4 ms·

First, correlation is not causation. Second, NYC isn't necessarily a panacea. Third, and most importantly, this is a misrepresentation of New York's situation

First, correlation is not causation. Second, NYC isn't necessarily a panacea. Third, and most importantly, this is a misrepresentation of New York's situation gross enough to border on willful deception. Per this [1], there are only 38K units in NYC that are rent controlled, and rent control only applies to buildings built pre-1947. An additional 987K units are rent stabilized due to either being built between 1947 and 1974 or been included in buildings otherwise filled with market rate units by developers nudged in that direction by tax incentives (8% of rent stabilized stock), which is probably mildly inefficient but doesn't stand in the way of development. The majority of units are market rate, and there's no rent control requirements standing in the way of building market rate units. [1] http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabilization_fact_sheet_FINAL.pdf http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabiliz...

TomMckenny 8y ago
There is a frequently repeated but completely unsubstantiated claim that rent control reduces inventory and I produced a counter example; the biggest city in America in fact. >First, correlation is not causation. Second, NYC isn't necessarily a panacea. I do not claim rent control _causes_ growth, I claim it has no distinct effect. And I do not claim that NYC is a good or bad place. I do not care. Growth continued in-spite of rent control therefore rent control does not reverse growth. Indeed from 1920 to 1929 all units were susceptible to compete control over their pricing yet the 1920s were a decade of maximum growth. So again, rent control did not kill housing growth. If for some reason NYC is dismissed as an example, Berkeley too has experienced continuous housing growth. As has Santa Monica. Repeated cases where rent control did not revers growth. And if those are dismissed, California before Costa-Hawkins had a higher rate of housing growth than after. So again, control did not reverse growth. It is endlessly repeated that rent control reduces inventory, so there should be many examples and no counter examples. Instead we find the opposite. Indeed, where is there any case where rent control drove positive growth negative? >border on willful deception Is there any evidence, even theoretical, or any circumstance, however hypothetical, future or past, that could possibly dissuade you of the proposition that "rent control reduces inventory"?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I think the claim is "rent control reduces inventory of units subject to rent control". That is, new units may be produced, but they are "luxury" units that are exempt from rent control. So the claim is that rent control reduces the supply of affordable units, not total units. Can you supply counter-evidence to that claim?
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    I know of no disproof off hand. But I believe the normal process is to produce proof when making a statement rather than making a statement and assume it true until disproven. One problem with assuming a claim true until dis-proven is that a perfectly reasonable but opposite conjectures can also be produced. For example: "units which are on the market at a profitable rate are not removed from the market solely because the rate of increase in profit is constrained; profitable business tend remain in business if the profit remains at lest the same" Another example conjecture, for which there is evidence: "the market will only produce housing at the highest price range for a given area unless subsidized or required by law to do otherwise." So affordable housing will not be freely built whether rent controlled or not. IMO, it'd be best to have some positive proof before firmly committing to any claim.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Thomas Sowell, in "Basic Economics", in chapter 3 had a lengthy discussion of rent control. It contained what certainly looked like evidence that rent control does not increase the supply of affordable housing.

TomMckenny 8y ago

There is a frequently repeated but completely unsubstantiated claim that rent control reduces inventory and I produced a counter example; the biggest city in America in fact. >First, correlation is not causation. Second, NYC isn't necessarily a panacea. I do not claim rent control _causes_ growth, I claim it has no distinct effect. And I do not claim that NYC is a good or bad place. I do not care. Growth continued in-spite of rent control therefore rent control does not reverse growth. Indeed from 1920 to 1929 all units were susceptible to compete control over their pricing yet the 1920s were a decade of maximum growth. So again, rent control did not kill housing growth. If for some reason NYC is dismissed as an example, Berkeley too has experienced continuous housing growth. As has Santa Monica. Repeated cases where rent control did not revers growth. And if those are dismissed, California before Costa-Hawkins had a higher rate of housing growth than after. So again, control did not reverse growth. It is endlessly repeated that rent control reduces inventory, so there should be many examples and no counter examples. Instead we find the opposite. Indeed, where is there any case where rent control drove positive growth negative? >border on willful deception Is there any evidence, even theoretical, or any circumstance, however hypothetical, future or past, that could possibly dissuade you of the proposition that "rent control reduces inventory"?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I think the claim is "rent control reduces inventory of units subject to rent control". That is, new units may be produced, but they are "luxury" units that are exempt from rent control. So the claim is that rent control reduces the supply of affordable units, not total units. Can you supply counter-evidence to that claim?
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  I know of no disproof off hand. But I believe the normal process is to produce proof when making a statement rather than making a statement and assume it true until disproven. One problem with assuming a claim true until dis-proven is that a perfectly reasonable but opposite conjectures can also be produced. For example: "units which are on the market at a profitable rate are not removed from the market solely because the rate of increase in profit is constrained; profitable business tend remain in business if the profit remains at lest the same" Another example conjecture, for which there is evidence: "the market will only produce housing at the highest price range for a given area unless subsidized or required by law to do otherwise." So affordable housing will not be freely built whether rent controlled or not. IMO, it'd be best to have some positive proof before firmly committing to any claim.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Thomas Sowell, in "Basic Economics", in chapter 3 had a lengthy discussion of rent control. It contained what certainly looked like evidence that rent control does not increase the supply of affordable housing.