4 ms·

Because it actually often works and there has been research that has found benefits. The question is whether or not the benefits are worth the drawbacks and tha

Because it actually often works and there has been research that has found benefits. The question is whether or not the benefits are worth the drawbacks and that's highly sensitive to your actual objectives, to the local conditions, and extremely sensitive to the details of how your rent control is implemented. For example, it is an empirical fact that rent control greatly decreases the number of people that leave a city, which especially for poorer people means that they get to keep an invaluable support network. At the same time, there have been publications that straight up found that rent control did not reduce housing stock meaningfully and yet reduced rents. So the assertion that it "never works" cannot be supported by the evidence because we have evidence of cases and dimensions in which it definitely worked. And that is part of the reason why some of us are subjected to rent control. I find that this post https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/ https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control... is a good start, the video by Unlearning Economics on the subject is also pretty good, which IIRC also touches on the issue that in the rent control debate an increase in the exact same metrics (for example, mobility) is interpreted by some as good and by others as bad. I think there is a solid case to be made that when used carefully rent control can be a good tool to use in keeping housing costs under control, though of course if used as the only tool then things are likely to end up disastrously.

WalterBright 4y ago
> there have been publications that straight up found that rent control did not reduce housing stock meaningfully Really? Would you build an apt building that rent control ensured would be a poor investment? How do you measure investors being reluctant to build more housing in a rent controlled area? Rent control is good for the few people who get a below market rate. It's bad for everyone else, including those who can't find a place to rent because of it.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Rent control generally only controls increases, not absolute prices, and is relaxed for newer constructions, so developers care less. At the same time, it may reduce the cost of land zoned for high density housing if locative uses are judged to be less profitable, thereby reaching and equilibrium. It also often lowers market rent for everyone, when implemented correctly. We can measure this reluctance by looking at construction rates and general supply in similar groups of cities or neighborhoods with or without rent control, of course controlling for other variables. This has been done in multiple studies, which are listed in the link I provided.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
A recent video on co-op and social housing, that makes simlar points, with the somewhat clickbaity title of: The Non-capitalist Solution to the Housing Crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk The video seems to switch to "non-market" as a description.
strawhatguy 4y ago
You don’t need the tools at all. If everyone is at (roughly) the same level of decision making ability as the post implies then it follows that disallowing certain decisions (like the price of rent) will always be suboptimal. This is just pure and simple logic. What ‘successes’ rent control had are hyped to an abnormal extent, since obviously those with rent controlled apartments are most keen on keeping them, and often they are not the ‘poor’. Again the poor are used here as an excuse for upper middle class bad behavior, locking people out of the city. Turnover in a city is a good thing btw, not a bad one. But cities do seem to design themselves on keeping people out.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  This is not true. Rational actors acting in their own self interest does not always approach a global optimum. An external actor limiting choices can trivially lead to better outcomes, the prisoner's dilemma being an obvious example. The tragedy of the commons is another, where the government historically either intervened to maintain good behaviour, or intervened to enclose the commons, in either case limiting the options of rational players. Turnover in a city can be argued to be good or bad. Turnover across a city is more clearly bad, but as a said it's still arguable. In any case, I believe you're not making a great case as your basic argument that limiting choices of rational actors can never lead to better outcomes is incorrect, and I think it would be a good idea to read/watch the material I linked or referred to in order to get a better idea of what I'm arguing and so you can directly try to refute the rebuttals of points I'm going to be making. It's going to be faster than relitigating most of this conversation up until that point.

WalterBright 4y ago

> there have been publications that straight up found that rent control did not reduce housing stock meaningfully Really? Would you build an apt building that rent control ensured would be a poor investment? How do you measure investors being reluctant to build more housing in a rent controlled area? Rent control is good for the few people who get a below market rate. It's bad for everyone else, including those who can't find a place to rent because of it.

sudosysgen 4y ago
Rent control generally only controls increases, not absolute prices, and is relaxed for newer constructions, so developers care less. At the same time, it may reduce the cost of land zoned for high density housing if locative uses are judged to be less profitable, thereby reaching and equilibrium. It also often lowers market rent for everyone, when implemented correctly. We can measure this reluctance by looking at construction rates and general supply in similar groups of cities or neighborhoods with or without rent control, of course controlling for other variables. This has been done in multiple studies, which are listed in the link I provided.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

A recent video on co-op and social housing, that makes simlar points, with the somewhat clickbaity title of: The Non-capitalist Solution to the Housing Crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk The video seems to switch to "non-market" as a description.

strawhatguy 4y ago

You don’t need the tools at all. If everyone is at (roughly) the same level of decision making ability as the post implies then it follows that disallowing certain decisions (like the price of rent) will always be suboptimal. This is just pure and simple logic. What ‘successes’ rent control had are hyped to an abnormal extent, since obviously those with rent controlled apartments are most keen on keeping them, and often they are not the ‘poor’. Again the poor are used here as an excuse for upper middle class bad behavior, locking people out of the city. Turnover in a city is a good thing btw, not a bad one. But cities do seem to design themselves on keeping people out.

sudosysgen 4y ago
This is not true. Rational actors acting in their own self interest does not always approach a global optimum. An external actor limiting choices can trivially lead to better outcomes, the prisoner's dilemma being an obvious example. The tragedy of the commons is another, where the government historically either intervened to maintain good behaviour, or intervened to enclose the commons, in either case limiting the options of rational players. Turnover in a city can be argued to be good or bad. Turnover across a city is more clearly bad, but as a said it's still arguable. In any case, I believe you're not making a great case as your basic argument that limiting choices of rational actors can never lead to better outcomes is incorrect, and I think it would be a good idea to read/watch the material I linked or referred to in order to get a better idea of what I'm arguing and so you can directly try to refute the rebuttals of points I'm going to be making. It's going to be faster than relitigating most of this conversation up until that point.