it be worth considering that those benefiting from rent-regulation (control or stabilization) might also benefit from being able to find a new place at a similar price? I can see it being useful leverage to get a landlord to fix something, or to move closer to an aging family member, or find additional space at a reasonable rate for a new baby. It seems to me that having the option to move might benefit a wide variety of people in diverse life situations. I would love to hear if I've overlooked something!
    - timr2 8y ago
      "Could it be worth considering that those benefiting from rent-regulation might also benefit from being able to find a new place at a similar price?" If rent-regulated tenants are getting a market-busting deal on their cheap apartments then by definition, they aren't going to do better on the free market. If they aren't getting a great deal, then they aren't really affecting the market. As for these theories about raising people's rents to "help" them move somewhere else...we're really getting deep into the doublethink here. (posting on another account because rate limits)
      - Kalium 8y ago
        Can you help me with something? Where did I suggest that people might be "helped" by having their rent raised? I feel like I missed something critical I said in this conversation and thus I don't understand. Can you help me with what I've missed? I had this strange little idea in my head that people are, in general, better off if housing markets function well enough to provide a range of options at a range of prices to suit a variety of diverse personal, family, and community needs. But if this is just unreasonable, I'd be happy to abandon it. To get back to my question, it sounds like you agree that people are harmed by a lack of options all other things being equal. Did I read your comment correctly?
      - sctb 8y ago
        Your main account is rate limited because you start and stoke flamewars. Please stop.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]