2 ms·

I believe both halves of your argument are wrong. X% of surveyed economists probably don't disagree that rent controls will have the effect that rent control p

by btilly 6y ago

I believe both halves of your argument are wrong. X% of surveyed economists probably don't disagree that rent controls will have the effect that rent control proponents claim. They likely believe it will have other effects in addition, and that these other effects are, in aggregate, worse than what benefits might also be offered. Rent control proponents believe that imposing rent control will lower rents. With the goal of making housing more affordable. Economists know that it will benefit a few but in the process reduce supply and therefore increase average rents. Creating the very problem that you're trying to solve. By contrast, advocates for rent control probably don't believe that the economists are just making stuff up - they just believe that the downsides of the stuff the economists are talking about are less than the upsides of rent control. That doesn't match my experience. It is not that advocates for rent control believe that rent control is a net positive despite what economists say. They actively do not believe that rent control reduces supply and increases average prices. That has held true in both position papers and personal conversations that I've had with people. Tangentially related. In research, learning positive facts about something makes negative facts harder to remember. And vice versa. This cognitive quirk helps explain why it is hard for people in general to believe that there really are downsides to the things that they support.

malyk 6y ago
I'm not entirely sure that rent control proponents believe it will lower rents. In my experience, most of them acknowledge that it will reduce supply and may increase prices in some areas. My experience with rent control proponents (being one myself despite the pure economics problems with it) is that most of them believe that there needs to be a "reserve" of properties that are available for lower income people...service workers, teachers, etc...to rent in or near the place where they work. The basic reason for that is, until recently, the number of people who want to live in a city like SF, NYC, etc. greatly outstrips the supply of housing. Basically, no matter how much housing you build, there is an endless supply of people willing to pay $X to live here, but $X is way over what is reasonable for a cashier, barista, bartender, teacher, etc. to afford. Now, there might be better ways to solve that problem, but one of the "easier" and more politically possible ones in cities like SF is rent control. The reality is that SF basically can't build enough housing to satiate demand in any realistic timeframe. So what do you do? Bitch about zoning laws and NIMBY's all day and make more and more workers move to Stockton and Tracy? Or do you actually try to do something that is possible to accomplish about that problem (recognizing it isn't perfect)? Anyway...rent control is interesting in many ways. Just felt like the number of people I've spoken to about it who believes it lowers rents generally rounds to basically zero.

by btilly 6y ago

malyk 6y ago

I'm not entirely sure that rent control proponents believe it will lower rents. In my experience, most of them acknowledge that it will reduce supply and may increase prices in some areas. My experience with rent control proponents (being one myself despite the pure economics problems with it) is that most of them believe that there needs to be a "reserve" of properties that are available for lower income people...service workers, teachers, etc...to rent in or near the place where they work. The basic reason for that is, until recently, the number of people who want to live in a city like SF, NYC, etc. greatly outstrips the supply of housing. Basically, no matter how much housing you build, there is an endless supply of people willing to pay $X to live here, but $X is way over what is reasonable for a cashier, barista, bartender, teacher, etc. to afford. Now, there might be better ways to solve that problem, but one of the "easier" and more politically possible ones in cities like SF is rent control. The reality is that SF basically can't build enough housing to satiate demand in any realistic timeframe. So what do you do? Bitch about zoning laws and NIMBY's all day and make more and more workers move to Stockton and Tracy? Or do you actually try to do something that is possible to accomplish about that problem (recognizing it isn't perfect)? Anyway...rent control is interesting in many ways. Just felt like the number of people I've spoken to about it who believes it lowers rents generally rounds to basically zero.