7 ms·

Corporations aren't the reason your rent is too high

14 points by lanfeust6 1y ago

cosmicgadget 1y ago
> I’m not sure I see the political logic there, but I guess I’m not much of an expert on politics. ... > [Proceeds to do nothing but knock down political strawmen]
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  I guess actual quotes from online are strawmen?
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    I mean yes if you are intending to say they represent some consensus.
    - lanfeust6 1y ago
      The fact that not all detractors share the exact same beliefs doesn't mean it isn't an ideological phenomenon apparent among populists on both the left and right. This hardly needs to be said. There's a pretty common thread among critics of e.g. Abundance. I thought you were perhaps leading up to your having a different take that isn't captured here. Do you? edit: looks like that's a no.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        But it makes reductive takedowns valuable conversation? On the heels of a comment about not sullying oneself with politics?
        lanfeust6 1y ago
        I ask again: do you have anything to say?
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        That the author does himself disservice by lacing his post with vague political criticisms after sarcastically saying he isn't an expert in politics? I thought that would be obvious by now.
        lanfeust6 1y ago
        [dead]
        lanfeust6 1y ago
        "ordinary people simply do not believe that adding more housing to the regional stock would reduce housing prices. Across three original surveys of urban and suburban residents, only a minority of respondents say that a large, positive, regional housing supply shock would reduce prices or rents. These beliefs are weakly held and unstable (suggesting people have given the issue little thought), but respondents do have stable views about who is to blame for high housing prices: developers and landlords. Large, bipartisan supermajorities support price controls, demand subsidies, and restrictions on putative bad actors, policies which they believe would be more effective than supply liberalization for widespread affordability. " -- https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 Not that I expect you to care about evidence.
grafmax 1y ago
Remarkable that investor-owned multi-family housing is left out of these analyses. Surely that contributes to housing supply and should factor into any such analysis of pricing power among investors. For example, about 44% of California households rent. Additionally looking at national averages is misleading. Investor pricing power can exist in individual markets without being ubiquitous across the nation. The allegations made against RealPage are a notable example, if true. A more insidious issue besides just pricing power among investors is the direction of cash flow. When you rent, cash is paid to the owner. When you take out a mortgage, interest is paid to the bank. These are both mechanisms for rentier capitalists to extract cash from those with less - by paying for a basic need - essentially wealth redistribution in the wrong direction.
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  If investors aren't corporations, they're mom and pop. Since vacancy rates are very low in cities, this means they're renting out. If they didn't, you'd have even more shortage and rising rents. Californian cities like San Fransisco also have rent control which further constrains supply. It seems like your gripe about cash flow is that people pay anything at all. Nevermind that wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income (in various ways), and they also pay less. Fanciful ideas aside there's plenty of evidence that increasing supply of housing lowers prices
  - grafmax 1y ago
    > wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income Wealth inequality continues to increase. These measures are insufficient. The best effect that YIMBY can have on housing is to put a slight downward pressure on prices. Prices can still go up, and often do, in locations where YIMBY is adopted. That’s because it’s a superficial measure that does not address the structural cause. Slightly lower prices cannot house the growing homeless population for example - slightly lower prices can never house people without money. “Abundance” makes a gesture toward the housing crisis without addressing the structural cause - wealth inequality. It’s appealing to its billionaire supporters for exactly this reason. We need effective public housing that the wealthy finance through their taxes.
nielsbot 1y ago
Slightly less convincing since the article doesn't spell out what the actual reason is. Anybody have any answer for that?
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  Constrained/inelastic supply of housing in the face of growing demand. Either the demand gets moderated (lower influx of people in cities) or you have to build more. The constraints are exacerbated by zoning and regulations.
- mritterhoff 1y ago
  The weaponization of zoning laws. It's literally illegal to build the housing people want and need thanks to them. Every US city needs zoning reform, to get rid of height maximums, parking minimums, and Single Family Only zoning.

14 points by lanfeust6 1y ago

> I’m not sure I see the political logic there, but I guess I’m not much of an expert on politics. ... > [Proceeds to do nothing but knock down political strawmen]

lanfeust6 1y ago
I guess actual quotes from online are strawmen?
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  I mean yes if you are intending to say they represent some consensus.
  - lanfeust6 1y ago
    The fact that not all detractors share the exact same beliefs doesn't mean it isn't an ideological phenomenon apparent among populists on both the left and right. This hardly needs to be said. There's a pretty common thread among critics of e.g. Abundance. I thought you were perhaps leading up to your having a different take that isn't captured here. Do you? edit: looks like that's a no.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      But it makes reductive takedowns valuable conversation? On the heels of a comment about not sullying oneself with politics?
      - lanfeust6 1y ago
        I ask again: do you have anything to say?
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        That the author does himself disservice by lacing his post with vague political criticisms after sarcastically saying he isn't an expert in politics? I thought that would be obvious by now.
        lanfeust6 1y ago
        [dead]
        lanfeust6 1y ago
        "ordinary people simply do not believe that adding more housing to the regional stock would reduce housing prices. Across three original surveys of urban and suburban residents, only a minority of respondents say that a large, positive, regional housing supply shock would reduce prices or rents. These beliefs are weakly held and unstable (suggesting people have given the issue little thought), but respondents do have stable views about who is to blame for high housing prices: developers and landlords. Large, bipartisan supermajorities support price controls, demand subsidies, and restrictions on putative bad actors, policies which they believe would be more effective than supply liberalization for widespread affordability. " -- https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 Not that I expect you to care about evidence.

grafmax 1y ago

Remarkable that investor-owned multi-family housing is left out of these analyses. Surely that contributes to housing supply and should factor into any such analysis of pricing power among investors. For example, about 44% of California households rent. Additionally looking at national averages is misleading. Investor pricing power can exist in individual markets without being ubiquitous across the nation. The allegations made against RealPage are a notable example, if true. A more insidious issue besides just pricing power among investors is the direction of cash flow. When you rent, cash is paid to the owner. When you take out a mortgage, interest is paid to the bank. These are both mechanisms for rentier capitalists to extract cash from those with less - by paying for a basic need - essentially wealth redistribution in the wrong direction.

lanfeust6 1y ago
If investors aren't corporations, they're mom and pop. Since vacancy rates are very low in cities, this means they're renting out. If they didn't, you'd have even more shortage and rising rents. Californian cities like San Fransisco also have rent control which further constrains supply. It seems like your gripe about cash flow is that people pay anything at all. Nevermind that wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income (in various ways), and they also pay less. Fanciful ideas aside there's plenty of evidence that increasing supply of housing lowers prices
- grafmax 1y ago
  > wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income Wealth inequality continues to increase. These measures are insufficient. The best effect that YIMBY can have on housing is to put a slight downward pressure on prices. Prices can still go up, and often do, in locations where YIMBY is adopted. That’s because it’s a superficial measure that does not address the structural cause. Slightly lower prices cannot house the growing homeless population for example - slightly lower prices can never house people without money. “Abundance” makes a gesture toward the housing crisis without addressing the structural cause - wealth inequality. It’s appealing to its billionaire supporters for exactly this reason. We need effective public housing that the wealthy finance through their taxes.

nielsbot 1y ago

Slightly less convincing since the article doesn't spell out what the actual reason is. Anybody have any answer for that?

lanfeust6 1y ago
Constrained/inelastic supply of housing in the face of growing demand. Either the demand gets moderated (lower influx of people in cities) or you have to build more. The constraints are exacerbated by zoning and regulations.
mritterhoff 1y ago
The weaponization of zoning laws. It's literally illegal to build the housing people want and need thanks to them. Every US city needs zoning reform, to get rid of height maximums, parking minimums, and Single Family Only zoning.