4 ms·

I think this is part of the nuance: we've gotten ourselves into such a bind with housing in so many places that it feels like we need the short term, crisis rel

by davidw 6y ago

I think this is part of the nuance: we've gotten ourselves into such a bind with housing in so many places that it feels like we need the short term, crisis relief that rent control provides. For some people, it absolutely means not being kicked out into the streets. Go tell that mom and her kids about 'the market'. Yet at the same time, markets, supply and demand are real, and we need to bring them back into balance by at the very least not artificially constraining housing supply in so many places. It's a tricky problem.

Kalium 6y ago
The political complication is that it's very easy for people to be convinced that the short-term answer is the only one that will ever be needed. Addressing long-term problems often involves painful choices that people would rather not face.
- davidw 6y ago
  That's part of it. The "losers" with rent control are newcomers who may have a harder time finding housing, and some landlords. They're kind of anonymous. But turn up to a public hearing on building some new housing, and the people there to yell about it are your neighbors, ordinary people who "got theirs".
  - Kalium 6y ago
    Yup, that's the core of it. The future has no constituency. The past has.
  - kapp_in_life 6y ago
    The losers also include the children of those benefiting from rent control, just a decade or two in the future.
nicoburns 6y ago
> Yet at the same time, markets, supply and demand are real, and we need to bring them back into balance by at the very least not artificially constraining housing supply in so many places. Or we could just go ahead and find local governments to directly build houses like we used to (at least here in the UK). If you know what the desired result is then why not enact it directly rather than incentivising it. Markets are most useful when you don't what you (we) want.
aaronax 6y ago
So if you wanted to apply the rationing strategy to housing, would high taxes on unoccupied be a way of doing that? I think I have heard of cities (Vancouver?) implementing such taxes.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  That would be akin to banning people from hoarding toilet paper. Not a bad idea, but the reason why hoarding affects prices is because there's already scarcity to begin with. Unoccupied units are not driving up the cost of housing, increased demand is.
huitzitziltzin 6y ago
> it feels like we need the short term, crisis relief that rent control provides. These programs have a remarkable way of being sticky over time. For example, New York's current rent stabilization program has its origins in a World War 2 era program which never died (first a federal program, then taken over by the state). Solution: Build more and build it higher. If you are looking for a different kind of short-time-horizon solution for the mom and her kids who are in a precarious situation due to housing costs, give them cash assistance! But in the long run give them more options and lower prices. There is no reason we cannot do both.

by davidw 6y ago

Kalium 6y ago

The political complication is that it's very easy for people to be convinced that the short-term answer is the only one that will ever be needed. Addressing long-term problems often involves painful choices that people would rather not face.

davidw 6y ago
That's part of it. The "losers" with rent control are newcomers who may have a harder time finding housing, and some landlords. They're kind of anonymous. But turn up to a public hearing on building some new housing, and the people there to yell about it are your neighbors, ordinary people who "got theirs".
- Kalium 6y ago
  Yup, that's the core of it. The future has no constituency. The past has.
- kapp_in_life 6y ago
  The losers also include the children of those benefiting from rent control, just a decade or two in the future.

nicoburns 6y ago

> Yet at the same time, markets, supply and demand are real, and we need to bring them back into balance by at the very least not artificially constraining housing supply in so many places. Or we could just go ahead and find local governments to directly build houses like we used to (at least here in the UK). If you know what the desired result is then why not enact it directly rather than incentivising it. Markets are most useful when you don't what you (we) want.

aaronax 6y ago

So if you wanted to apply the rationing strategy to housing, would high taxes on unoccupied be a way of doing that? I think I have heard of cities (Vancouver?) implementing such taxes.

kmeisthax 6y ago
That would be akin to banning people from hoarding toilet paper. Not a bad idea, but the reason why hoarding affects prices is because there's already scarcity to begin with. Unoccupied units are not driving up the cost of housing, increased demand is.

huitzitziltzin 6y ago

> it feels like we need the short term, crisis relief that rent control provides. These programs have a remarkable way of being sticky over time. For example, New York's current rent stabilization program has its origins in a World War 2 era program which never died (first a federal program, then taken over by the state). Solution: Build more and build it higher. If you are looking for a different kind of short-time-horizon solution for the mom and her kids who are in a precarious situation due to housing costs, give them cash assistance! But in the long run give them more options and lower prices. There is no reason we cannot do both.