4 ms·
Do you think it's more likely that without rent control she would have been forced to move earlier, or that her income would be higher than it is now? Something
by philipov 8y ago
Do you think it's more likely that without rent control she would have been forced to move earlier, or that her income would be higher than it is now? Something about this situation seems circular, but your argument doesn't admit to there being a feedback loop involved, which makes me suspicious.
- NotAnEconomist 8y agoI think the implication is that her having been forced to move at the due economic point would have been less coercive than now being trapped into a single location by economic forces -- leaving her freer to seek happiness in other ways, eg, job mobility. Further, that if all the people of a certain class were forced to move, eg baristas could no longer afford to be in the area, it places a strong economic incentive on fixing the actual political problem, which is semi-masked by her current arrangement. I'm not sure I agree, but I think there's an argument to be had that she'd have more freedom to leave a job if she were living somewhere that she were also free to relocate, and that at scale, this economic distortion leads to high friction.
- PhoenixReborn 8y agoIt doesn't seem too circular to me. Rent control keeps your rent low despite rising rents around you. So in the case of the OP's friend, her rent is now vastly below market. In a non rent-controlled world she would absolutely have been forced to move earlier due to rising rents.
- philipov 8y agoIf she can't afford to move anywhere today, wouldn't that make her homeless without rent control?
- bigmanwalter 8y agoSome rent control schemes keep all rents low. In Montreal, the government limits all rent increases to 1% per year. Even between tenants.