3 ms·

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

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.

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.