5 ms·

Sure that’s the capitalist narrative explanation. The actual, human, explanation is that landlords see that they can get away with charging absurd rates because

Sure that’s the capitalist narrative explanation. The actual, human, explanation is that landlords see that they can get away with charging absurd rates because consumers are willing to make dumb decisions to get what they want, so they do it. I’m sick of these economic abstractions that constantly try to explain away our problems, and take away the responsibility from the human actors that cause these effects. It’s not some abstract “supply and demand” that we should focus on—it is the landlords and renters and their decisions that are to blame. We need to introduce some agency and accountability back into our discussions of economics otherwise capitalism will continue to be an abstract machine in which horribly unethical actions are justified by removing human actors and human culpability from the equation. Belief in “the market” is not dissimilar to religious belief. Furthermore, analyses in capitalist terms often lead us to more problems. If the problem is “supply”, people will say “ok build more homes”, but that first of all never seems to actually work and secondly has a large number of additional negative effects such as increasing overcrowding and climate problems.This ridiculous tendency to not actually blame the people responsible for these negative conditions is ridiculous. It’s a large part of the reason we’re in this mess.

TOMDM 4y ago
I mean sure, if you want to address it from the demand end of things that would work if there were a viable solution. The hard fact is that people want to live in large cities. Even if you were to legislate that all landlords had to provide housing at cost + 5%, there would still be a demand for more housing as people desperately bid to enter those areas. Further more, you'd see people never give up those rentals because there would be a mile long waiting list for every property that is under rent control. I have a lot of sympathy for people disgusted by the greed landlords display, but at the end of the day, the issue here is that more people want to live in these places than there are homes for them. So the wealthy bid their way in and everyone else be damned or destitute in order to compete. If you want radical policy, eminent domain low density housing in city limits and build apartment rises on them.
- voidhorse 4y ago
  That’s fair, but I don’t see how it would prevent similar effects from eventually spidering out to those city limit properties once the demands propagate to those areas. I think the solution will require a mix of infrastructure solutions (building more homes) and regulatory solutions. I’m not saying landlords can’t make money, but there should definitely be greater restrictions around how much they can raise rates (which did exist, but which NYC is steadily removing) and renters need to be afforded more rights and protections too.
  - TOMDM 4y ago
    I mostly agree. First off, city limit property is already seeing this effect. Tenant protections in the USA suck. Big Time. However landlords raising rates are a great signal that your infrastructure is failing somewhere. This is useful because it means you can look for and address the problem. Some locations are going to be incredibly desireable and thus expensive, and that's okay, as long as there are options available for everyone else who can't afford them. And as far as regulation solutions, removing mixed zoning restrictions would be a massive step forward in allowing development of construction that could address some of these issues. Being able to live within a minutes walk of groceries, restaurants etc. is such a freeing experience that is taken from too many due to zoning restrictions. Regulatory reform could fix that.
rglullis 4y ago
There is no system that can work in large scale and depend on the good will of all (or the majority of) participants. If your system only works when everyone cooperates, you don't need the system in the first place. Believing that we can all live in this utopian ideal is more religious than "believing in the market"
- voidhorse 4y ago
  I’m not saying that. I’m saying it’s quite possible to introduce regulations into the existing system that force certain actors to behave. I’m not expecting anyone to behave without such restrictions, in fact this article is precisely the evidence that people will exploit others and the system when no such restrictions exist. Many of these landlords are up charging on properties that have not been materially improved at all, because, as I said, people are making dumb decisions to live where they want to, so they can arbitrarily increase the price up to the limit of what someone will pay. This is great for landlords since they can double their money without doing any work. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really frustrated by these incoming renters too. A lot of these people fled and abandoned the city like complete cowards when the pandemic hit and suddenly they want to return while they left the responsibility of keeping the city going on all the rest of us that are actual residents that stayed. These semi-nomadic people are just as bad as the landlords and want to live somewhere only so long as it benefits them—they have no allegiance to a community. This, in conjunction with land owners behavior creates disastrous effects for actual long-term residents who invest in the local communities and don’t run away the second things get hard.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    >I’m saying it’s quite possible to introduce regulations into the existing system that force certain actors to behave. Tell me how you want to reinvent taxes and rent control, without knowing that you want to reinvent taxes and rent control. > I’m really frustrated by these incoming renters too. You are passing judgment to all these different groups of people, without any shred of fundamental principle to justify why they need to act the way you want. They don't owe anything to you or the city. Stop complaining like a spoiled child.
ponow 4y ago
Let them charge what they want if it's theirs. Otherwise, your demands on what they charge amount to asserting that what is theirs isn't really. And, to put responsibility on the actor in question, you're asking that the lost potential value be stolen from the owner, for the benefit of non-owners. Can people own stuff, or not?
- voidhorse 4y ago
  If you’re renting out basic needs like housing I’d argue the terms of ownership should change. We all have dependencies on one another to get access to our basic needs. If your ISP, gas or whatever provider decided to suddenly charge you double for no apparent upgrades you would not be happy. You might have to option to go to another provider. If you didn’t, you’d have to move somewhere that has cheaper services. Moving is not zero cost. It both financially and emotionally affects people depending on how tied they are to their communities. The problem with rentals is that this is happening to long term residents that have no other option because the overall market price for the area is crazy. People are being removed from their communicates because there are no restrictions on landlords that make money will producing nothing the vast majority of the time. Capitalism is supposed to reward production, products. In most cases renting is a parasitic form of raising capital that doesn’t contribute to any material improvements, it just uses existing scarcity of resources of basic needs and exploits the fact to make capital without producing anything.

TOMDM 4y ago

I mean sure, if you want to address it from the demand end of things that would work if there were a viable solution. The hard fact is that people want to live in large cities. Even if you were to legislate that all landlords had to provide housing at cost + 5%, there would still be a demand for more housing as people desperately bid to enter those areas. Further more, you'd see people never give up those rentals because there would be a mile long waiting list for every property that is under rent control. I have a lot of sympathy for people disgusted by the greed landlords display, but at the end of the day, the issue here is that more people want to live in these places than there are homes for them. So the wealthy bid their way in and everyone else be damned or destitute in order to compete. If you want radical policy, eminent domain low density housing in city limits and build apartment rises on them.

voidhorse 4y ago
That’s fair, but I don’t see how it would prevent similar effects from eventually spidering out to those city limit properties once the demands propagate to those areas. I think the solution will require a mix of infrastructure solutions (building more homes) and regulatory solutions. I’m not saying landlords can’t make money, but there should definitely be greater restrictions around how much they can raise rates (which did exist, but which NYC is steadily removing) and renters need to be afforded more rights and protections too.
- TOMDM 4y ago
  I mostly agree. First off, city limit property is already seeing this effect. Tenant protections in the USA suck. Big Time. However landlords raising rates are a great signal that your infrastructure is failing somewhere. This is useful because it means you can look for and address the problem. Some locations are going to be incredibly desireable and thus expensive, and that's okay, as long as there are options available for everyone else who can't afford them. And as far as regulation solutions, removing mixed zoning restrictions would be a massive step forward in allowing development of construction that could address some of these issues. Being able to live within a minutes walk of groceries, restaurants etc. is such a freeing experience that is taken from too many due to zoning restrictions. Regulatory reform could fix that.

rglullis 4y ago

There is no system that can work in large scale and depend on the good will of all (or the majority of) participants. If your system only works when everyone cooperates, you don't need the system in the first place. Believing that we can all live in this utopian ideal is more religious than "believing in the market"

voidhorse 4y ago
I’m not saying that. I’m saying it’s quite possible to introduce regulations into the existing system that force certain actors to behave. I’m not expecting anyone to behave without such restrictions, in fact this article is precisely the evidence that people will exploit others and the system when no such restrictions exist. Many of these landlords are up charging on properties that have not been materially improved at all, because, as I said, people are making dumb decisions to live where they want to, so they can arbitrarily increase the price up to the limit of what someone will pay. This is great for landlords since they can double their money without doing any work. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really frustrated by these incoming renters too. A lot of these people fled and abandoned the city like complete cowards when the pandemic hit and suddenly they want to return while they left the responsibility of keeping the city going on all the rest of us that are actual residents that stayed. These semi-nomadic people are just as bad as the landlords and want to live somewhere only so long as it benefits them—they have no allegiance to a community. This, in conjunction with land owners behavior creates disastrous effects for actual long-term residents who invest in the local communities and don’t run away the second things get hard.
- rglullis 4y ago
  >I’m saying it’s quite possible to introduce regulations into the existing system that force certain actors to behave. Tell me how you want to reinvent taxes and rent control, without knowing that you want to reinvent taxes and rent control. > I’m really frustrated by these incoming renters too. You are passing judgment to all these different groups of people, without any shred of fundamental principle to justify why they need to act the way you want. They don't owe anything to you or the city. Stop complaining like a spoiled child.

ponow 4y ago

Let them charge what they want if it's theirs. Otherwise, your demands on what they charge amount to asserting that what is theirs isn't really. And, to put responsibility on the actor in question, you're asking that the lost potential value be stolen from the owner, for the benefit of non-owners. Can people own stuff, or not?

voidhorse 4y ago
If you’re renting out basic needs like housing I’d argue the terms of ownership should change. We all have dependencies on one another to get access to our basic needs. If your ISP, gas or whatever provider decided to suddenly charge you double for no apparent upgrades you would not be happy. You might have to option to go to another provider. If you didn’t, you’d have to move somewhere that has cheaper services. Moving is not zero cost. It both financially and emotionally affects people depending on how tied they are to their communities. The problem with rentals is that this is happening to long term residents that have no other option because the overall market price for the area is crazy. People are being removed from their communicates because there are no restrictions on landlords that make money will producing nothing the vast majority of the time. Capitalism is supposed to reward production, products. In most cases renting is a parasitic form of raising capital that doesn’t contribute to any material improvements, it just uses existing scarcity of resources of basic needs and exploits the fact to make capital without producing anything.