4 ms·
> All in all, the article doesn't actually make the claim or even suggestion that rent control decreased the supply of housing But right there if you even read
by rcpt 5y ago
> All in all, the article doesn't actually make the claim or even suggestion that rent control decreased the supply of housing
But right there if you even read to the end of the abstract:
"Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law."
Probably now you're going split hairs on rental supply vs. supply. Ok.
But at least we can firmly state that the original claim "we now know rent control isn't bad" was bunk.
- sudosysgen 5y agoNo, it's not a claim that market rents increased in the long run, it's a suggestion. I can assure you I've read the entire article, and if you re-read my reply you're going to notice that I specifically talked about claims vs suggestions. If the article had made an actual claim that market rents increased in the long run, it wouldn't have passed peer review. That's because there is no empirical evidence that market rents increased in the long run, and no actual analysis, that would have to take into account factors like displacement of ethnic minorities and it's impact on rents, the change in homeownership rates, the tendency for rents to compound over time thus giving an outsized effect to the initial suppression of rents, etc..., which wouldn't come to a solid conclusion without additional data. As a result, we cannot say that it's incorrect that rent control isn't bad. The evidence you've provided falls way short of the argument.