7 ms·

The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make la

The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market just sort this out" ... "because water isn't like an iPhone, it's something that everyone needs and there's a huge butterfly effect to this, less crops, less food, etc. on a very large scale -- not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand". What's next, "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force insurance companies to not take into consideration pre-existing health conditions"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force politicians and political parties to reveal who gives them money"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force people who are working to pay for the retirement of older people via Social Security"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force companies to limit the amount they pollute"? There are plenty of arguments against rent control. But I find it hard to accept "but this guy could be making more money if the government didn't get in the way!" as an argument against rent control (or most other things, for that matter).

maxharris 12y ago
It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where criminality is involved (theft, fraud, etc.), no life should be subject to the arbitrary dictates of any group. Each of us should be free to make the most of our lives, as best as each of us can. Some of us will achieve more, others less. And there's no getting around that, because no two people can ever be the same in every respect. To be clear, I am pro-equality in one fundamental respect: we should strive to be equal before the law.
- wpietri 12y ago
  This is essentially a fundamentalist view of property rights. It seems like that for any X, you can find people to assert that X is obviously the most important thing in the world, so anything else doesn't matter. Fundamentalisms are mentally satisfying, because you always have clear answers. But they're practically dangerous, because the ignored concerns don't actually go away. Land, of course, does not work like you imagine it does. See, e.g.,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure#Modes_of_ownership_and_tenure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure#Modes_of_ownership_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform In addition to all that, you ignore that concepts like "trade" and "law" and even "earned" are all intrinsically social concepts. No man is an island. That doesn't mean that property rights aren't useful and important, but if you want everybody to agree on a particular set of rights, you'll have to make a case that is more compelling than, "my particular moral code says you must abide by my particular moral code".
  - shaftoe 12y ago
    Property rights aren't "useful and important." Property rights are the fundamental basis for any other right. What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? What right to free speech do they have if they do not "own" their own speech? Thievery doesn't become acceptable because someone makes a compelling case or a pretty argument. Justice doesn't become "fundamentalism" because it won't compromise with injustice.
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      No! Collective ownership is fundamental, and individual property rights are just a convenient legal fiction. See, I can make sweeping, unsupported assertions, too!
    - eridius 12y ago
      > What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? Congratulations, you just justified slavery.
jlebar 12y ago
> not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand lolwut? The free market works pretty OK for gasoline and food (taken as a whole; obviously specific foods are elastic). When was the last time you heard people clamoring for price controls at the grocery store? Even more to the point, the free market works just fine for housing in the vast majority of the US that does not have any form of rent control. That so many units in SF are rent controlled is a huge part of the problem here. It reduces the incentives for landlords to maintain properties (the OP specifically cites these problems) and makes it difficult-to-impossible for people in rent-controlled units to move (again, cited by the OP). It also significantly reduces the supply of housing in SF, driving up market-rate rents. Eventually the market-rate rents are so much higher than the rent-controlled rents that landlords have a strong incentive to pull stunts like what's happening here. The other big part of the problem is that so many people seem to think that the solution to all their economic problems is more regulation. What we're seeing in SF is not a failure of the free market, but rather the failure of an over- and ineptly-regulated market.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Neither gasoline nor food are "free markets", even approximately. Government actively intervenes to influence the supply and price of gasoline, and actively intervenes in food, subsidizing both production and consumption. So, if whatever is being done for gas and food works well, that's not an endorsement of the free market.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    I think the point was that no one is asking for price controls in those markets, despite the fact that we all need those goods to function - not that food/gas represent the text book cases of market equilibrium.
    - jlebar 12y ago
      Indeed, just that it's ridiculous to say that supply and demand "don't work" for inelastic goods. But I feel like people are focusing on the weaker argument, about gas and food, and ignoring the far stronger argument, that the vast majority of this country somehow gets by just fine without rent control.
remarkEon 12y ago
I wouldn't make the "let the landlord make more money" argument, I would be making the "rent control is a significant distortion of the market which hurts both renters and tenants in the long run" argument. Housing absolutely is a social priority, and while rent control is definitely a well intentioned attempted and addressing the issue, a more effective approach would be to build more - not restrict the price signalling mechanism.
- oconnore 12y ago
  Vacancy decontrol = new construction can have whatever rent they want. So preventing a landlord from screwing over the current tenant does not prevent housing from meeting demand. New construction does face many other issues, though. NIMBY's, parking regulations, zoning, etc.
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    Rent control makes people become NIMBYs.
    - logical42 12y ago
      I concur. And it seems to me that the feedback mechanism is destroying SF.
    - simoncion 12y ago
      I am in a rent controlled apartment. I have been in this apartment for 4.5 years. I full-throatedly support new, dense residential construction sufficient to meet SF's current and future housing demands. This will continue to be my position for the forseeable future. For those folks who are concerned about new construction destroying their rent-controlled units, Sangiacomo and his tenants worked out a really good plan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9209304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9209304
baddox 12y ago
> The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. There is a fairly well-accepted economic system that advocates both profit-seeking and making desired goods affordable. Far from being mutually exclusive, they can be mutually reinforcing.

maxharris 12y ago

It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where criminality is involved (theft, fraud, etc.), no life should be subject to the arbitrary dictates of any group. Each of us should be free to make the most of our lives, as best as each of us can. Some of us will achieve more, others less. And there's no getting around that, because no two people can ever be the same in every respect. To be clear, I am pro-equality in one fundamental respect: we should strive to be equal before the law.

wpietri 12y ago
This is essentially a fundamentalist view of property rights. It seems like that for any X, you can find people to assert that X is obviously the most important thing in the world, so anything else doesn't matter. Fundamentalisms are mentally satisfying, because you always have clear answers. But they're practically dangerous, because the ignored concerns don't actually go away. Land, of course, does not work like you imagine it does. See, e.g.,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure#Modes_of_ownership_and_tenure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure#Modes_of_ownership_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform In addition to all that, you ignore that concepts like "trade" and "law" and even "earned" are all intrinsically social concepts. No man is an island. That doesn't mean that property rights aren't useful and important, but if you want everybody to agree on a particular set of rights, you'll have to make a case that is more compelling than, "my particular moral code says you must abide by my particular moral code".
- shaftoe 12y ago
  Property rights aren't "useful and important." Property rights are the fundamental basis for any other right. What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? What right to free speech do they have if they do not "own" their own speech? Thievery doesn't become acceptable because someone makes a compelling case or a pretty argument. Justice doesn't become "fundamentalism" because it won't compromise with injustice.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    No! Collective ownership is fundamental, and individual property rights are just a convenient legal fiction. See, I can make sweeping, unsupported assertions, too!
  - eridius 12y ago
    > What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? Congratulations, you just justified slavery.

jlebar 12y ago

> not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand lolwut? The free market works pretty OK for gasoline and food (taken as a whole; obviously specific foods are elastic). When was the last time you heard people clamoring for price controls at the grocery store? Even more to the point, the free market works just fine for housing in the vast majority of the US that does not have any form of rent control. That so many units in SF are rent controlled is a huge part of the problem here. It reduces the incentives for landlords to maintain properties (the OP specifically cites these problems) and makes it difficult-to-impossible for people in rent-controlled units to move (again, cited by the OP). It also significantly reduces the supply of housing in SF, driving up market-rate rents. Eventually the market-rate rents are so much higher than the rent-controlled rents that landlords have a strong incentive to pull stunts like what's happening here. The other big part of the problem is that so many people seem to think that the solution to all their economic problems is more regulation. What we're seeing in SF is not a failure of the free market, but rather the failure of an over- and ineptly-regulated market.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Neither gasoline nor food are "free markets", even approximately. Government actively intervenes to influence the supply and price of gasoline, and actively intervenes in food, subsidizing both production and consumption. So, if whatever is being done for gas and food works well, that's not an endorsement of the free market.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  I think the point was that no one is asking for price controls in those markets, despite the fact that we all need those goods to function - not that food/gas represent the text book cases of market equilibrium.
  - jlebar 12y ago
    Indeed, just that it's ridiculous to say that supply and demand "don't work" for inelastic goods. But I feel like people are focusing on the weaker argument, about gas and food, and ignoring the far stronger argument, that the vast majority of this country somehow gets by just fine without rent control.

remarkEon 12y ago

I wouldn't make the "let the landlord make more money" argument, I would be making the "rent control is a significant distortion of the market which hurts both renters and tenants in the long run" argument. Housing absolutely is a social priority, and while rent control is definitely a well intentioned attempted and addressing the issue, a more effective approach would be to build more - not restrict the price signalling mechanism.

oconnore 12y ago
Vacancy decontrol = new construction can have whatever rent they want. So preventing a landlord from screwing over the current tenant does not prevent housing from meeting demand. New construction does face many other issues, though. NIMBY's, parking regulations, zoning, etc.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  Rent control makes people become NIMBYs.
  - logical42 12y ago
    I concur. And it seems to me that the feedback mechanism is destroying SF.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    I am in a rent controlled apartment. I have been in this apartment for 4.5 years. I full-throatedly support new, dense residential construction sufficient to meet SF's current and future housing demands. This will continue to be my position for the forseeable future. For those folks who are concerned about new construction destroying their rent-controlled units, Sangiacomo and his tenants worked out a really good plan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9209304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9209304

baddox 12y ago

> The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. There is a fairly well-accepted economic system that advocates both profit-seeking and making desired goods affordable. Far from being mutually exclusive, they can be mutually reinforcing.