29 ms·

Ah yes the efficient market hypothesis in the form of data is why we can all join together and raise rent at 2-3X rate of inflation. Renters don't need half of

Ah yes the efficient market hypothesis in the form of data is why we can all join together and raise rent at 2-3X rate of inflation. Renters don't need half of their income anyways; the landlord can spend it much more efficiently on more investment property.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
It’s even worse than that. In an unregulated market, you can always just outbid someone else for a rental. But in a regulated market (with rent control or caps on rents), you can’t do that, and if supply doesn’t match demand, you just go homeless. A socialized market without landlords resembles the latter much more than the former, and having gone through the latter before, I don’t want to live in such a city again without some sort of guaranteed housing from whoever is making me move there.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  I think that we can both agree that most everyone doesn't want to be homeless.
- DanHulton 4y ago
  "You can always outbid someone else for a rental" is both not true and misses the problem that regulation aims to solve. You can only outbid someone if you have more money than them. The lower on the income scale you are, the less this is an option, until it just stops bring an option at all! Not to mention, it is drastically unfair and inhumane to consign people to live in the streets simply because they are poor, or simply poorer than the next. Rent control gives a measure of dignity to the poor, and ensures that -- at least a little bit -- when times get hard, we all suffer, the rich renters and the landlords too, not just the poor renters.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Yes, that’s the crux. Either rentals are market or not. If they are market, then you just need money, but if you lack money you are screwed. If they aren’t market, you are screwed even if you have money, unless you can get in on the non-market rent (you probably won’t). Rent control creates a class of winners in place when rent control is initiated, but any poor or rich person that comes to the city after will be outside of that class and have a very hard time finding housing. The very rich will bypass this by just buying, but everyone else experiences extreme illiquidity (including those who can’t leave their non-market rents for a better job elsewhere).
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > In an unregulated market, you can always just outbid someone else for a rental Until you have to actually pay the rent you bid. > if supply doesn’t match demand, you just go homeless This is true in both situations. Only in the second case instead of whatever rich asshole wants to move there getting the rental, the people who have lived there for decades already do.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Yes. The second case makes rentals illiquid to the benefit of current residents. But then, why would anyone dare move to a city like that? Again, that’s what I experienced (the inability to find housing) and that’s what I don’t want to experience again. Now take those decisions en masse: you want a city with a healthy economy, but the city is now stuck since it’s labor resources become illiquid along with its rental market. Now, some people want that, but HN readers (I think?) will be biased towards vibrancy.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      I don't see how vibrancy is the opposite of illiquidity.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

It’s even worse than that. In an unregulated market, you can always just outbid someone else for a rental. But in a regulated market (with rent control or caps on rents), you can’t do that, and if supply doesn’t match demand, you just go homeless. A socialized market without landlords resembles the latter much more than the former, and having gone through the latter before, I don’t want to live in such a city again without some sort of guaranteed housing from whoever is making me move there.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
I think that we can both agree that most everyone doesn't want to be homeless.
DanHulton 4y ago
"You can always outbid someone else for a rental" is both not true and misses the problem that regulation aims to solve. You can only outbid someone if you have more money than them. The lower on the income scale you are, the less this is an option, until it just stops bring an option at all! Not to mention, it is drastically unfair and inhumane to consign people to live in the streets simply because they are poor, or simply poorer than the next. Rent control gives a measure of dignity to the poor, and ensures that -- at least a little bit -- when times get hard, we all suffer, the rich renters and the landlords too, not just the poor renters.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Yes, that’s the crux. Either rentals are market or not. If they are market, then you just need money, but if you lack money you are screwed. If they aren’t market, you are screwed even if you have money, unless you can get in on the non-market rent (you probably won’t). Rent control creates a class of winners in place when rent control is initiated, but any poor or rich person that comes to the city after will be outside of that class and have a very hard time finding housing. The very rich will bypass this by just buying, but everyone else experiences extreme illiquidity (including those who can’t leave their non-market rents for a better job elsewhere).
HWR_14 4y ago
> In an unregulated market, you can always just outbid someone else for a rental Until you have to actually pay the rent you bid. > if supply doesn’t match demand, you just go homeless This is true in both situations. Only in the second case instead of whatever rich asshole wants to move there getting the rental, the people who have lived there for decades already do.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Yes. The second case makes rentals illiquid to the benefit of current residents. But then, why would anyone dare move to a city like that? Again, that’s what I experienced (the inability to find housing) and that’s what I don’t want to experience again. Now take those decisions en masse: you want a city with a healthy economy, but the city is now stuck since it’s labor resources become illiquid along with its rental market. Now, some people want that, but HN readers (I think?) will be biased towards vibrancy.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I don't see how vibrancy is the opposite of illiquidity.