3 ms·

Rent control can also distort markets and change the way people live. So say you have rent controlled apartment close to work but later lose your job. In that c

Rent control can also distort markets and change the way people live. So say you have rent controlled apartment close to work but later lose your job. In that case people are heavily incentived to stay put so less likely to move and more likely to commute longer distances for work.

captainbland 8y ago
Often around these kinds of high-density cities, many (most?) people are living some sizeable distance from work anyway so I'm not that rent controls would be massively influential there either way. I agree with the principle that we should attempt to reduce commutes but I think there are other issues at play which are more relevant to commutes specifically such as agglomeration which generates areas which are dense in work and relatively sparse in housing and vice versa. So there are other dynamics at play, some cultural like being expected to be physically present when your work could be done either at home or from a local desk-space or something to that effect. I'm sure there are other possible answers to this, but quite a straightforward one to me seems that paying your employees for their commuting time would probably be right in terms of incentivising employers to allow more remote work or even set up satellite locations (possibly as a part of a desk sharing arrangement) in areas typically considered commuter belts.
- rohansingh 8y ago
  One other thing I've seen in NYC is that rent control results in increasingly divergent incentives for the landlord and the tenant over time, assuming that the value of the property is increasing. It gets to the point where some landlords do truly despicable things to drive out tenants who they cannot otherwise legally ask to leave. It also leads to things like tenants refusing necessary repairs because they fear the landlord will use that as a pretense to raise the rent or evict. Basically, trust just breaks down on both sides.
- lmm 8y ago
  > Often around these kinds of high-density cities, many (most?) people are living some sizeable distance from work anyway so I'm not that rent controls would be massively influential there either way. Plenty of people commute from an inner suburb on one side of the city to a job on the far side of the center. If they could move to the corresponding inner suburb on the other side, and pay the same rent, that would be a substantial saving for them, at no cost to anyone else. > I'm sure there are other possible answers to this, but quite a straightforward one to me seems that paying your employees for their commuting time would probably be right in terms of incentivising employers to allow more remote work or even set up satellite locations (possibly as a part of a desk sharing arrangement) in areas typically considered commuter belts. That's not workable; employees can just pick a long commute and pocket the money. And what about those who aren't traditionally employed, or the small companies who'd be bankrupted by this? Employers don't put their offices in the center of the city out of malice. They do it because it's better for productivity, and/or a better work environment that lets them attract more talented employees. That's real value that you destroy when you make it expensive for two people to swap houses and live nearer where they work; even if you force the bill onto the employer it's still a loss to society.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    > If they could move to the corresponding inner suburb on the other side, and pay the same rent, that would be a substantial saving for them, at no cost to anyone else. Why do you assume they would want to? I don't want to move every time I switch to a job in a different part of town.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > Why do you assume they would want to? Because commuting is unpleasant. > I don't want to move every time I switch to a job in a different part of town. Then don't! It should be a free choice. You shouldn't get special tax treatment for moving, you shouldn't get special tax treatment for staying still.
zjaffee 8y ago
How is this any different than if a person owned their home, how many people sell their house should they take a job further away. Rent control generally only contributes significant savings if you've lived somewhere a long time.
- fiter 8y ago
  There are inherent costs associated with selling/buying used property and this is especially true for housing. Renting does not have the same inherent overhead when switching, only the common overheads (moving physical possessions, changing mailing address, etc).
- nybble41 8y ago
  > how many people sell their house should they take a job further away That's... extremely common in areas with functional, non-distorted housing markets. There's some financial friction involved in buying and selling a home, plus the obvious emotional attachment, but I nonetheless still regularly hear of people moving across town for a shorter commute or a more desirable neighborhood. It's not a huge deal unless home sales are heavily taxed or the local property tax regime favors long-term owners (the homeowner's equivalent of rent control).

captainbland 8y ago

Often around these kinds of high-density cities, many (most?) people are living some sizeable distance from work anyway so I'm not that rent controls would be massively influential there either way. I agree with the principle that we should attempt to reduce commutes but I think there are other issues at play which are more relevant to commutes specifically such as agglomeration which generates areas which are dense in work and relatively sparse in housing and vice versa. So there are other dynamics at play, some cultural like being expected to be physically present when your work could be done either at home or from a local desk-space or something to that effect. I'm sure there are other possible answers to this, but quite a straightforward one to me seems that paying your employees for their commuting time would probably be right in terms of incentivising employers to allow more remote work or even set up satellite locations (possibly as a part of a desk sharing arrangement) in areas typically considered commuter belts.

rohansingh 8y ago
One other thing I've seen in NYC is that rent control results in increasingly divergent incentives for the landlord and the tenant over time, assuming that the value of the property is increasing. It gets to the point where some landlords do truly despicable things to drive out tenants who they cannot otherwise legally ask to leave. It also leads to things like tenants refusing necessary repairs because they fear the landlord will use that as a pretense to raise the rent or evict. Basically, trust just breaks down on both sides.
lmm 8y ago
> Often around these kinds of high-density cities, many (most?) people are living some sizeable distance from work anyway so I'm not that rent controls would be massively influential there either way. Plenty of people commute from an inner suburb on one side of the city to a job on the far side of the center. If they could move to the corresponding inner suburb on the other side, and pay the same rent, that would be a substantial saving for them, at no cost to anyone else. > I'm sure there are other possible answers to this, but quite a straightforward one to me seems that paying your employees for their commuting time would probably be right in terms of incentivising employers to allow more remote work or even set up satellite locations (possibly as a part of a desk sharing arrangement) in areas typically considered commuter belts. That's not workable; employees can just pick a long commute and pocket the money. And what about those who aren't traditionally employed, or the small companies who'd be bankrupted by this? Employers don't put their offices in the center of the city out of malice. They do it because it's better for productivity, and/or a better work environment that lets them attract more talented employees. That's real value that you destroy when you make it expensive for two people to swap houses and live nearer where they work; even if you force the bill onto the employer it's still a loss to society.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > If they could move to the corresponding inner suburb on the other side, and pay the same rent, that would be a substantial saving for them, at no cost to anyone else. Why do you assume they would want to? I don't want to move every time I switch to a job in a different part of town.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > Why do you assume they would want to? Because commuting is unpleasant. > I don't want to move every time I switch to a job in a different part of town. Then don't! It should be a free choice. You shouldn't get special tax treatment for moving, you shouldn't get special tax treatment for staying still.

zjaffee 8y ago

How is this any different than if a person owned their home, how many people sell their house should they take a job further away. Rent control generally only contributes significant savings if you've lived somewhere a long time.

fiter 8y ago
There are inherent costs associated with selling/buying used property and this is especially true for housing. Renting does not have the same inherent overhead when switching, only the common overheads (moving physical possessions, changing mailing address, etc).
nybble41 8y ago
> how many people sell their house should they take a job further away That's... extremely common in areas with functional, non-distorted housing markets. There's some financial friction involved in buying and selling a home, plus the obvious emotional attachment, but I nonetheless still regularly hear of people moving across town for a shorter commute or a more desirable neighborhood. It's not a huge deal unless home sales are heavily taxed or the local property tax regime favors long-term owners (the homeowner's equivalent of rent control).