4 ms·

"So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses." Yes. Believe

"So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses." Yes. Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should. "And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit." When you're out of new land to build on (NYC or SF, for instance; interesting how those are the two cities we keep coming back to, isn't it?), and other greedy people would have to buy your land or building, then yes. "Why should I continue to get the reward?" Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad. It's not like you're paying the same amount that you used to - rent does still go up in rent-control environments - you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation. "Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?" I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing? The thugs hassling your friends walking home? Homeless people? Are they reliable taxpayers? And as for people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, there are noise laws in most places... "As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile." You said that people don't move to Harlem because they don't want to get hassled by the undesirable locals. I was just saying that those undesirable locals are probably just as undesirable for the current locals as well. I assumed you meant criminal, since the example you gave was your friends being threatened on their walk home - nobody should have to put up with that. "I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile." Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?

yummyfajitas 18y ago
"Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should." All it takes is a few people to behave greedily. And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems? "Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad." I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here. "...you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation." I think you misspelled "be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days". "I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing?" The locals that make a place undesirable to live in. You advocate rewarding certain stationary locals who create positive externalities ("make the neighborhood worth living in"). The flip side of that is to punish negative externalities. It's something along the lines of rewarding the creators of public art (who create positive externalities), while punishing polluters (who create negative externalities). "Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?" If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy? Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth.
- calambrac 18y ago
  "All it takes is a few people to behave greedily." A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense. "And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems?" I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here? "I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here." Did you mug anyone? Sell drugs? Piss on other people's porches? Litter? Pay your rent on time? Spend money in the local stores? Occasionally smile at your neighbors? Call the cops when you saw someone breaking into a car? You don't have to be a hero to make a part of town a better place. "I think you misspelled 'be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days'." Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job, so they spend less time with their family, or maybe even need to get a new one. Any local support systems? Churches that sometimes helped with groceries, trusted neighbors to help with babysitting, etc, all gone. "The locals that make a place undesirable to live in." Okay, you come up with a way to enforce it, I'm all for it. Rent control is easy, and it has roughly the same effect in upwardly-mobile neighborhoods. "If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy?" Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. My goal is not kicking people out of their homes because rich people would rather have them. "Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth." So, wait, hold on: you want to kick people who are even worse off than you financially out of their homes so that you can afford a bit cheaper apartment now that your girlfriend broke up with you?
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    "A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense." You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will? "I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here?" You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this. Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction? "Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job,..." And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile? "Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. " In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all.
dk 18y ago
To my mind the word "greedy" suggests people who put their own interests above those of others, very often employing the coercive powers of the government to serve themselves and to the detriment of everyone else. This certainly includes many among the rich and powerful, but I don't think this brush can be applied to developers in general. What is their goal in places where there is no more land to build on, like NY and SF, but to reconfigure it and make it more available (affordable) to more people? Of course they seek profit and some people are substantially inconvenienced in the process, but in the broad perspective it creates value. Whatever its flaws, Manhattan offers more to more people now than it did 100 years ago. Are they not greedy, those who are renting their spots in these desirable locations and who are using the government's guns to keep others out? As a voting constituency they're leveraging the force of government to serve their own individual interests, seemingly unconcerned about the consequences for everyone else. I find it ironic that they wield the term "greed" with immunity.
- calambrac 18y ago
  How does letting a person stay in their home in the face of wild market fluctuations work to the detriment of everyone else, exactly? Wealthier people have to pay more for non rent-controlled apartments or commute a bit further - this hardly seems like a great cost to bear to avoid uprooting the families and communities that made these locations desirable in the first place.
  - dk 18y ago
    Based on your other comments, I don't think wild market fluctuations are really the issue here, are they? If they somehow disappeared, would you yield rent control to accommodate broad market trends?
    - calambrac 18y ago
      Rent control only exists in places where wild market fluctuations were displacing people.
      - 18y ago

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should." All it takes is a few people to behave greedily. And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems? "Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad." I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here. "...you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation." I think you misspelled "be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days". "I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing?" The locals that make a place undesirable to live in. You advocate rewarding certain stationary locals who create positive externalities ("make the neighborhood worth living in"). The flip side of that is to punish negative externalities. It's something along the lines of rewarding the creators of public art (who create positive externalities), while punishing polluters (who create negative externalities). "Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?" If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy? Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth.

calambrac 18y ago
"All it takes is a few people to behave greedily." A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense. "And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems?" I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here? "I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here." Did you mug anyone? Sell drugs? Piss on other people's porches? Litter? Pay your rent on time? Spend money in the local stores? Occasionally smile at your neighbors? Call the cops when you saw someone breaking into a car? You don't have to be a hero to make a part of town a better place. "I think you misspelled 'be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days'." Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job, so they spend less time with their family, or maybe even need to get a new one. Any local support systems? Churches that sometimes helped with groceries, trusted neighbors to help with babysitting, etc, all gone. "The locals that make a place undesirable to live in." Okay, you come up with a way to enforce it, I'm all for it. Rent control is easy, and it has roughly the same effect in upwardly-mobile neighborhoods. "If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy?" Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. My goal is not kicking people out of their homes because rich people would rather have them. "Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth." So, wait, hold on: you want to kick people who are even worse off than you financially out of their homes so that you can afford a bit cheaper apartment now that your girlfriend broke up with you?
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  "A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense." You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will? "I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here?" You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this. Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction? "Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job,..." And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile? "Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. " In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all.

dk 18y ago

To my mind the word "greedy" suggests people who put their own interests above those of others, very often employing the coercive powers of the government to serve themselves and to the detriment of everyone else. This certainly includes many among the rich and powerful, but I don't think this brush can be applied to developers in general. What is their goal in places where there is no more land to build on, like NY and SF, but to reconfigure it and make it more available (affordable) to more people? Of course they seek profit and some people are substantially inconvenienced in the process, but in the broad perspective it creates value. Whatever its flaws, Manhattan offers more to more people now than it did 100 years ago. Are they not greedy, those who are renting their spots in these desirable locations and who are using the government's guns to keep others out? As a voting constituency they're leveraging the force of government to serve their own individual interests, seemingly unconcerned about the consequences for everyone else. I find it ironic that they wield the term "greed" with immunity.

calambrac 18y ago
How does letting a person stay in their home in the face of wild market fluctuations work to the detriment of everyone else, exactly? Wealthier people have to pay more for non rent-controlled apartments or commute a bit further - this hardly seems like a great cost to bear to avoid uprooting the families and communities that made these locations desirable in the first place.
- dk 18y ago
  Based on your other comments, I don't think wild market fluctuations are really the issue here, are they? If they somehow disappeared, would you yield rent control to accommodate broad market trends?
  - calambrac 18y ago
    Rent control only exists in places where wild market fluctuations were displacing people.
    - 18y ago