28 ms·

One thing I have noticed as I have become more aware is that many of our laws are aimed at trying to freeze a moment of time, often by piling on contradictory p

One thing I have noticed as I have become more aware is that many of our laws are aimed at trying to freeze a moment of time, often by piling on contradictory policies on top of each other. Subsidize home loans Ban new construction Ban rent increases It is no wonder why housing prices/rents continue to rise in these markets. In software engineering sometimes conclude that a rewrite is necessary. How can we completely rewrite our regulations?

baby 7y ago
So are you saying that landlord should be able to double your rent like that?
- pitaj 7y ago
  Prices should increase in the case of increased demand. Prices must increase in that case if you want the supply to increase, which is the only way to actually meet demand. It's how the market works ffs.
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    The market is not working when actors frequently intentionally cause trauma and unexpected financial and life emergencies to tenets. The 'market' is not some divine thing that cannot go wrong; rather, trying to make the 'market' work is exactly why we have runaway climate change and incredible wealth disparity that's causing unnecessary pain and upheaval in the US today. There's no need to swear at people, this is an interesting and complicated topic with many valid points to debate.
    - pitaj 7y ago
      The reason the market is not working is because of onerous regulation by the government in the first place.
      - cryptoz 7y ago
        Not all regulations are equal. Merely because some past law was bad does not mean all future laws will be bad. Saying that rent control is bad because past zoning (or other law) was bad doesn't make sense.
        kortilla 7y ago
        Rent control has never been good anywhere. Yet places keep trying it expecting something different. Supply and demand is one of the simplest concepts in economics and yet rent control does nothing to increase supply. In fact, it decreases supply by not shifting prices higher to induce more production.
        cryptoz 7y ago
        > Supply and demand is one of the simplest concepts in economics That's what makes it one of the weakest. The housing market does not follow a standard supply-demand curve for a number of reasons. > Rent control has never been good anywhere. Citation needed. Rent control has helped a lot of people find stability in a time of need, enabling less trauma, stress and improving chances of class mobility. > In fact, it decreases supply by not shifting prices higher to induce more production. Is this a real effect that you can measure in the real world? Has this ever happened in reality before? Or is this a theoretical concept? One that you assume plays out under ideal circumstances and that I assume are never met in real life?
        kortilla 7y ago
        >The housing market does not follow a standard supply-demand curve for a number of reasons. That would make it the first in history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >Rent control has helped a lot of people find stability in a time of need So has the lottery. Doesn’t mean it’s not bad overall. The massive portion of people that don’t hit the rent control lottery (I.e. anyone who has to move) get screwed and the whole middle and upper class gets screwed by a poorly incentivized supply. >Is this a real effect that you can measure in the real world? Yes. Look at any place where there is rent control and you will find it still has unaffordable prices often far above the national average. It has never been a net good for society. It doesn’t increase housing supply and the pigeon hole principle should be simple enough for you to understand what that means.
  - olliej 7y ago
    Obviously, but part of that is having your property taxed at those market rates, businesses and landlords got together to pass an amendment to the CA constitution that prohibits any part of CA from increasing the assessed value of your property at more than 2%. You can't have it both ways: saying you should have free reign in determining the value of your property, while also claiming the government can't tax you according to that value.
    - pitaj 7y ago
      I don't want it both ways. In fact a land value tax could replace property tax in a revenue neutral fashion, and would incentivize development of property and density, rather than disincentivize those like property tax does.
      - olliej 7y ago
        How do you distinguish land value from property value - especially given that the resource and service usage is not determined mostly by the amount of land, but rather the property on that land. If you were to tax on the basis of land value the immediate impact would be massive increases in taxes payed in rural areas as a byproduct of the necessary increase in tax rates on land.
        rcpt 7y ago
        That's not what happens. Here's an example of when it's been tried: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-gains-the-pennsylvania-land-tax-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-g...
  - baby 7y ago
    I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place. Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people. PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Of course everyone told you to get a rent controlled place. The government is mandating your landlord gives you money, so why not take it? The point still stands that rent control is a terrible way to keep rent down, it causes a ton of problems.
      - baby 7y ago
        Gives me money? What? So arbitrary rent is a much better way to keep rent down? Come on...
        refurb 7y ago
        Arbitrary rent? No, the market rate. And yes, if you’re living in a rent controlled place and paying $1000 per month when the same place is going for $3000, it’s virtually a cash transfer from the landlord to you every month. That’s why you hear about massive ($100k+) buyouts in SF.
        baby 7y ago
        This is wrong. Because the landlords are still making money. If they were renting at a cost they would have sold their places a long time ago.
        shuckles 7y ago
        No, if they stopped making money they would convert to owner occupied as imputed rents are not controlled. Which is what happened.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Not in isolation. But if building restrictions and zoning restrictions were lifted, and supply could meet demand, then rent control wouldn't be necessary, because the landlord wouldn't be able to get away with doubling rent.
- driverdan 7y ago
  If that's what demand has done to pricing then yes. Where are rents increasing 100% per year?
  - baby 7y ago
    Have you looked at the rents in SF? It is pretty insane.
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      Are they more insane than the real estate prices?
    - aianus 7y ago
      SF has extremely harsh rent control laws. In SF you are seeing the result of rent control run amok (amongst other factors).
randomerr 7y ago
It usually comes from a recession or a depression were rewrites are finally deemed necessary. Unfortunately unless people with common sense participate in government and we vote in selfless people a generation will suffer the consequences of our inactivity.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >It usually comes from a recession or a depression... Don't forget crime and violence. Historically speaking those get laws changed quick. That said, I don't think rent control is going to have a very direct effect on crime and violence.
baby 7y ago
Stop making housing an investment?
- cabaalis 7y ago
  I've seen this argument before. Why shouldn't it be an investment? 1. Land is a limited resource. 2. Property improvements last for a very long time, and are incrementally improved. 3. The buy-in price is relatively high, so only very interested parties get involved. 4. It's a home for goodness sake, why would you not call it an investment?
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Housing cannot be both affordable and and a good investment. The definition of a good investment is a piece of property that has a price that increases over time. The nature of exponential growth means that eventually housing will become unaffordable if it is perpetually a good investment. Society's expectation that housing is a good investment results in people taking on significant debt to buy increasingly expensive homes. The consequence is that homeowners have a huge incentive to suppress the construction of additional housing, to inflate the values of their homes. And when housing prices do fall, people's financial lives are ruined. Contrast metros like SF, Portland, and Seattle with places like Tokyo where homes can be bought for < $400,000. A big part of this is that housing is expected to be a depreciating asset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
    - kortilla 7y ago
      You’re conflating “an investment” with “an exponentially growing investment”.
      - strstr 7y ago
        That's sort of the classic interpretation of investment. AFAIK, the first question most people ask about investments is "what is the expected rate of return (relative to the risk)?". I would not describe my car as an investment, since it's basically guaranteed to depreciate. Housing could be expected to behave in a similar manner (although that would likely require a decrease in population growth).
malandrew 7y ago
rm -rf regulations/ ... like Idaho did with its regulatory reset.
roedog 7y ago
A reset could be after the big one hits and we have to rebuild cities.
PorterDuff 7y ago
"In software engineering sometimes conclude that a rewrite is necessary. How can we completely rewrite our regulations?" A currency collapse or a successful invasion perhaps. Even 'freezing a moment of time' is kind of a suspicious thing. People don't understand the present time and they sure as heck don't understand previous ones. While fixing the plane while it's in flight is hard, I'm trusting our upcoming robot overlords to understand tax or criminal law. Accreting everyone's good ideas for a century or two was bound to result in a hairball.
test6554 7y ago
When working with legacy code, one first writes automated tests.

baby 7y ago

So are you saying that landlord should be able to double your rent like that?

pitaj 7y ago
Prices should increase in the case of increased demand. Prices must increase in that case if you want the supply to increase, which is the only way to actually meet demand. It's how the market works ffs.
- cryptoz 7y ago
  The market is not working when actors frequently intentionally cause trauma and unexpected financial and life emergencies to tenets. The 'market' is not some divine thing that cannot go wrong; rather, trying to make the 'market' work is exactly why we have runaway climate change and incredible wealth disparity that's causing unnecessary pain and upheaval in the US today. There's no need to swear at people, this is an interesting and complicated topic with many valid points to debate.
  - pitaj 7y ago
    The reason the market is not working is because of onerous regulation by the government in the first place.
    - cryptoz 7y ago
      Not all regulations are equal. Merely because some past law was bad does not mean all future laws will be bad. Saying that rent control is bad because past zoning (or other law) was bad doesn't make sense.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        Rent control has never been good anywhere. Yet places keep trying it expecting something different. Supply and demand is one of the simplest concepts in economics and yet rent control does nothing to increase supply. In fact, it decreases supply by not shifting prices higher to induce more production.
        cryptoz 7y ago
        > Supply and demand is one of the simplest concepts in economics That's what makes it one of the weakest. The housing market does not follow a standard supply-demand curve for a number of reasons. > Rent control has never been good anywhere. Citation needed. Rent control has helped a lot of people find stability in a time of need, enabling less trauma, stress and improving chances of class mobility. > In fact, it decreases supply by not shifting prices higher to induce more production. Is this a real effect that you can measure in the real world? Has this ever happened in reality before? Or is this a theoretical concept? One that you assume plays out under ideal circumstances and that I assume are never met in real life?
        kortilla 7y ago
        >The housing market does not follow a standard supply-demand curve for a number of reasons. That would make it the first in history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >Rent control has helped a lot of people find stability in a time of need So has the lottery. Doesn’t mean it’s not bad overall. The massive portion of people that don’t hit the rent control lottery (I.e. anyone who has to move) get screwed and the whole middle and upper class gets screwed by a poorly incentivized supply. >Is this a real effect that you can measure in the real world? Yes. Look at any place where there is rent control and you will find it still has unaffordable prices often far above the national average. It has never been a net good for society. It doesn’t increase housing supply and the pigeon hole principle should be simple enough for you to understand what that means.
- olliej 7y ago
  Obviously, but part of that is having your property taxed at those market rates, businesses and landlords got together to pass an amendment to the CA constitution that prohibits any part of CA from increasing the assessed value of your property at more than 2%. You can't have it both ways: saying you should have free reign in determining the value of your property, while also claiming the government can't tax you according to that value.
  - pitaj 7y ago
    I don't want it both ways. In fact a land value tax could replace property tax in a revenue neutral fashion, and would incentivize development of property and density, rather than disincentivize those like property tax does.
    - olliej 7y ago
      How do you distinguish land value from property value - especially given that the resource and service usage is not determined mostly by the amount of land, but rather the property on that land. If you were to tax on the basis of land value the immediate impact would be massive increases in taxes payed in rural areas as a byproduct of the necessary increase in tax rates on land.
      - rcpt 7y ago
        That's not what happens. Here's an example of when it's been tried: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-gains-the-pennsylvania-land-tax-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-g...
- baby 7y ago
  I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place. Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people. PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Of course everyone told you to get a rent controlled place. The government is mandating your landlord gives you money, so why not take it? The point still stands that rent control is a terrible way to keep rent down, it causes a ton of problems.
    - baby 7y ago
      Gives me money? What? So arbitrary rent is a much better way to keep rent down? Come on...
      - refurb 7y ago
        Arbitrary rent? No, the market rate. And yes, if you’re living in a rent controlled place and paying $1000 per month when the same place is going for $3000, it’s virtually a cash transfer from the landlord to you every month. That’s why you hear about massive ($100k+) buyouts in SF.
        baby 7y ago
        This is wrong. Because the landlords are still making money. If they were renting at a cost they would have sold their places a long time ago.
        shuckles 7y ago
        No, if they stopped making money they would convert to owner occupied as imputed rents are not controlled. Which is what happened.
jedberg 7y ago
Not in isolation. But if building restrictions and zoning restrictions were lifted, and supply could meet demand, then rent control wouldn't be necessary, because the landlord wouldn't be able to get away with doubling rent.
driverdan 7y ago
If that's what demand has done to pricing then yes. Where are rents increasing 100% per year?
- baby 7y ago
  Have you looked at the rents in SF? It is pretty insane.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    Are they more insane than the real estate prices?
  - aianus 7y ago
    SF has extremely harsh rent control laws. In SF you are seeing the result of rent control run amok (amongst other factors).

randomerr 7y ago

It usually comes from a recession or a depression were rewrites are finally deemed necessary. Unfortunately unless people with common sense participate in government and we vote in selfless people a generation will suffer the consequences of our inactivity.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>It usually comes from a recession or a depression... Don't forget crime and violence. Historically speaking those get laws changed quick. That said, I don't think rent control is going to have a very direct effect on crime and violence.

baby 7y ago

Stop making housing an investment?

cabaalis 7y ago
I've seen this argument before. Why shouldn't it be an investment? 1. Land is a limited resource. 2. Property improvements last for a very long time, and are incrementally improved. 3. The buy-in price is relatively high, so only very interested parties get involved. 4. It's a home for goodness sake, why would you not call it an investment?
- manfredo 7y ago
  Housing cannot be both affordable and and a good investment. The definition of a good investment is a piece of property that has a price that increases over time. The nature of exponential growth means that eventually housing will become unaffordable if it is perpetually a good investment. Society's expectation that housing is a good investment results in people taking on significant debt to buy increasingly expensive homes. The consequence is that homeowners have a huge incentive to suppress the construction of additional housing, to inflate the values of their homes. And when housing prices do fall, people's financial lives are ruined. Contrast metros like SF, Portland, and Seattle with places like Tokyo where homes can be bought for < $400,000. A big part of this is that housing is expected to be a depreciating asset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
  - kortilla 7y ago
    You’re conflating “an investment” with “an exponentially growing investment”.
    - strstr 7y ago
      That's sort of the classic interpretation of investment. AFAIK, the first question most people ask about investments is "what is the expected rate of return (relative to the risk)?". I would not describe my car as an investment, since it's basically guaranteed to depreciate. Housing could be expected to behave in a similar manner (although that would likely require a decrease in population growth).

malandrew 7y ago

rm -rf regulations/ ... like Idaho did with its regulatory reset.

roedog 7y ago

A reset could be after the big one hits and we have to rebuild cities.

PorterDuff 7y ago

"In software engineering sometimes conclude that a rewrite is necessary. How can we completely rewrite our regulations?" A currency collapse or a successful invasion perhaps. Even 'freezing a moment of time' is kind of a suspicious thing. People don't understand the present time and they sure as heck don't understand previous ones. While fixing the plane while it's in flight is hard, I'm trusting our upcoming robot overlords to understand tax or criminal law. Accreting everyone's good ideas for a century or two was bound to result in a hairball.

test6554 7y ago

When working with legacy code, one first writes automated tests.