4 ms·

> He can't just sell it tomorrow but I could easily choose another rental. At worst, the landlord loses money. At worst, the tenant is on the streets. Emotiona

> He can't just sell it tomorrow but I could easily choose another rental. At worst, the landlord loses money. At worst, the tenant is on the streets. Emotionally, finding a new tenant is business (maslow level.. 4?). Emotionally, finding a new home touches on your core safety and wellbeing (maslow level 2). Switching tenants means a new contract and new risk to lose money. Switching neighbourhoods means losing your neighbours, your area, any ties you have there, and having to build it all anew. And since we're talking about areas where rent control is necessary, a landlord can quite easily find another tenant and a tenant has a hard time finding another house. But as you can see above that's just a "bonus". Economic analyses tend to discount emotional factors, by their very nature. Make no mistake about it: landlords have a massive advantage in any negotiation with a tenant.

roenxi 7y ago
> Make no mistake about it: landlords have a massive advantage in any negotiation with a tenant. This isn't a very strong argument because it applies to, eg, purchasing food at a supermarket. Worst case for a supermarket; wasted produce. Worst case for consumers; literal death. Yet the supermarkets are generally famous for being very low margin and cut-throat competitive. A tenant is only forced to move neighborhoods if the market is rising in lockstep; individual landlords can't force anything. Moving neighborhoods due to financial stresses would be completely miserable. But unfortunately reality is unfair and if people want to live the way they like they also have to make a measurable contribution to the economy. If they are relying on the charity of other people, or the state, then they will have to put up with real inconvenience. If other people are bearing the cost, other people get to make the decisions.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Going grocery shopping is not similar to moving. If you can't shop at one grocery store, you can go to the next. Finding a new place to live and moving is a major undertaking.
- anderskaseorg 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure you lost track of your own analogy there. If there are better deals at a different supermarket, people will just go there. They might even go to multiple supermarkets in pursuit of deals. Literal death is not a realistic consequence of switching supermarkets (thanks in part to food safety regulations!). There’s a very efficient market here. On the other hand, if there’s a better deal on a different apartment, (1) it probably won’t be available; (2) even if it’s available, it probably won’t really be cheaper after accounting for the huge direct and indirect costs of moving; and (3) even if it’s really cheaper, people will still rightly be reluctant to upend their life to take advantage of it. It’s not “charity” when you’re paying through the nose for something that you don’t have a realistic choice about.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    If a house is being rented out to a tenant for $1,000 a month when it could plainly be rented out to a different tenant for $1,200 a month then there is charity afoot. It might be rent control (ie, compulsory charity) but someone is getting something that they didn't work for. Now I'm not against charity as a concept, but we have a century or so of economic experience on this matter. If charity becomes compulsory, first people make stupid decisions and then the vulnerable have to live with the consequences of those decisions. Being born gives everyone a right to dignity but it certainly does not give anyone a right to choose that someone else sets them up in a house and area of their preference. If somebody wants control of their own life, they are going to need to earn enough to either buy their own house, learn to build their own house or pay market rates for rent. It would be nice if there was a better way; but all the alternatives that are tried turn out worse than being honest about the economics of the situation up front. > I’m pretty sure you lost track of your own analogy there. If there are better deals at a different supermarket, people will just go there... If there are better deals in a rental market, people absolutely will go there. There are substantial costs of the order of a few hundred dollars to hire removalists, that isn't cheap but people aren't going to be so overwhelmed with emotion that they can't move a few blocks over for a $3,000 a year improvement in rents. > It’s not “charity” when you’re paying through the nose for something that you don’t have a realistic choice about. I've lived in 4 different communities in my life. I don't accept that moving somewhere with a lower cost of living is so terrible that people need to be protected from it - I can do it, it isn't bad. Somebody who can't afford to live in a neighborhood should be encouraged to move somewhere cheaper, and the idea that landlords should be protecting them from that outcome is a great way to set up a housing shortage. If they want to be part of a community then they should find a job that lets them rent in that community at the market rate. > thanks in part to food safety regulations You misunderstand; starvation from not being able to afford food. The point is that a vendor of a product can't unilaterally deny anyone access to market rates for that product because the competition will step in and undercut that vendor.
RHSeeger 7y ago
> At worst, the landlord loses money. At worst, the tenant is on the streets. At worst, the landlord loses the money they were relying on to pay the mortgage on the property. Not every landlord owns hundreds of properties and can eat the cost of one sitting idle. Or worse, the cost of major damage to one by a bad tenant. I'm biased. I have rented and owned. In both cases, it was what was right for me at the time. When I rented, I was happy to pay the money to my landlord in exchange for living in their property. Admittedly, I've had nothing but good landlords (with the exception of one), but I'm a very good tenant in exchange.
TuringNYC 7y ago
No, at worst the landlord loses enough rent to miss mortgage payments and lose the entire house, years of savings and all their equity and credit worthiness.

roenxi 7y ago

> Make no mistake about it: landlords have a massive advantage in any negotiation with a tenant. This isn't a very strong argument because it applies to, eg, purchasing food at a supermarket. Worst case for a supermarket; wasted produce. Worst case for consumers; literal death. Yet the supermarkets are generally famous for being very low margin and cut-throat competitive. A tenant is only forced to move neighborhoods if the market is rising in lockstep; individual landlords can't force anything. Moving neighborhoods due to financial stresses would be completely miserable. But unfortunately reality is unfair and if people want to live the way they like they also have to make a measurable contribution to the economy. If they are relying on the charity of other people, or the state, then they will have to put up with real inconvenience. If other people are bearing the cost, other people get to make the decisions.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Going grocery shopping is not similar to moving. If you can't shop at one grocery store, you can go to the next. Finding a new place to live and moving is a major undertaking.
anderskaseorg 7y ago
I’m pretty sure you lost track of your own analogy there. If there are better deals at a different supermarket, people will just go there. They might even go to multiple supermarkets in pursuit of deals. Literal death is not a realistic consequence of switching supermarkets (thanks in part to food safety regulations!). There’s a very efficient market here. On the other hand, if there’s a better deal on a different apartment, (1) it probably won’t be available; (2) even if it’s available, it probably won’t really be cheaper after accounting for the huge direct and indirect costs of moving; and (3) even if it’s really cheaper, people will still rightly be reluctant to upend their life to take advantage of it. It’s not “charity” when you’re paying through the nose for something that you don’t have a realistic choice about.
- roenxi 7y ago
  If a house is being rented out to a tenant for $1,000 a month when it could plainly be rented out to a different tenant for $1,200 a month then there is charity afoot. It might be rent control (ie, compulsory charity) but someone is getting something that they didn't work for. Now I'm not against charity as a concept, but we have a century or so of economic experience on this matter. If charity becomes compulsory, first people make stupid decisions and then the vulnerable have to live with the consequences of those decisions. Being born gives everyone a right to dignity but it certainly does not give anyone a right to choose that someone else sets them up in a house and area of their preference. If somebody wants control of their own life, they are going to need to earn enough to either buy their own house, learn to build their own house or pay market rates for rent. It would be nice if there was a better way; but all the alternatives that are tried turn out worse than being honest about the economics of the situation up front. > I’m pretty sure you lost track of your own analogy there. If there are better deals at a different supermarket, people will just go there... If there are better deals in a rental market, people absolutely will go there. There are substantial costs of the order of a few hundred dollars to hire removalists, that isn't cheap but people aren't going to be so overwhelmed with emotion that they can't move a few blocks over for a $3,000 a year improvement in rents. > It’s not “charity” when you’re paying through the nose for something that you don’t have a realistic choice about. I've lived in 4 different communities in my life. I don't accept that moving somewhere with a lower cost of living is so terrible that people need to be protected from it - I can do it, it isn't bad. Somebody who can't afford to live in a neighborhood should be encouraged to move somewhere cheaper, and the idea that landlords should be protecting them from that outcome is a great way to set up a housing shortage. If they want to be part of a community then they should find a job that lets them rent in that community at the market rate. > thanks in part to food safety regulations You misunderstand; starvation from not being able to afford food. The point is that a vendor of a product can't unilaterally deny anyone access to market rates for that product because the competition will step in and undercut that vendor.

RHSeeger 7y ago

> At worst, the landlord loses money. At worst, the tenant is on the streets. At worst, the landlord loses the money they were relying on to pay the mortgage on the property. Not every landlord owns hundreds of properties and can eat the cost of one sitting idle. Or worse, the cost of major damage to one by a bad tenant. I'm biased. I have rented and owned. In both cases, it was what was right for me at the time. When I rented, I was happy to pay the money to my landlord in exchange for living in their property. Admittedly, I've had nothing but good landlords (with the exception of one), but I'm a very good tenant in exchange.

TuringNYC 7y ago

No, at worst the landlord loses enough rent to miss mortgage payments and lose the entire house, years of savings and all their equity and credit worthiness.