Totally agreed on the it depends what you want to accomplish factor. This "liberal economists say price controls are bad so that's that" orthodoxy should be questioned.
A big one I see is with rent. Liberal economists say rent controls are bad... But when you look into why they say this you see it's based on some perfect theoretical where profits from rent are actually invested into building more housing (which is all interchangeable. No consideration of location and the cost of pricing the poor out of urban centres) thus a perfect natural equilibrium will be reached.
The reality is not this.
Rent control is bad.
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 02:12:30 AMTotally agreed on the it depends what you want to accomplish factor. This "liberal economists say price controls are bad so that's that" orthodoxy should be questioned.
A big one I see is with rent. Liberal economists say rent controls are bad... But when you look into why they say this you see it's based on some perfect theoretical where profits from rent are actually invested into building more housing (which is all interchangeable. No consideration of location and the cost of pricing the poor out of urban centres) thus a perfect natural equilibrium will be reached.
The reality is not this.
No rent controls are bad because actual demand is the reality and rent control attempts to hide it.
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2024, 02:33:35 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 02:12:30 AMTotally agreed on the it depends what you want to accomplish factor. This "liberal economists say price controls are bad so that's that" orthodoxy should be questioned.
A big one I see is with rent. Liberal economists say rent controls are bad... But when you look into why they say this you see it's based on some perfect theoretical where profits from rent are actually invested into building more housing (which is all interchangeable. No consideration of location and the cost of pricing the poor out of urban centres) thus a perfect natural equilibrium will be reached.
The reality is not this.
No rent controls are bad because actual demand is the reality and rent control attempts to hide it.
No it doesn't.
It stops shortages being too painful for those who are suffering most and enables key but not spectacularly paid workers to continue to live in the centre of large cities where they're needed to keep the city running.
Rent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
Quote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
San Francisco is not known as a cheap place to live.
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
QuoteThe enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Yes. The have nots are the ones who need protecting the most.
If you're a key worker and you need to be at a site in the centre and you don't have access to a large pool of funds then your options are always going to be incredibly limited. You have to live in this central location and losing your property leaves you fucked.
If on the other hand you're some kind of professional and you do have a lot of money then your options are far more open. You can afford to live far from the centre and commute in 2 days a week. You can afford various short term options if you find yourself temporarily homeless.
If there's a housing shortage and one side needs to be protected then this absolutely should be those without the means to protect themselves.
But you know what a better option is than having to pick between the two? Build more homes.
Rent control stops a terrible situation from being even worse. Its not meant to fix the terrible situation. You have to actually build to do that. This is something I've noticed many people fail to consider.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2024, 03:12:38 AMSan Francisco is not known as a cheap place to live.
Yes?
One of the negative effects of rent control is that it limits supply. It makes it unattractive to build homes for renting, and it reduces the available housing on the renting market. More already existing homes reach the renting market if you don't have rent control. If I were to rent out my place for instance I wouldn't even be allowed to do it at cost. Not very attractive.
And I still fail to see why the people on the outside who can't get a place to live because of the rent control system should be disregarded.
My understanding is that rent controls are something that basically 99% economists of all types and from all schools agree are bad and don't work/are counter-productive. It's the economics equivalent of climate change with abundant real-world examples of the dysfunctions it causes.
And yet... :lol:
QuoteOne of the negative effects of rent control is that it limits supply. It makes it unattractive to build homes for renting, and it reduces the available housing on the renting market. More already existing homes reach the renting market if you don't have rent control. If I were to rent out my place for instance I wouldn't even be allowed to do it at cost. Not very attractive.
And I still fail to see why the people on the outside who can't get a place to live because of the rent control system should be disregarded.
That'll explain London then. Clearly no housing shortage to be found there as the lack of rent controls has led to a massive boom in house building.
As said this is where the economists are doing the usual thing, like when they show libertarianism is a very good idea, of assuming a perfect green field setup with zero other factors at play like the fact that in many places its incredibly difficult to just build more properties and what you can charge in rent will have zero impact on whether this happens or not; especially when many of these rent payments are going to somebody who is never going to be in any position to build housing.
Even if we're thinking theoretically and being abstract from reality, if you're a landlord renting out properties and profiting big due to being able to charge whatever you want amidst a shortage then there's really no incentive to ever help solve the housing crisis. You might be able to get away with building a property or two extra without denting demand/what you can charge, but letting the profits roll in without having to invest in doing anything is great.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2024, 04:46:14 AMMy understanding is that rent controls are something that basically 99% economists of all types and from all schools agree are bad and don't work/are counter-productive. It's the economics equivalent of climate change with abundant real-world examples of the dysfunctions it causes.
And yet... :lol:
99% of liberal economists agree rent control is bad because they're completely missing the point and see housing as a commodity.
Think of housing instead as a human right and a basic service necessary for the actual economy to operate and the picture looks very different.
https://neweconomics.org/2019/08/rent-control-your-questions-answered
Saying 99% of economists agree rent control is bad is like saying 99% of dieticians agree pizza is bad.
If only a significant portion of the world's population and economic capacity would have spent 50 years trying to make a closely state-controlled economic model work, we could put these debates to rest.
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 05:17:13 AMThink of housing instead as a human right
A human right that the property owner has to pay for and not you, the taxpayer.
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 05:17:13 AM99% of liberal economists agree rent control is bad because they're completely missing the point and see housing as a commodity.
Think of housing instead as a human right and a basic service necessary for the actual economy to operate and the picture looks very different.
https://neweconomics.org/2019/08/rent-control-your-questions-answered
It doesn't look different though. She basically concedes every point that mainstream economists say happens with rent controls. Of course I would also add that I'm not really convinced by "human rights" arguments on literally anything.
Her argument is rent controls can work IF you minimise exemptions to cover most properties, massively increase social housing, expand the benefits system, impose legal obligations on landlords to maintain or improve their properties. I'd also slightly query her point on landlords being willing to take a hit on rental income for the benefit of capital appreciation in property value while also saying that rent controls would help manage and could help dampen property prices (I feel like you can have one of those arguments, not both).
It's less an argument for rent controls than a socialist economy on housing. Which is fine. But I think it does mean that if you just have rent controls you'll get all of the dysfunctions observable in all the real world examples of rent controls. In part I think that's the mainstream economists argument is that rent controls as a policy does not work based on where it's been introduced because it is the solution. It is not part of a wider solution of massively increased social supply, stronger benefits etc - it is never part of moving housing to a planned economy.
It reminds me of the LSE academics argument that we don't need to build new homes because actually there is enough "space" in Britain's housing market, it's just distributed inequitably. The big example is a retired couple living in the family home that was big enough when they had kids but now more than they "need" and, if we reframe housing around "need" rather than as properties/assets, we have enough space.
Although it is on brand that British left-wing academics literally find it easier to envisage nationalising spare rooms and allocating demand based on "need" and a human rights perspective, than supply-side planning reform :lol:
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:46:20 AMQuote from: garbon on August 29, 2024, 03:12:38 AMSan Francisco is not known as a cheap place to live.
Yes?
It is mad about rent control and yet has few affordable places to live. Headlines all the time about people not able to live near where they work as there is nothing affordable on the market.
As Brain says rent control only helps those who already have a place but makes life worse for those would like to move in. If you can get a rental controlled place it is grand as you won't be priced out but means those trying to get a place are effectively barred as one those on rent control aren't moving and there is only limited available stock at high prices.
Sheilbh has now spoke on it but it seems to me the best way to make sure there is affordable housing is more social housing.
Rent controls not only affect supply but disincentivise landlords from undertaking repairs/improvements. They are generally a terrible idea.
Re affordable housing v social housing. Affordable is generally regarded as cost neutral for developers. It sells for as much as it cost to build, so no profit. Social is significantly cost negative so generally requires public funding to make up the difference.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2024, 06:55:00 AMRent controls not only affect supply but disincentivise landlords from undertaking repairs/improvements. They are generally a terrible idea.
Re affordable housing v social housing. Affordable is generally regarded as cost neutral for developers. It sells for as much as it cost to build, so no profit. Social is significantly cost negative so generally requires public funding to make up the difference.
In my part of London it seems like the council often lets developers slide affordable housing down to a smaller and smaller percentage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2024, 05:31:40 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 05:17:13 AMThink of housing instead as a human right
A human right that the property owner has to pay for and not you, the taxpayer.
Another reason I really should make the effort someday to go do a number 2 at the national toilet in Grantham.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2024, 06:06:19 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:46:20 AMQuote from: garbon on August 29, 2024, 03:12:38 AMSan Francisco is not known as a cheap place to live.
Yes?
It is mad about rent control and yet has few affordable places to live. Headlines all the time about people not able to live near where they work as there is nothing affordable on the market.
As Brain says rent control only helps those who already have a place but makes life worse for those would like to move in. If you can get a rental controlled place it is grand as you won't be priced out but means those trying to get a place are effectively barred as one those on rent control aren't moving and there is only limited available stock at high prices.
Is it expensive because it has rent control or does it have rent control because its expensive?
As I understand it in SF the problem is far more challenging natural borders and restrictive planning laws that stop building up.
QuoteSheilbh has now spoke on it but it seems to me the best way to make sure there is affordable housing is more social housing.
Yes. More rent control and more housing altogether are the ways to provide more affordable housing.
QuoteIf only a significant portion of the world's population and economic capacity would have spent 50 years trying to make a closely state-controlled economic model work, we could put these debates to rest.
Scientifically its generally very hard to prove something but much easier to disprove it.
Correlation doesn't equal causation and there's a myriad of factors at play but in the UK...
(https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/UK_rental_sector.PNG)
(https://images.ctfassets.net/02vwvgr6spsr/1kRGYEMMnT7QTs8CS7ez25/fb04980983ab1dcf60530e393751c7f5/zoopla_static_cms_content_cms_document_assets__705532_.png)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2024, 05:39:07 AMIt doesn't look different though. She basically concedes every point that mainstream economists say happens with rent controls.
Because these arguments completely miss the point
QuoteIt's less an argument for rent controls than a socialist economy on housing. Which is fine. But I think it does mean that if you just have rent controls you'll get all of the dysfunctions observable in all the real world examples of rent controls. In part I think that's the mainstream economists argument is that rent controls as a policy does not work based on where it's been introduced because it is the solution. It is not part of a wider solution of massively increased social supply, stronger benefits etc - it is never part of moving housing to a planned economy.
This goes both ways.
People arguing that just get rid of rent control and you have the magical solution to our housing issues.
Rent control isn't meant to be a solution. Nobody who actually understands the issues thinks it is one. Its only ever meant to be a plaster on a severely messed up situation to dampen the pain a bit whilst actual solutions are persued.
QuoteIt reminds me of the LSE academics argument that we don't need to build new homes because actually there is enough "space" in Britain's housing market, it's just distributed inequitably. The big example is a retired couple living in the family home that was big enough when they had kids but now more than they "need" and, if we reframe housing around "need" rather than as properties/assets, we have enough space.
They do have a point.
Its idiotic to take this to the extreme of we don't have to build any housing ever because there's a bunch of little old ladies in 4 bedroom houses in Galloway and if we just kick them out then London's homeless can move there.
But the points about some parts of the country being over-heated whilst others suffer, that maybe just as much as building housing we also need to be improving transport and spreading growth... Perfectly valid and worth considering. As is the difficult one about old people in houses that are now too big for them, there's a big quandary there.
What a shocker that the hill Josq picked to die on happened to be the one that's overlooked by mountains from all sides except directly to the left of him.
Josq just likes to be wrong. That's all I can figure.
Great arguments. That's me convinced.
And Raz, you're the last person who can try and pull that one. :lol:
I'm not even seeing any correlation between your two graphs. The second seems to show rent increases outside of London bumping along at roughly the level of inflation.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2024, 08:55:59 AMI'm not even seeing any correlation between your two graphs. The second seems to show rent increases outside of London bumping along at roughly the level of inflation.
I couldn't find the long term prices graph I wanted.
But outside of London its only really since covid that renting has become a nightmare in most places- though pretty sure it has been beating inflation.
Its not the sole factor but it seems pretty clear that a decline in social housing with its rent controls has led to an overall increase in rental costs; to the detriment of renters and local councils.
The problem with the rental control debate is a lot depends on what controls are in place.
So for example, if a developer is permitted to have more density in return to for including some affordable housing units where the rent is controlled, that seems a good policy.
But if rent control means blanket restrictions so there are no market rate units, as Sheilbh noted, all economists agree that is terrible.
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2024, 05:23:17 AMIf only a significant portion of the world's population and economic capacity would have spent 50 years trying to make a closely state-controlled economic model work, we could put these debates to rest.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 08:48:51 AMGreat arguments. That's me convinced.
And Raz, you're the last person who can try and pull that one. :lol:
What is 2+2?
A. 4
B. 4
C. 4
D. 4
Josq "I think I'll just write in "Green Party"
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2024, 06:55:00 AMRent controls not only affect supply but disincentivise landlords from undertaking repairs/improvements. They are generally a terrible idea.
Re affordable housing v social housing. Affordable is generally regarded as cost neutral for developers. It sells for as much as it cost to build, so no profit. Social is significantly cost negative so generally requires public funding to make up the difference.
I agree.
In Norway, some local Labour councils, like in Oslo (and in my hometown) have tried creating "a third way".
Which basically means developers build, the building societies or the council foot the bill, and they offer it for rent to young couples with children and in five years or so, they can buy their house or flat because a part of the rent goes towards capital to buy.
I have tried, really hard, to look into the viability of these projects. And if it is actually helping the people it is supposed to help. So far, I would say it has with the local projects here, yet not as well as it was supposed to do, as building costs have skyrocketed during the pandemic and with the "energy crisis" increasing expenditure for council flats, capital for continuing the projects vanished. The idea was well-meant. Which many ideas are.
What is really driving up the cost of building here may be different from other countries, but it comes down to regulation. 1) Houses should be climate neutral. That costs. 2) We should build with wood. You can make your pun now.
Oslo's rental market really went to pot when people owning more than one house/home were taxed 100 percent for any building they did not themselves live in.
The problem with any kind of "third way" is it creates all kind of unintended consequences.
So in my local neighbourhood there is a very large greenspace next to the school. The city came along and said "hey wait a minute, while a lot of this is zoned as a park, part of it is set aside for a catholic school - and the catholic school board says it has no plans to build a school here". So after quite a bit of local opposition (the area was used for soccer fields), they zoned it for affordable housing.
Now the design itself is quite attractive - it's a series of townhouses / 4-plexes. It certainly did increase density in the neighbourhood but not in an obnoxious way, so besides losing the soccer fields I'm over the loss of the greenspace.
But they were required to be "affordable housing". So what happened is you had to apply to buy. You had to have certain income thresholds, and you weren't allowed to sell for a period of time (to avoid flippers). But then you got to buy a home at below-market rates. Which is great for those purchasers - but your below market rate is being subsidized by everyone else. And if you sold after your allotted time period - why you then get a windfall.
Or government-run social housing. So Alberta doesn't have government-owned housing (instead we have rental supports) but Manitoba does. It owns a series of buildings that it rents out for below-market rates to those in need. Which again is great for anyone who can get a spot - but the waiting list can be years long. There's also a fairly strict income test - which can have people decline to take jobs that would put them over the limit, as it would mean losing their social housing. It also means you can't move without again going back on a list - so you can't move to be closer to a new job, or to get away from an abusive partner, or any of a number of situations.
Yeah all of those things have been known for a long time. And the part about creating a disastrous situation where you cannot afford to do better or risk being kicked out on the street is especially problematic. Or situations where you are incentivized to have kids you cannot afford.
But is it better to not do anything at all? We have tried that for several decades and that doesn't look great either.
It is a conundrum and one of the reasons I was so in favor of trying something like UBI as a possible solution.
Quote from: Norgy on August 29, 2024, 10:59:04 AMOslo's rental market really went to pot when people owning more than one house/home were taxed 100 percent for any building they did not themselves live in.
:wacko:
I can certainly see how that might have that effect.
I would already be happy if 80+% of rentals in Vienna weren't fixed term (usually 3-5 years). :P
Quote from: Norgy on August 29, 2024, 10:59:04 AMQuote from: Gups on August 29, 2024, 06:55:00 AMRent controls not only affect supply but disincentivise landlords from undertaking repairs/improvements. They are generally a terrible idea.
Re affordable housing v social housing. Affordable is generally regarded as cost neutral for developers. It sells for as much as it cost to build, so no profit. Social is significantly cost negative so generally requires public funding to make up the difference.
I agree.
In Norway, some local Labour councils, like in Oslo (and in my hometown) have tried creating "a third way".
Which basically means developers build, the building societies or the council foot the bill, and they offer it for rent to young couples with children and in five years or so, they can buy their house or flat because a part of the rent goes towards capital to buy.
I have tried, really hard, to look into the viability of these projects. And if it is actually helping the people it is supposed to help. So far, I would say it has with the local projects here, yet not as well as it was supposed to do, as building costs have skyrocketed during the pandemic and with the "energy crisis" increasing expenditure for council flats, capital for continuing the projects vanished. The idea was well-meant. Which many ideas are.
What is really driving up the cost of building here may be different from other countries, but it comes down to regulation. 1) Houses should be climate neutral. That costs. 2) We should build with wood. You can make your pun now.
Oslo's rental market really went to pot when people owning more than one house/home were taxed 100 percent for any building they did not themselves live in.
Yep construction costs when crazy in 22/23 but have calmed down now (but still very high). There are also lots of other things that developers now have to worry about that they didn't used to - biodiversity net gain, energy efficiency etc.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2024, 11:26:14 AMYeah all of those things have been known for a long time. And the part about creating a disastrous situation where you cannot afford to do better or risk being kicked out on the street is especially problematic. Or situations where you are incentivized to have kids you cannot afford.
But is it better to not do anything at all? We have tried that for several decades and that doesn't look great either.
It is a conundrum and one of the reasons I was so in favor of trying something like UBI as a possible solution.
UBI has been shown to be a really mixed bag though. It seems to increase basic health incomes (I mean people are healthier if they get enough food to eat and for very basic medical care), but does seem to act as a disincentive to work.
And it's not like we live in Victorian england with no social supports! We have a whole medly of different social programs out there.
I used to be more in favour of a UBI, on the idea that we should just take all of the money we use for all social programs - welfare, food banks, housing supports - and just turn it into a UBI. The idea being that you'd save a lot of money on administration, and you can basically trust people to do what is in their best interests.
Unfortunately after 20 years in criminal justice, I believe a significant number of people would spend the money on drugs and then would have absolutely no other government supports to rely on.
When it comes to housing - I'm of the YIMBY/"build baby build" school.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2024, 11:44:22 AMUBI has been shown to be a really mixed bag though. It seems to increase basic health incomes (I mean people are healthier if they get enough food to eat and for very basic medical care), but does seem to act as a disincentive to work.
If people need to be literally starving and on the streets to be incentivized to work well that sucks and doesn't human nature blow?
But I am unwilling to create those conditions just to get people incentivized to work. I would prefer people just be less incentivized to work, employers will just have to make it more appealing. But you just pointed out how other programs designed to help the poor actively incentivize them to NOT work, this seems superior.
QuoteAnd it's not like we live in Victorian england with no social supports! We have a whole medly of different social programs out there.
I used to be more in favour of a UBI, on the idea that we should just take all of the money we use for all social programs - welfare, food banks, housing supports - and just turn it into a UBI. The idea being that you'd save a lot of money on administration, and you can basically trust people to do what is in their best interests.
Unfortunately after 20 years in criminal justice, I believe a significant number of people would spend the money on drugs and then would have absolutely no other government supports to rely on.
Yeah we probably couldn't do that, just eliminate everything but UBI due to just the problem you describe. Many people they just are sick with addiction and cannot take care of themselves. They are sick and need treatment.
QuoteWhen it comes to housing - I'm of the YIMBY/"build baby build" school.
Me to. Especially in the era of falling populations. The best way to address homelessness and high home prices? Build homes.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2024, 11:51:29 AMIf people need to be literally starving and on the streets to be incentivized to work well that sucks and doesn't human nature blow?
But I am unwilling to create those conditions just to get people incentivized to work. I would prefer people just be less incentivized to work, employers will just have to make it more appealing. But you just pointed out how other programs designed to help the poor actively incentivize them to NOT work, this seems superior.
But that's just how society works, and always has. If you free people from the need to work, a lot of people - just don't want to work.
My son is 14. When I was his age I was out slinging newspapers to earn extra money. Now of course that is no longer a thing kids do, but we were encouraging him to do refereeing. A friend of his made good money last winter doing it. Heck again when I was even younger than 14 (I think 12) I was umping little kids baseball games. His response though? "Nah - it's boring". He gets enough money from birthdays and other gifts it's not worth it to him.
QuoteYeah we probably couldn't do that, just eliminate everything but UBI due to just the problem you describe. Many people they just are sick with addiction and cannot take care of themselves. They are sick and need treatment.
Well again my thinking (and I didn't come up with the idea) is that it would be much more politically palatable. Building a UBI on top of all existing social programs would be hugely, massively expensive and I can't see it being politically feasible (in particular in the US where you can't even agree on universal healthcare).
QuoteQuoteWhen it comes to housing - I'm of the YIMBY/"build baby build" school.
Me to. Especially in the era of falling populations. The best way to address homelessness and high home prices? Build homes.
Of course in Canada the population is anything but falling - we grew by 1.3 million (or 3.2%) in 2023, with the number expected to be even higher this year.
But yes - it's simple supply and demand.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2024, 12:04:30 PMBut that's just how society works, and always has. If you free people from the need to work, a lot of people - just don't want to work.
Yeah I just don't see any way around that. However, in this circumstance at least working would be entirely to their benefit. They wouldn't have to worry about losing some essential social benefit.
QuoteWell again my thinking (and I didn't come up with the idea) is that it would be much more politically palatable. Building a UBI on top of all existing social programs would be hugely, massively expensive and I can't see it being politically feasible (in particular in the US where you can't even agree on universal healthcare).
Yeah, you would be able to get rid of a lot of them but you would have to keep ones in place to treat mental health issues and substance addiction. You can't just give those kinds of people money.
QuoteOf course in Canada the population is anything but falling - we grew by 1.3 million (or 3.2%) in 2023, with the number expected to be even higher this year.
But yes - it's simple supply and demand.
I am just saying you don't have to worry about coating the earth in homes because of overpopulation. The current demographic direction of earth is pretty clear even if Canada continues to get immigrants.
But Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2024, 12:10:28 PMI am just saying you don't have to worry about coating the earth in homes because of overpopulation. The current demographic direction of earth is pretty clear even if Canada continues to get immigrants.
But Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
OK, understand the first part.
Second part though - it's not like immigrants are moving to Flin Flon, Manitoba. They're moving to the big cities.
Because the thing is vast swaths of Canada aren't really great places to live. It's the Precambrian shield. Continental glaciation scraped all the topsoil away leaving just bare rock, and now whatever trees can grow on top of bare rock. People have built cities on the shield when there's sufficient incentive to do so (like Flin FLon), but it's usually because of mining. But it's otherwise really hard to build on bedrock - you can't dig basement, all utilities (even water and sewer) have to be built above ground, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2024, 12:10:28 PMBut Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America. Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth. Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask. Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable. So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2024, 11:43:34 AMQuote from: Norgy on August 29, 2024, 10:59:04 AMQuote from: Gups on August 29, 2024, 06:55:00 AMRent controls not only affect supply but disincentivise landlords from undertaking repairs/improvements. They are generally a terrible idea.
Re affordable housing v social housing. Affordable is generally regarded as cost neutral for developers. It sells for as much as it cost to build, so no profit. Social is significantly cost negative so generally requires public funding to make up the difference.
I agree.
In Norway, some local Labour councils, like in Oslo (and in my hometown) have tried creating "a third way".
Which basically means developers build, the building societies or the council foot the bill, and they offer it for rent to young couples with children and in five years or so, they can buy their house or flat because a part of the rent goes towards capital to buy.
I have tried, really hard, to look into the viability of these projects. And if it is actually helping the people it is supposed to help. So far, I would say it has with the local projects here, yet not as well as it was supposed to do, as building costs have skyrocketed during the pandemic and with the "energy crisis" increasing expenditure for council flats, capital for continuing the projects vanished. The idea was well-meant. Which many ideas are.
What is really driving up the cost of building here may be different from other countries, but it comes down to regulation. 1) Houses should be climate neutral. That costs. 2) We should build with wood. You can make your pun now.
Oslo's rental market really went to pot when people owning more than one house/home were taxed 100 percent for any building they did not themselves live in.
Yep construction costs when crazy in 22/23 but have calmed down now (but still very high). There are also lots of other things that developers now have to worry about that they didn't used to - biodiversity net gain, energy efficiency etc.
Yeah, there was a furor here about the rental cost of the affordable units of a project that recently completed. The rent was based on the developers cost. Which was lower than usual because the government had provided low interest loans to the developer. Sorry folks, but that is just what it costs now.
Quote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:19:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Finland is not a good example of the housing market. :lmfao: If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.
Building more housing is pretty obviously the key solution to housing problems.
But this can be over-stated to an extent. There's this big assumption built into the idea that all we have to do is build more houses is that all housing is created equal - abolish the green belt and just build more houses!....then you have these new houses 2 hours drive from the city centre. It doesn't particularly help the nurse who works at a central clinic even if she can afford one of these new homes (and she is able to outbid to buy to let folk).
I'd say more emphasis needs to be placed on the need to build smarter as well as to just build more.
Don't just find a field on the outskirts of town and build a bunch of horrid modern "Detached as that means the most profits but only 30cm from its neighbour" homes there. There was a recent example of this locally where they didn't even bother to give it pavements, driving (or walking on the road) was literally the only way in or out. Transit isn't thought of at all.
We need to place a lot more emphasis on densifying already developed areas, and on transit to make sure a place 15 miles from the centre is perfectly liveable for someone working (and playing) in the centre rather than a commuting hellscape.
Also quite sad to see such a universal distaste for rent control here.
So 99% of economists say its bad?
As I said, go and ask a bunch of dieticians about pizza and you'll hear quite universally that its terrible...
But when you're talking about having pizza is a nutritious meal really what you're going for?
The economists arguments about rent control being bad aren't even worth arguing with, just accept them as read (despite usually being based in a theoretical reality where landlords are building new housing and all housing is the same...), but they completely miss the point.
The reason politicians support it isn't because they somehow think its going to help house prices. Its because the situation is screwed up and artificial interference is needed to keep the rest of the economy running and stop massive human suffering.
Housing doesn't work like a random commodity. A particular slice of land is unique. You can't just build another version of it.
Social housing is a very very good thing (tm) and we need more of it. Not less. The right to buy and associated act ranks up there in the top crimes of Thatcher.
Anyway. Should we separate out this housing stuff into a different thread?
Quote from: Josquius on August 30, 2024, 02:51:11 AMThe economists arguments about rent control being bad aren't even worth arguing with, just accept them as read (despite usually being based in a theoretical reality where landlords are building new housing and all housing is the same...), but they completely miss the point.
I think you miss the point. As I gave in my example, rent control has not made San Francisco a cheap place to live. It just artificially balances the scales toward long term residents as they will benefit the most from the policy - provided they plan to never leave.
When I got to SF, I was making a good salary and could pay my rent on time (though I still needed a parent as a guarantor given how high rents were). My apt was rent controlled so while my salary was going up while I lived there, my rent never did.
Now imagine I'd never left SF and was living in that same flat. I'd still have that same now 'cheap' rent while my earning power has gone up radically. At the same time were I to hypothetically then leave, the next person would be paying current market rate for that same flat. Why should I be benefiting from those cheap rates when I could have paid the increases over the years?
And it shouldn't be forgotten my cheap rate would have been subsidised by new arrivals in the city needing to pay more for the limited stock caused by people like myself not vacating my cheap rental.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2024, 10:40:11 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 08:48:51 AMGreat arguments. That's me convinced.
And Raz, you're the last person who can try and pull that one. :lol:
What is 2+2?
A. 4
B. 4
C. 4
D. 4
Josq "I think I'll just write in "Green Party"
More "4. But what does this have to do with the question of how I get to the train station?"
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2024, 03:11:52 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 30, 2024, 02:51:11 AMThe economists arguments about rent control being bad aren't even worth arguing with, just accept them as read (despite usually being based in a theoretical reality where landlords are building new housing and all housing is the same...), but they completely miss the point.
I think you miss the point. As I gave in my example, rent control has not made San Francisco a cheap place to live. It just artificially balances the scales toward long term residents as they will benefit the most from the policy - provided they plan to never leave.
When I got to SF, I was making a good salary and could pay my rent on time (though I still needed a parent as a guarantor given how high rents were). My apt was rent controlled so while my salary was going up while I lived there, my rent never did.
Now imagine I'd never left SF and was living in that same flat. I'd still have that same now 'cheap' rent while my earning power has gone up radically. At the same time were I to hypothetically then leave, the next person would be paying current market rate for that same flat. Why should I be benefiting from those cheap rates when I could have paid the increases over the years?
And it shouldn't be forgotten my cheap rate would have been subsidised by new arrivals in the city needing to pay more for the limited stock caused by people like myself not vacating my cheap rental.
Sounds like the situation in Switzerland where with two nearly identical flats next to each other one, where the same old fella has been living for decades, can be paying 600 a month whilst the other, which has a new person every year, is on 2000.
The key thing there which seems to be missing in SF is that in Switzerland there are legal limits on how much the rent can be increased by with each new tenant.
And honestly this sounds fine to me. For some people a rental place is just a transient location where they're sleeping for a short spell, for others its their home. Stability is important in this. Especially since a situation of market rates being way out of sync with average earnings should only ever be temporary. Where it emerges action should be taken to fix it without the safety net of rent control becoming the permanent main platform.
My point is not rent control is universally always great and should be the main factor dictating rental prices everywhere and always.
Rather its that rent control isn't the universally bad thing it is presented as and it shouldn't be dismissed as a viable tool to use. As a backup to stop getting things too insane there should certainly be something.
Also a bit besides the point worth mentioning is the Dutch system I've read about where the amount you can charge in rent is directly tied to the condition of the home; seems directly aimed at a weird argument the economists make is that rent control disincentives maintenance (which makes no sense and doesn't line up with reality).
Its not perfect of course. There's the problem of a old guy whose family are gone paying peanuts for a 4 bedroom house much bigger than his needs. A big balance there of the ethics of moving him out vs. the needs of the community.
But nor is it something to be just dismissed 'cos the economists say its bad for business.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 30, 2024, 01:51:58 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:19:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Finland is not a good example of the housing market. :lmfao: If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.
I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.
Quote from: Josquius on August 30, 2024, 03:23:58 AMAnd honestly this sounds fine to me. For some people a rental place is just a transient location where they're sleeping for a short spell, for others its their home. Stability is important in this. Especially since a situation of market rates being way out of sync with average earnings should only ever be temporary. Where it emerges action should be taken to fix it without the safety net of rent control becoming the permanent main platform.
But rent control isn't a safety net and it doesn't work on its own terms if you have a lots of exceptions. For it to work it needs to be close to universal. That's one of the points the NEF piece you posted made.
If it's not universal it just creates a two-tier system - I'd add I think that adds all sorts of risks for other forms of discrimination.
QuoteAlso a bit besides the point worth mentioning is the Dutch system I've read about where the amount you can charge in rent is directly tied to the condition of the home; seems directly aimed at a weird argument the economists make is that rent control disincentives maintenance (which makes no sense and doesn't line up with reality).
This Dutch system?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-28/netherlands-rent-controls-deepen-housing-crisis
QuoteIts not perfect of course. There's the problem of a old guy whose family are gone paying peanuts for a 4 bedroom house much bigger than his needs. A big balance there of the ethics of moving him out vs. the needs of the community.
But nor is it something to be just dismissed 'cos the economists say its bad for business.
To be clear economists do not say it's bad for business. They say it creates a dysfunctional distorted market that is basically only good for people who have rent-controlled apartments and who don't want to move or whose life circumstances don't change. For everyone else the market distortions are negative.
Edit: Also I really did use the LSE academics talking about forcing grandparents to move out of their family home as a bad policy idea :P (And where people end up if their main terror of planning reform is that someone, somewhere might make a profit)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 30, 2024, 05:10:06 AMBut rent control isn't a safety net and it doesn't work on its own terms if you have a lots of exceptions. For it to work it needs to be close to universal. That's one of the points the NEF piece you posted made.
If it's not universal it just creates a two-tier system - I'd add I think that adds all sorts of risks for other forms of discrimination.
Never expected you to be against social housing :lol:
Having a completely universal system of state housing seems pretty infeasible to me. This is one of the key areas where even in a theoretical perfect Star Trek Federation post-capitalist society you'd still need some kind of exchange- you can get a house by default, this is fine, but if you want that one particular house with the lovely view of the valley.... well then thats a commodity.
I see no problem social housing being provided with priority to those meeting certain criteria whilst the rest continues to be privately owned- as much of this as possible being owner occupied and for the private sector laws being in place to stop blatant profiteering.
QuoteThis Dutch system?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-28/netherlands-rent-controls-deepen-housing-crisis
So the problem here is that a private renter has lost their home because their private landlord is no longer in profit (I imagine a buy to let person who couldn't afford the house in the first place, but not mentioned there) and the landlord is instead selling the home to someone who wants to live in it?
Sounds like this certainly sucks for that individual (and highlights that they need to build more housing and prioritise key workers) but is a good thing overall. And rather convenient to just ignore the existence of those people who can afford to keep living in hot property markets they'd otherwise be priced out of.
Very bizarre to use this to say "Ha, rent control is bad!". The article itself even clearly highlights they've a big shortfall in homebuilding. The Netherlands has a situation worse than even the UK .
QuoteTo be clear economists do not say it's bad for business. They say it creates a dysfunctional distorted market that is basically only good for people who have rent-controlled apartments and who don't want to move or whose life circumstances don't change. For everyone else the market distortions are negative.
Edit: Also I really did use the LSE academics talking about forcing grandparents to move out of their family home as a bad policy idea :P (And where people end up if their main terror of planning reform is that someone, somewhere might make a profit)
A dysfunctional distorted market...as opposed to the current completely healthy and fine London market?
Quote from: Josquius on August 30, 2024, 03:23:58 AMAnd honestly this sounds fine to me. For some people a rental place is just a transient location where they're sleeping for a short spell, for others its their home. Stability is important in this. Especially since a situation of market rates being way out of sync with average earnings should only ever be temporary. Where it emerges action should be taken to fix it without the safety net of rent control becoming the permanent main platform.
But that would just incentivise landlords wanting to rent to people they think will be transitory. Or it might encourage them not to get into renting as eventually it may be cost prohibitive when taxes, utilities, maintenance costs go up but rent can't.
It also is harmful for people who want to live in the community in which they grew up. If it encourages more people to be static (aka not move) and rents are rising on the smaller amount of stock available, those who grew up will likely still be priced out though their older parents can continue to rent at cheap rates.
Will come back to this - but rent control and social housing are not the same thing.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2024, 05:57:53 AMBut that would just incentivise landlords wanting to rent to people they think will be transitory.
I can see the logic. But thats not how things work out in practice. There tends to be quite the well understood hierarchy with locals on top and those on the most temporary of visas at the bottom.
I thinkkkk there are laws about price rises over time periods as well as with new tenants.
QuoteOr it might encourage them not to get into renting as eventually it may be cost prohibitive when taxes, utilities, maintenance costs go up but rent can't.
This is a feature, not a flaw.
QuoteIt also is harmful for people who want to live in the community in which they grew up. If it encourages more people to be static (aka not move) and rents are rising on the smaller amount of stock available, those who grew up will likely still be priced out though their older parents can continue to rent at cheap rates.
Yes. It isn't perfect and has disadvantages. Reduced mobility is a potential one.
But when the question is should only the old and established being able to afford to keep living in the same place they have their whole life vs. nobody being able to afford this then I'd go with the lesser evil whilst continuing to shout about the need to build more housing.
How is discouraging landlords from entering the market going to help increase the availability of rental units?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2024, 01:59:00 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 29, 2024, 12:10:28 PMBut Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America. Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth. Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask. Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable. So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not.
Ok well I still think the solution to your housing crisis is to build more housing. Maybe your cities just sprawl a bit more.
They will.
My suburban town has change one policy to help building more housing. It is now allowed to remove any single family dwelling & build a multiple family house in its stead. Our sprawl is contained (it's an island!) so that's a great policy, imo.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2024, 07:28:48 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2024, 01:59:00 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 29, 2024, 12:10:28 PMBut Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America. Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth. Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask. Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable. So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not.
Ok well I still think the solution to your housing crisis is to build more housing. Maybe your cities just sprawl a bit more.
Yes, the solution is to build more housing. But we can't just sprawl more. Vancouver, for example, is confined by its geography unless of course the state of Washington would like to give us some land to the south.
The solution for most cities is not to build outward because they can't. The solution is to increase density. That has been politically difficult because of nimbism. But that is changing.
Surely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2024, 07:36:52 AMSurely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.
You're right. Just the major ones.
Why do you think the Canadian cities I listed are in the top eight most densely populated in North America?
QuoteSurely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.
Every city is to some extent. Even if we assume a city on a barren featureless plain, there's only so far out you can sprawl before getting to the centre becomes really inconvenient.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2024, 06:18:39 AMHow is discouraging landlords from entering the market going to help increase the availability of rental units?
It doesn't.
But they're not building a home out of nowhere. They're buying one that would otherwise be bought by someone who wants to live in it.
YMMV elsewhere with different culture and laws (I know in Switzerland its pretty weird), but in the UK most people who are renting are doing so because they can't afford to buy.
Here is an article from the New York Times, examining the problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/business/economy/interest-rate-cuts-housing-affordability-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.G04.pvuJ.QD-VRR83iP5S&smid=url-share
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2024, 08:18:16 AMQuote from: Valmy on August 30, 2024, 07:36:52 AMSurely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.
You're right. Just the major ones.
Why do you think the Canadian cities I listed are in the top eight most densely populated in North America?
So the solution is to increase density in the most densely populated and most geographically constrained places in North America? Seems like a solution you are proposing is just do more of the same thing that created the problem, no?
Quote from: Josquius on August 30, 2024, 08:33:15 AMEvery city is to some extent. Even if we assume a city on a barren featureless plain, there's only so far out you can sprawl before getting to the centre becomes really inconvenient.
Sure. You might need to build another centre someplace. Cities cannot be infinitely large.
Valmy, It's not the solution I am proposing. It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.
Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand. There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.
Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices. It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.
I'm not sure increasing density in dense places is what cause the problem though. It just reflects where people want to live. I think the problem is that certainly in the UK (and I think other English speaking countries too as there seems to be a particular issue there) we constrained increasing density for a long time.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2024, 09:25:36 AMSure. You might need to build another centre someplace. Cities cannot be infinitely large.
Its not so easy as that though. If it was then why bother expanding your city outwards and not just go to a new city- why is it everyone wants to live in NYC whilst Buffalo is in decline?
The cities need more housing because more people are attracted to the jobs there- and in most cities these do tend to overwhelmingly cluster around the centre.
Even in cities with multiple centres these are often fairly clustered with the more peripheral ones being very much secondary (e.g. Tokyo).
I would certainly agree with the cities can't be infinitely large and part of solving the housing crisis in major cities is trying to spread the economy out a bit more. But there's also plenty the cities themselves can be doing to create housing that is viable for tapping into their central economies- denser housing and better transit.
Toronto already one of the worst traffic in the world. I can only imagine what more sprawl, where possible, would do to that :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2024, 09:30:00 AMValmy, It's not the solution I am proposing. It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.
Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand. There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.
Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices. It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.
You listed Calgary and Winnipeg as being in the top 8 dense cities.
I've lived in both cities. They have plenty of room to which they could sprawl if they were so inclined. Not saying that would be a great idea, but they are not constrained by geography in the way Vancouver is.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2024, 10:15:42 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2024, 09:30:00 AMValmy, It's not the solution I am proposing. It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.
Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand. There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.
Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices. It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.
You listed Calgary and Winnipeg as being in the top 8 dense cities.
I've lived in both cities. They have plenty of room to which they could sprawl if they were so inclined. Not saying that would be a great idea, but they are not constrained by geography in the way Vancouver is.
Yeah, but as pointed out, even by you, plenty of room does not equal ability to build in an economical way. Winnipeg is a great example of that. Think about the geotechnical difficulties presented there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2024, 12:28:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on August 30, 2024, 10:15:42 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2024, 09:30:00 AMValmy, It's not the solution I am proposing. It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.
Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand. There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.
Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices. It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.
You listed Calgary and Winnipeg as being in the top 8 dense cities.
I've lived in both cities. They have plenty of room to which they could sprawl if they were so inclined. Not saying that would be a great idea, but they are not constrained by geography in the way Vancouver is.
Yeah, but as pointed out, even by you, plenty of room does not equal ability to build in an economical way. Winnipeg is a great example of that. Think about the geotechnical difficulties presented there.
I assume you're talking about flooding.
So here's an image of the 1997 flood:
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283847043/figure/fig4/AS:668644078002177@1536428579140/Radarsat-image-of-the-1997-Red-River-flood-in-Manitoba-showing-the-near-maximum-extent-of.png)
You will note there's a lot of room to sprawl without worrying about flooding.
And otherwise it's comparatively easy to build - it's a floodplain as you know. The bottom of glacial lake agassiz. As such it's incredibly flat with virtually zero obstacles.
So I'm taking you at your word that Winnipeg is one of the 8th densest cities, because I wouldn't have expected that. But whatever is causing Winnipeg (and Calgary's) density, it isn't geography.
No, not just about the flooding. I am thinking about the soil conditions. It has been a number of years since I dealt with a construction case involving that area, but as I recall it, there is a lot of risk involved with the geotechnical conditions. ie. lots of potential and unknown risk about how much it will cost to get down to native firm silt, precisely because, as you say, it is the bottom of a glacial lake.
Great for farming. Less great for building on.
Edit: the geotechnical risks I am a lot more familiar with are out in the Fraser Valley east of Vancouver. that is also great farmland but less great for building on because of similar geotechnical risks. The valley floor is basically a large deposit of silt from the end of the last ice age.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2024, 02:08:58 PMThe valley floor is basically a large deposit of silt from the end of the last ice age.
Here in California we build cliffside homes on that shit. And they fall off into the ocean, but we still do it.
It seems suspicious that all major Canadian cities are surrounded by unbuildable land.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2024, 01:59:00 PMWiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America. Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth. Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask. Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable. So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not.
What Wiki page or pages are your source for that? I looked up Winnipeg because of the discussion just above this and its density is listed as 1,430/km
2, which doesn't make the list of densest US cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density), which is 140-long (8 major).
Quote from: The Brain on August 30, 2024, 03:39:19 AMQuote from: Solmyr on August 30, 2024, 01:51:58 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:19:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Finland is not a good example of the housing market. :lmfao: If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.
I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.
Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 31, 2024, 03:33:57 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 30, 2024, 03:39:19 AMQuote from: Solmyr on August 30, 2024, 01:51:58 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:19:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Finland is not a good example of the housing market. :lmfao: If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.
I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.
Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.
I don't see crazy prices, but regardless that situation is infinitely better than rental contracts being simply unavailable.
In Stockholm organizations have problems recruiting people because there's no place for them to live. Buying a place isn't an option for many, and even if you have the money lying around taking that kind of risk when you don't know how long you're gonna stay is often unattractive. This is harmful to society and everyone in it.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 30, 2024, 03:48:36 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2024, 01:59:00 PMWiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America. Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth. Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask. Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable. So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not.
What Wiki page or pages are your source for that? I looked up Winnipeg because of the discussion just above this and its density is listed as 1,430/km2, which doesn't make the list of densest US cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density), which is 140-long (8 major).
https://www.newgeography.com/content/007367-toronto-solidifies-highest-density-ranking-north-america#:~:text=After%20Toronto%20and%20Los%20Angeles,)%20and%20Calgary%20(2%2C100).
One of our sources is very wrong. It could be mine. But Winnipeg is clustered pretty tightly around the River.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2024, 12:44:29 PMSo I'm taking you at your word that Winnipeg is one of the 8th densest cities, because I wouldn't have expected that. But whatever is causing Winnipeg (and Calgary's) density, it isn't geography.
A question, how do Canadian regulatory authorities see housing developments on arable land?
Is it allowed? Disencouraged?
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2024, 03:57:26 AMQuote from: Solmyr on August 31, 2024, 03:33:57 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 30, 2024, 03:39:19 AMQuote from: Solmyr on August 30, 2024, 01:51:58 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:19:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Finland is not a good example of the housing market. :lmfao: If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.
I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.
Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.
I don't see crazy prices, but regardless that situation is infinitely better than rental contracts being simply unavailable.
In Stockholm organizations have problems recruiting people because there's no place for them to live. Buying a place isn't an option for many, and even if you have the money lying around taking that kind of risk when you don't know how long you're gonna stay is often unattractive. This is harmful to society and everyone in it.
Stockholm has a bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,
From what I gather the controlled system was in place decades and things worked fine as the government actually built housing.
It's alongside the move to a more free market system from the 90s on that things have become a mess. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but the relationship seems to be the opposite of what you imply.
Quote from: Norgy on August 31, 2024, 07:34:28 AMQuote from: Barrister on August 30, 2024, 12:44:29 PMSo I'm taking you at your word that Winnipeg is one of the 8th densest cities, because I wouldn't have expected that. But whatever is causing Winnipeg (and Calgary's) density, it isn't geography.
A question, how do Canadian regulatory authorities see housing developments on arable land?
Is it allowed? Disencouraged?
Each province regulates it differently. Here arable land near urban centres are put in a land reserve. It's not impossible to remove land from the reserve but it is difficult.
Food being important...
Quote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 11:32:43 AMStockholm has a bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,
Many people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.
Stalin's purges had nothing to do with Soviet military disasters in 1941. The problem was the absence of experienced military officers.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2024, 01:15:10 PMStalin's purges had nothing to do with Soviet military disasters in 1941. The problem was the absence of experienced military officers.
I tried to make this analogy work.
Something about how you think the problem isn't the death of the old officers but a disincentive to be an officer... But I can't make it work. It's just a terrible analogy that doesn't line up at all.
Maybe something about the slum clearances to build social tower blocks reducing density?...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2024, 12:12:57 PMQuote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 11:32:43 AMStockholm has a bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,
Many people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.
So say the liberal economists assuming their perfect green field scenario.
In reality it's a nonsense.
Particular to Sweden see how with rent control in place they were able to construct a million homes in 10 years whilst with a liberalising market this past 3 decades they managed half that rate on a good year.
See London with its insane ultra capitalist system of tenants bidding against each other... And no sign of much house building on the horizon.
In what universe is a guy mortgaged up to his neck in 3 buy to let properties ever going to be in a position to build a property to rent out?
Edit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.
Quote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 02:00:34 PMEdit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.
Social housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 12:26:36 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 02:00:34 PMEdit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.
Social housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.
Ok? :blink:
I'm not sure how this is a reply to anything.
Also not particularly true. When I worked in the social housing sector supply and demand were very big deals.
I put it out again. No matter what the liberal economists models may say, reality clearly shows that rent control tends to have fuck all to do with the amount of housing that gets built other than it's spread being an indicator (where none is needed) that things are not good.
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 01:46:27 AMSocial housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.
Ok? :blink:
I'm not sure how this is a reply to anything.
Also not particularly true. When I worked in the social housing sector supply and demand were very big deals.
I put it out again. No matter what the liberal economists models may say, reality clearly shows that rent control tends to have fuck all to do with the amount of housing that gets built other than it's spread being an indicator (where none is needed) that things are not good.
[/quote]
I will make an attempt to explain to you why this is a reply to anything.
Private for profit housing is sensitive to rental prices because it determines their profit or loss. Capping rental prices will tend to decrease new housing construction because they diminish the stream of revenue that funds the construction and creates profit.
Profit does not determine the amount of social housing constructed. Tax revenue is raised, housing is built through a political process, not a business decision. So the amount built has no relevance to the question of whether rent ceilings affect housing construction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 02:04:54 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 01:46:27 AMSocial housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.
Ok? :blink:
I'm not sure how this is a reply to anything.
Also not particularly true. When I worked in the social housing sector supply and demand were very big deals.
I put it out again. No matter what the liberal economists models may say, reality clearly shows that rent control tends to have fuck all to do with the amount of housing that gets built other than it's spread being an indicator (where none is needed) that things are not good.
I will make an attempt to explain to you why this is a reply to anything.
Private for profit housing is sensitive to rental prices because it determines their profit or loss. Capping rental prices will tend to decrease new housing construction because they diminish the stream of revenue that funds the construction and creates profit.[/quote]
Yes. We all know what the green field theoreticals say.
However, like a lot of liberal thinking, we can clearly see that reality doesn't work this way.
We have clear examples of where not having rent control in a hot market doesn't lead to a large amount of house building.
Examples where social housing outbuilds private housing and where housing targets are crushed under a very controlled system but fall way short when things are left to the private sector.
QuoteProfit does not determine the amount of social housing constructed. Tax revenue is raised, housing is built through a political process, not a business decision. So the amount built has no relevance to the question of whether rent ceilings affect housing construction.
Profit is not the only factor in housing.
Also considerations are where opportunities to build exist and where the most good can be done.
Though politics play a role you'd be surprised how much it does resemble a regular "business decision" as a private company might make- also let's not neglect politics plays a role in pure for profit developers work too.
And agreed. The amount of housing built has no relevance to the question of whether rents are regulated.
As much as liberals love to act all smug and kick the idea of rent control, in doing so they show a fundamental disconnect with reality.
I just explained why the relative amount of social housing constructed does not refute the "green field theoretical" belief that there is causality between rent control and housing construction then you just repeat your talking point.
Did you read what I wrote before responding?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 10:55:34 AMI just explained why the relative amount of social housing constructed does not refute the "green field theoretical" belief that there is causality between rent control and housing construction then you just repeat your talking point.
So a much larger amount of housing being built under a rent controlled system than in a free market system means that rent control reduces house building?
Is this some kind of argument that we need to destroy social housing down to the root in order for the magical market to finally solve all our problems? That there is some affordable housing out there means there's just no interest in the ability to charge over a thousand quid a month for a box?
There's a huge housing shortage. Social housing is doing a better job than the free market of actually tackling this but both combined are still falling way short of what we need.
By your logic the private builders unencumbered by rent control should be building like crazy. They aren't.
The reasons clearly lie in a completely different place to rent control.
QuoteDid you read what I wrote before responding?
Ironic since your replies give away that you clearly haven't done this. You quote a small part of the whole in order to repeat the same points and not addressing the fact that reality seems to show different.
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:04:50 AMSo a much larger amount of housing being built under a rent controlled system than in a free market system means that rent control reduces house building?
It doesn't mean that and it doesn't mean the opposite, because as I said before the amount of social housing constructed has no relevance to the relationship between rent control and for profit construction. It doesn't demonstrate there is a causal relationship and it doesn't disprove it.
Quote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 02:00:34 PMEdit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.
That only amounts to 30% of rental properties. Who's building the rest of them if they are not private and not public?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2024, 11:14:50 AMThat only amounts to 30% of rental properties. Who's building the rest of them if they are not private and not public?
Build to let is not a massive sector in the UK and I think is largely student housing. Mostly it's for sale which landlords buy and place on the rental market.
Also, again, rent control and social housing are very different things.
QuoteThe reasons clearly lie in a completely different place to rent control.
Which is why we need to demolish the planning system :ph34r: :P
QuoteIt doesn't mean that and it doesn't mean the opposite, because as I said before the amount of social housing constructed has no relevance to the relationship between rent control and for profit construction. It doesn't demonstrate there is a causal relationship and it doesn't disprove it.
So in other words you agree with me.
The idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
In reality.... There's so many much more important factors at work that any impact rent control might have on the building of rental accommodation is not even noise.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2024, 11:14:50 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 02:00:34 PMEdit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.
That only amounts to 30% of rental properties. Who's building the rest of them if they are not private and not public?
Theyre sold.
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:21:12 AMSo in other words you agree with me.
The idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
In reality.... There's so many much more important factors at work that any impact rent control might have on the building of rental accommodation is not even noise.
I've tried to be very clear about the things you have said that I disagreed with.
I said that rent control tends to reduce for profit contstruction. You have represented that assertion as several different strawmen without adressing the actual argument. I can't figure out if you simply don't understand what I'm saying or you're just trying to run a con.
Yes, I can imagine cases in which rent control would have no impact on private sector construction. The rent cap could be set at a billion dollars a month and that would not deter construction. One could set a rent ceiling at the North Pole and that would not deter construction because there is no demand to begin with. Alternatively government could construct billions of units of high quality, subsidized, cheap housing and rent control on private housing would not deter construction because all the demand would have already been soaked up.
None of those cases refute my assertion.
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:21:12 AMThe idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
It is literally the observed reality of every single city in the world with rent control :lol: :blink:
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:21:12 AMTheyre sold.
Ah, okay. So are private interests building them? Or is the government selling them?
QuoteIt is literally the observed reality of every single city in the world with rent control :lol: :blink:
It's really not :lol: :blink:
Though yes. Many do love using it as a scapegoat. Not bothering to get their cause and effect the right way around.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 11:34:34 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:21:12 AMSo in other words you agree with me.
The idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
In reality.... There's so many much more important factors at work that any impact rent control might have on the building of rental accommodation is not even noise.
I've tried to be very clear about the things you have said that I disagreed with.
I said that rent control tends to reduce for profit contstruction. You have represented that assertion as several different strawmen without adressing the actual argument. I can't figure out if you simply don't understand what I'm saying or you're just trying to run a con.
I clearly showed that liberalisation doesn't lead to a lot of construction. That under tight rents regulation there are many instances past and present of the private sector being out built.
This clearly demonstrates that the idea rent control reduces rental construction looks very dodgy indeed.
That it is, shockingly, not building enough housing to keep pace with growth, that is the key factor in broken housing markets and not desperate efforts to salve the pain of this situation.
QuoteYes, I can imagine cases in which rent control would have no impact on private sector construction. The rent cap could be set at a billion dollars a month and that would not deter construction. One could set a rent ceiling at the North Pole and that would not deter construction because there is no demand to begin with.
None of those cases refute my assertion.
Again explain the UK where without rent control private builders are failing to build despite the huge demand, being outbuilt even by the crippled social sector.
QuoteAlternatively government could construct billions of units of high quality, subsidized, cheap housing and rent control on private housing would not deter construction because all the demand would have already been soaked up.
A situation where rent controlled housing is built in numbers to more than meet demand doesn't refute that rent control reduces house building?.... Err....
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2024, 11:35:29 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:21:12 AMThe idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
It is literally the observed reality of every single city in the world with rent control :lol: :blink:
Your first mistake is assuming that reality changes peoples mind :P
The main issue is that Josq is conflating (purposefully or erroneously) rent control and social housing/government builds. The two sides well never come to an understanding because they're arguing about two different things.
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:43:22 AMI clearly showed that liberalisation doesn't lead to a lot of construction.
You've provided one data point, London, where uncapped rents do not lead to a lot of construction. Based on the discussion I've seen here it seems the principle constraint is the artificial space restriction imposed by the green belt. I'm sure Shelf will be more than happy to chime in about planning and zoning and NIMBY.
QuoteThat under tight rents regulation there are many instances past and present of the private sector being out built.
This clearly demonstrates that the idea rent control reduces rental construction looks very dodgy indeed.
I've made a good faith effort to explain to you why this does not demonstrate what you claim at all. Clearly I've failed. Perhaps a different approach would work better. Perhaps you can explain why "there are many instances past and present of the private sector being out built [which] clearly demonstrates that the idea rent control reduces rental construction looks very dodgy indeed."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 12:03:23 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:43:22 AMI clearly showed that liberalisation doesn't lead to a lot of construction.
You've provided one data point, London, where uncapped rents do not lead to a lot of construction. Based on the discussion I've seen here it seems the principle constraint is the artificial space restriction imposed by the green belt. I'm sure Shelf will be more than happy to chime in about planning and zoning and NIMBY.
I speak of London as the UK market is where I am most familiar with.
Pretty sure they've got a similar situation in Ireland and the low countries (the Dutch rent control introduction being very recent and into a messed up market)
Anyway. Yes. These are indeed much bigger factors in London than the fact there's a smallish amount of rent controlled housing. It seems unlikely that if we change nothing else that more rent control regulations would do much to suppress building.
Demand is just insanely high and the current setup of leaving it to the market is just causing ever more suffering whilst doing nothing about the demand
QuoteI've made a good faith effort to explain to you why this does not demonstrate what you claim at all. Clearly I've failed. Perhaps a different approach would work better. Perhaps you can explain why "there are many instances past and present of the private sector being out built [which] clearly demonstrates that the idea rent control reduces rental construction looks very dodgy indeed."
If you say all mammals are dogs and I show you a cat then clearly all mammals are not dogs.
Claiming that rent control reduces building when you've examples of markets that were building well when heavily planned only to stop doing so as controls were reduced, and instances in the world today in very liberal countries where very limited social providers are beating the private market... This doesn't add up.
Quote from: HVC on September 01, 2024, 12:02:45 PMThe main issue is that Josq is conflating (purposefully or erroneously) rent control and social housing/government builds. The two sides well never come to an understanding because they're arguing about two different things.
They're not the same thing. But social housing is a (dominant) form of rent controlled housing.
Discounting it from the equation is just stacking the decks and creating an artificial picture that can't really be analysed at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 12:03:23 PMYou've provided one data point, London, where uncapped rents do not lead to a lot of construction.
This isn't entirely true - he says living between two massive regeneration projects and having spent the afternoon shopping in a Chinese supermarket in another.
(https://centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Figure-15-1536x1478.jpg)
It isn't enough as population and demand have grown more. But London's about 1/6 of the English population and it has about 1/6 of the new builds.
Edit: Although I should note that one of those regeneration projects is almost finished, one is under construction. The one I live near was first developed in 2017 with the first round of consultations finishing in 2019. I believe they're planning to launch a second round of consultations either last year or this year which will then lead to eventual designs and plans. That may also indicate part of the problem with supply.
QuoteBased on the discussion I've seen here it seems the principle constraint is the artificial space restriction imposed by the green belt. I'm sure Shelf will be more than happy to chime in about planning and zoning and NIMBY.
The green belt is overstated I think, though important for cities and symbolically. I think it's broader supply side issues that the planning system is expensive and can be unpredictable which is a huge constraint.
It's, I suspect, why we have such a small build to let sector - as well as building being concentrated in the hands of major developers (who can bear the costs and risk of the planning system) or the inability of prefab companies to work in the UK (as they need a predictable, steady pipeline for their business model to work).
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 12:07:00 PMIf you say all mammals are dogs and I show you a cat then clearly all mammals are not dogs.
In Canada Canadian bacon is called back bacon.
QuoteClaiming that rent control reduces building when you've examples of markets that were building well when heavily planned only to stop doing so as controls were reduced,
I don't understand how the amount of contructin under heavy planning and reduced controls (whatever that might mean) tells us anything about the effect of rent controls.
Quoteand instances in the world today in very liberal countries where very limited social providers are beating the private market... This doesn't add up.
By my count that's the third repetition of the same talking point.
Quote from: HVC on September 01, 2024, 12:02:45 PMThe main issue is that Josq is conflating (purposefully or erroneously) rent control and social housing/government builds. The two sides well never come to an understanding because they're arguing about two different things.
This is basically true.
There is the slight problem that government, local or central, does not build much except hospitals, elder care or schools.
Social housing is never a net gain. Well, almost never, at least. But as a moral principle, that everyone should have a roof over their head, it is a good one.
In recent years, I discovered that some rental flats in Oslo's best west end had rent contracts, fixed rates, from 1960 to 2020. A sixty year lease, no clauses about index regulation. So some people had a rent of 60-75 Euro a month for 60 years. Of course, there was no clause that said that the renting party could not sublet.
Quote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:43:22 AMAgain explain the UK where without rent control private builders are failing to build despite the huge demand, being outbuilt even by the crippled social sector.
So much wrong with the post as a whole but I don't have time or inclination so I'll just pick up on this point as an example of your extraordinary ignorance of the subject.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/959937/england-new-dwellings-started/
About 75% of new homes in the UK are built by the private sector. About 1% are built by the state. The rest are by Registered social landlords (housing associations).
Quote from: Gups on September 02, 2024, 02:56:37 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 01, 2024, 11:43:22 AMAgain explain the UK where without rent control private builders are failing to build despite the huge demand, being outbuilt even by the crippled social sector.
So much wrong with the post as a whole but I don't have time or inclination so I'll just pick up on this point as an example of your extraordinary ignorance of the subject.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/959937/england-new-dwellings-started/
About 75% of new homes in the UK are built by the private sector. About 1% are built by the state. The rest are by Registered social landlords (housing associations).
Doing your usual thing of not even bothering to understand what you're replying to here I see.
So much wrong with this post. You're literally throwing numbers at me that are the other side of those I gave and then you smugly claim I'm ignorant.
It doesn't matter what percentage of housing is built by the private sector. The fact is it isn't meeting our demands. And if you paid just a little attention you'd see we were talking about rental housing.
Also you don't think there might be reasons behind social house building being so low? Didn't I post a graph earlier in the thread showing the drop off in these numbers?
And do you really think this small percent of social housing being built is the reason the private sector isn't meeting our demands?
QuoteIt isn't enough as population and demand have grown more. But London's about 1/6 of the English population and it has about 1/6 of the new builds.
Edit: Although I should note that one of those regeneration projects is almost finished, one is under construction. The one I live near was first developed in 2017 with the first round of consultations finishing in 2019. I believe they're planning to launch a second round of consultations either last year or this year which will then lead to eventual designs and plans. That may also indicate part of the problem with supply.
These aren't particularly useful numbers though.
A key one missing is what fraction of current British housing does London have and what is its growth rate.
If London has 1/6 of the population but only 1/10 of the housing... that's bad.
If its building housing for 50k extra people a year but is growing by 70k.... things are only ever going to get worse. Imagined numbers here but the reality will resemble this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2024, 12:42:04 PMIn Canada Canadian bacon is called back bacon.
These terms are unfamiliar to me.
Googling they both seem to be just bacon.
Are you saying in your world cats are dogs? (just to tie back to my analogy, of course American English is just as valid).
QuoteI don't understand how the amount of contructin under heavy planning and reduced controls (whatever that might mean) tells us anything about the effect of rent controls.
If building is high and then controls are reduced and building drops....
As said, correlation is not causation, but this is a relationship more in line with the complete opposite of your claim.
QuoteBy my count that's the third repetition of the same talking point.
And it still disproves your point and you still haven't came up with an explanation as to why.
Well this has all been terribly unedifying. Glad it got its own thread. ;)
Quote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:06:08 AMThese terms are unfamiliar to me.
Googling they both seem to be just bacon.
Are you saying in your world cats are dogs? (just to tie back to my analogy, of course American English is just as valid)
I am not saying that in my world cats are dogs.
QuoteIf building is high and then controls are reduced and building drops....
As said, correlation is not causation, but this is a relationship more in line with the complete opposite of your claim.
I still don't know what you mean by controls and heavy planning.
QuoteAnd it still disproves your point and you still haven't came up with an explanation as to why.
I came up with an explanation how it does not disprove my point a page ago.
I will make an attempt to explain to you why this is a reply to anything.
Private for profit housing is sensitive to rental prices because it determines their profit or loss. Capping rental prices will tend to decrease new housing construction because they diminish the stream of revenue that funds the construction and creates profit.
Profit does not determine the amount of social housing constructed. Tax revenue is raised, housing is built through a political process, not a business decision. So the amount built has no relevance to the question of whether rent ceilings affect housing construction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2024, 03:31:45 AMI am not saying that in my world cats are dogs.
I don't understand your meaning at all then,
QuoteI still don't know what you mean by controls and heavy planning.
Looking at the Swedish example again for instance, the state used to be very involved in house building, vast amounts of social housing was built, in the 90s the market was heavily liberalised.
You're really going to claim to be unfamiliar with the concept of central planning?
QuoteI came up with an explanation how it does not disprove my point a page ago.
I will make an attempt to explain to you why this is a reply to anything.
Private for profit housing is sensitive to rental prices because it determines their profit or loss. Capping rental prices will tend to decrease new housing construction because they diminish the stream of revenue that funds the construction and creates profit.
Profit does not determine the amount of social housing constructed. Tax revenue is raised, housing is built through a political process, not a business decision. So the amount built has no relevance to the question of whether rent ceilings affect housing construction.
And as I explained
Profit is not the only factor in [social] housing.
Also considerations are where opportunities to build exist and where the most good can be done.
Though politics play a role you'd be surprised how much it does resemble a regular "business decision" as a private company might make- also let's not neglect politics plays a role in pure for profit developers work too. And agreed. The amount of housing built has no relevance to the question of whether rents are regulated.
As much as liberals love to act all smug and kick the idea of rent control, in doing so they show a fundamental disconnect with reality.If profit isn't your main motive then how on earth does reduced rental income decrease your incentive to build?
Why, when there are no restrictions on the rent you can charge, isn't there a glut of rental building from the private sector?
Quote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:37:25 AMWhy, when there are no restrictions on the rent you can charge, isn't there a glut of rental building from the private sector?
This doesn't pass a basic logic check. Yi send rent controls tend to depress new private construction. For that to be true doesn't necessitate the inverse that absent rent control construction will boom. Removing one disincentive need not be game changing.
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2024, 03:13:38 AMWell this has all been terribly unedifying. Glad it got its own thread. ;)
It's like a train wreck - you just can't look away. I'm astonished that anyone is still responding to Jos's cavalcade of misunderstandings when it's obvious he is oblivious to argument and evidence.
Quote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
Let's an appartment in the center of Montreal with 2 bedrooms is priced cap at 1500$/month.
Currently, the costs of maintaining such an older appartment are evaluated at 1100$/month.
Building a new one would cost between 2000$/month and 2500$/month, depending on the luxury.
Already, you must make excemptions because of the age of the building. Ok, fine.
Then, the price of electricity starts jumping by 9%-10%/year.
And the city's taxes increase by 30% every 3 year.
My numbers aren't fictional. There are rumors that electricity costs will increase by a lot come 2027-2028. As for city taxes, they are known to play with their valuation roles and get greedy. These are not unheard of. Sometimes, they smooth out the shock by lowering the taxes, but not always.
The cap increases by 3% every year.
So what happens then?
The small owners sell the apartments to bigger corporation who then demolish them and build luxury flats or multiplex.
And you increase the shortage.
And meanwhile, no one builds new apartment buildings because the costs you can rent them are too low compared to the construction costs, the energy costs, the taxes costs and city delays imposed on you which increase the risks of the project. And I'm not talking about the interest rates.
So in the end, it does not do much for the housing crisis.
Space is finite. You don't have room to expand, you don't invade other people's territories to assign them new lands for colonization, therefore your rent price increase. Israel is smart that way. Russia too. They keep themselves in a state of perpetual war with a weaker neighbour so they can justify grinding at them and replacing their population with their own as it expands, all the while maintaining their rent under control.
This is the way to rent control. The way America did it when it was great. The way Canada did it when it was great.
One of the biggest arguments against rent control in the EU and EEA area now would be the clean water directive.
It means, at least in the case of Norway, that councils have to upgrade water supply and sewage handling for, well, billions before 2030.
This is solved by "self-financing", basically meaning you, the homeowner, pay more in council tax to finance these projects. I have little reason to think they are unnecessary, even in fairly clean Norway, but if you rent out a place, you still have to pay, and add something to the rent. My council tax proportion has increased by a whopping 80 percent in two years. It includes sewage, water, renovation and that the council at least makes a half-hearted attempt at snow clearing in winter.
Not on my property, mind you, but on council roads. And then you have the county roads. And the state roads. It's... not such a mess as it sounds like.
I think we have to put an end to this thread soon before we dig ourselves into something unhealthy.
My stance is this: As long as you rent out a room, a flat, a building, and abide by the rules, you should be able to capitalise on the market. Just don't be an arse.
Government, in some way or the other, be it with loans or direct intervention, should build more, let's say, social housing projects. And those could well be in the style of "connected living", where you get a mix of elderly and young families gathered in smaller buildings centered around a small plaza or park. It would invite to more socialising and perhaps offer some measure to cure this common disease called loneliness our part of the world is suffering from.
QuoteIt's like a train wreck - you just can't look away. I'm astonished that anyone is still responding to Jos's cavalcade of misunderstandings when it's obvious he is oblivious to argument and evidence.
The housing sector is something I've read pretty widely about and worked in the area professionally. I'm not oblivious at all. I perfectly understand the basic liberal economist arguments against rent control.
The thing is, they're completely out of touch with reality. The housing sector does not work according to an 'economics for dummies' green field supply and demand setup.
The very idea that economists are the sole authority to be asking about housing... It seems flawed.
Consistently when you see people pointing towards cities with dire housing situations and blaming rent control for this, there's a myriad of other explanations and usually the rent control came in response to a broken situation rather than in anyway being the cause.
Its not about asking what 2+2 is and saying 4. The main challenge is in figuring out what the fundamental questions even are- and I'm not familiar with anywhere the issue was actually rent control. The whole thing is a complete distraction when it comes to fixing the housing crisis.
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2024, 03:49:02 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:37:25 AMWhy, when there are no restrictions on the rent you can charge, isn't there a glut of rental building from the private sector?
This doesn't pass a basic logic check. Yi send rent controls tend to depress new private construction. For that to be true doesn't necessitate the inverse that absent rent control construction will boom. Removing one disincentive need not be game changing.
Exactly.
Yet the opposition to rent control would have that it is.
QuoteLet's an appartment in the center of Montreal with 2 bedrooms is priced cap at 1500$/month.
Currently, the costs of maintaining such an older appartment are evaluated at 1100$/month.
Building a new one would cost between 2000$/month and 2500$/month, depending on the luxury.
Already, you must make excemptions because of the age of the building. Ok, fine.
Then, the price of electricity starts jumping by 9%-10%/year.
And the city's taxes increase by 30% every 3 year.
My numbers aren't fictional. There are rumors that electricity costs will increase by a lot come 2027-2028. As for city taxes, they are known to play with their valuation roles and get greedy. These are not unheard of. Sometimes, they smooth out the shock by lowering the taxes, but not always.
The cap increases by 3% every year.
So what happens then?
It sounds like the issue here isn't that there is a rent cap and rather that it is badly set to change by a fixed amount unrelated to any outside factors.
Not to say we are the best example in the world, but just for an example of how things can be better, in the UK social housing is a very regulated sector where the general amount by which rent can be increased is based on a formula taking into account a myriad of factors and is regularly reviewed.
QuoteThe small owners sell the apartments to bigger corporation who then demolish them and build luxury flats or multiplex.
And you increase the shortage.
Again sounds like the issue here isn't that the low income housing existed and rather it wasn't adequately protected- less regulation isn't the way to improve this.
QuoteAnd meanwhile, no one builds new apartment buildings because the costs you can rent them are too low compared to the construction costs, the energy costs, the taxes costs and city delays imposed on you which increase the risks of the project. And I'm not talking about the interest rates.
I've no idea about the situation there. But as said in the UK housing targets are persistently missed with those organisations subject to rent control doing a far better job of producing rental homes than companies which aren't subject to any such controls.
What is happening however is that owner occupied housing, some of it originally social housing, keeps falling into the private rental sector where extortion is common place- which furthers the increase in house prices which further disincentivises building rental accommodation by the private sector.
QuoteSo in the end, it does not do much for the housing crisis.
This is getting at a key flaw in many people's views of rent control.
They assume getting rid of rent control will be a magic bullet that will fix all our problems or that those who are calling for more of it believe it will also magically solve all our problems.
Generally where it is introduced on the private sector it is in reaction to a seriously fucked up market- if you can't fix things then at least take a pain killer to stop them hurting quite so bad.
The only actual solution is to build more.
QuoteSpace is finite. You don't have room to expand, you don't invade other people's territories to assign them new lands for colonization, therefore your rent price increase. Israel is smart that way. Russia too. They keep themselves in a state of perpetual war with a weaker neighbour so they can justify grinding at them and replacing their population with their own as it expands, all the while maintaining their rent under control.
This is the way to rent control. The way America did it when it was great. The way Canada did it when it was great.
....wut?
I read this earlier that had two case studies based on places I know - San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/
QuoteWhat does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?
Steadily rising housing rents in many of the US's large, productive cities have reignited the discussion whether to expand or enact rent control provisions. Under pressure to fight rising rents, state lawmakers in Illinois, Oregon, and California are considering repealing laws that limit cities' abilities to pass or expand rent control. While rules and regulations of rent control vary from place to place, most rent control consists of caps on price increases within the duration of a tenancy, and sometimes beyond the duration of a tenancy, as well as restrictions on eviction.
New research examining how rent control affects tenants and housing markets offers insight into how rent control affects markets. While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.
A substantial body of economic research has used theoretical arguments to highlight the potential negative efficiency consequences to keeping rents below market rates, going back to Friedman and Stigler (1946). They argued that a cap on rents would lead landlords to sell their rental properties to owner occupants so that landlords could still earn the market price for their real estate. Rent control can also lead to "mis-match" between tenants and rental units. Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, he may not choose to move in the future and give up his rent control, even if his housing needs change (Suen 1980, Glaeser and Luttmer 2003, Sims 2011, Bulow and Klemperer 2012). This mis-allocation can lead to empty-nest households living in family-sized apartments and young families crammed into small studios, clearly an inefficient allocation. Similarly, if rental rates are below market rates, renters may choose to consume excessive quantities of housing (Olsen 1972, Gyourko and Linneman 1989). Rent control can also lead to decay of the rental housing stock; landlords may not invest in maintenance because they can't recoup these investment by raising rents. (Downs 1988, Sims 2007).
Of course, rent control also offered potential benefits for tenants. For example, rent control provides insurance against rent increases, potentially limiting displacement. Affordable housing advocates argue that these insurance benefits are valuable to tenants. For instance, if long-term tenants have developed neighborhood-specific capital, such as a network of friends and family, proximity to a job, or children enrolled in local schools, then tenants face large risks from rent appreciation. In contrast, individuals who have little connection to any specific area can easily insure themselves against local rental price appreciation by moving to a cheaper location. Those invested in the local community are not able to use this type of "self-insurance" as easily, since they must give up some or all of their neighborhood specific capital. Rent control can provide these tenants with this type of insurance.
Until recently, there was little data or natural experiments with which to assess the importance of these competing arguments, and to assess how rent controls affects tenants, landlords, or the broader housing market. But newly-available housing-market data spanning periods of dramatic change in rent control laws in Cambridge, MA and in San Francisco, CA have allowed economists to examine these questions empirically. While these studies do find support for the idea that existing tenants benefit from the insurance provided by rent control, they also find the overall cost of providing that insurance is very large.
From December 1970 through 1994, all rental units in Cambridge built prior to 1969 were regulated by a rent control ordinance that placed strict caps on rent increases and tightly restricted the removal of units from the rental stock. The legislative intent of the rent control ordinance was to provide affordable rental housing, and at the eve of rent control's elimination in 1994, controlled units typically rented at 40-plus percent below the price of nearby non-controlled properties. In November 1994, the Massachusetts electorate passed a referendum to eliminate rent control by a narrow 51–49 percent margin, with nearly 60 percent of Cambridge residents voting to retain the rent control ordinance. This law change directly impacted properties previously subject to rent control, enabling landlords to begin to charge market rents.
Autor, Palmer, and Pathak (2014) (APP), studies the impact of this unexpected change and find that newly decontrolled properties' market values increased by 45 percent. In addition to these direct effects of rent decontrol, APP find removing rent control has substantial indirect effects on neighboring properties, boosting their values too. Post-decontrol price appreciation was significantly greater at properties that had a larger fraction of formerly controlled neighbors: residential properties at the 75th percentile of rent control exposure gained approximately 13 percent more in property value following decontrol than did properties at the 25th percentile of exposure. This differential appreciation of properties in rent control–intensive locations was equally pronounced among decontrolled and never-controlled units, suggesting that the effect of rent control had been to reduce the whole neighborhood's desirability.
The economic magnitude of the effect of rent control removal on the value of Cambridge's housing stock is large, boosting property values by $2.0 billion between 1994 and 2004. Of this total effect, only $300 million is accounted for by the direct effect of decontrol on formerly controlled units, while $1.7 billion is due to the indirect effect. These estimates imply that more than half of the capitalized cost of rent control was borne by owners of never-controlled properties. Rent controlled properties create substantial negative externalities on the nearby housing market, lowering the amenity value of these neighborhoods and making them less desirable places to live. In short, the policy imposed $2.0 billion in costs to local property owners, but only $300 million of that cost was transferred to renters in rent-controlled apartments.
Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2018) (DMQ) examine the consequences of an expansion of rent control on renters, landlords, and the housing market that resulted from a unique 1994 local San Francisco ballot initiative. In 1979, San Francisco imposed rent control on all standing buildings with five or more apartments. Rent control in San Francisco consists of regulated rent increases, linked to the CPI, within a tenancy, but no price regulation between tenants. New construction was exempt from rent control, since legislators did not want to discourage new development. Smaller multi-family buildings were exempt from this 1979 law change since they were viewed as more "mom and pop" ventures, and did not have market power over rents.
This exemption was lifted by a 1994 San Francisco ballot initiative. Proponents of the initiative argued that small multi-family housing was now primarily owned by large businesses and should face the same rent control of large multi-family housing. Since the initial 1979 rent control law only impacted properties built from 1979 and earlier, the removal of the small multi-family exemption also only affected properties built 1979 and earlier. This led to a differential expansion in rent control in 1994 based on whether the small multi-family housing was built prior to or post 1980—a policy experiment where otherwise similar housing was treated differently by the law.
To examine rent control's effects on tenant migration and neighborhood choices, DMQ examine panel data that provides address-level migration decisions and housing characteristics for the majority of adults living in San Francisco in the early 1990s. This allows them to define a treatment group of renters who lived in small multi-family apartment buildings built prior to 1980 and a control group of renters living in small multi-family housing built between 1980 and 1990. Their data allows them to follow each of these groups over time up until the present, regardless of where they migrate.
Between five and ten years after the law change, the beneficiaries of rent control are 19 percent less likely to have moved to a new address, relative to the control group's migration rate. Further, impact on the likelihood of remaining in San Francisco as whole was the same, indicating a large share of the renters that rent control caused to remain at their 1994 address would have left San Francisco had they not been covered by rent control.
These effects are significantly stronger among older households and among households that have already spent a number of years at their address prior to treatment. This is consistent with the fact that both of these populations are likely to be less mobile. Renters who don't need to move very often are more likely to find it worthwhile to remain in their rent controlled apartment for a long time, enabling them to accrue larger rent savings. Finally, DMQ find these effects are especially large for racial minorities, likely indicating that minorities faced greater displacement pressures in San Francisco than whites.
While expansion of rent control did prevent some displacement among tenants living in San Francisco in 1994, the landlords of these properties responded to mitigate their rental losses in a number of ways. In practice, landlords have a few possible ways of removing tenants. First, landlords could move into the property themselves, known as move-in eviction. Second, the Ellis Act allows landlords to evict tenants if they intend to remove the property from the rental market, for instance, in order to convert the units to condos. Finally, landlords are legally allowed to offer their tenants monetary compensation for leaving. In practice, these transfer payments from landlords are common and can be quite large.
DMQ find that rent-controlled buildings were 8 percentage points more likely to convert to a condo than buildings in the control group. Consistent with these findings, they find that rent control led to a 15 percentage point decline in the number of renters living in treated buildings and a 25 percentage point reduction in the number of renters living in rent-controlled units, relative to 1994 levels. This large reduction in rental housing supply was driven by converting existing structures to owner-occupied condominium housing and by replacing existing structures with new construction.
This 15 percentage point reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing likely led to rent increases in the long-run, consistent with standard economic theory. In this sense, rent control operated as a transfer between the future renters of San Francisco (who would pay these higher rents due to lower supply) to the renters living in San Francisco in 1994 (who benefited directly from lower rents). Furthermore, since many of the existing rental properties were converted to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing and new construction rentals, the passage of rent control ultimately led to a housing stock that caters to higher income individuals. DMQ find that this high-end housing, developed in response to rent control, attracted residents with at least 18 percent higher income. Taking all of these points together, it appears rent control has actually contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy's intended goal. Indeed, by simultaneously bringing in higher income residents and preventing displacement of minorities, rent control has contributed to widening income inequality of the city.
It may seem surprising that the expansion of rent control in San Francisco led to an upgraded housing stock, catering to high-income tastes, while the removal of rent control in Cambridge also lead to upgrading and value appreciation. To reconcile these effects, it is useful to think about which types of landlords would respond to a rent control expansion versus a rent control removal. In the case of rent control expansion, some landlords will choose to recoup some of their losses by converting to condo or redeveloping their building to exempt it from rent control. However, other landlords may choose to accept the rent control regulation, and no longer perform maintenance on the building and allow it to decay. In the rent control expansion case, one would see an increase in condo conversions and upgrades, driven by the landlords that chose to respond in this way. However, when rent control is removed, the landlords who own the rent controlled buildings are the ones who didn't choose to convert to condo or redevelop in response to the initial passage of rent control. Indeed, one would expect this subset of landlords to choose to upgrade and invest in their properties once the rent control regulation is removed.
Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords' incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. A point of future research would be to design an optimal social insurance program to insure renters against large rent increases.
The authors did not receive any financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. They are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article.
Quote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:37:25 AMIf profit isn't your main motive then how on earth does reduced rental income decrease your incentive to build?
I will repeat, because this sentence shows that you do not understand what I have been saying.
Private builders, profit important, hence rent control important.
The state, profit not important, hence rent control not important in determining how much to build.
Viper did a really bad job explaining Quebec's rent control system.
QuoteA substantial body of economic research has used theoretical arguments to highlight the potential negative efficiency consequences to keeping rents below market rates, going back to Friedman and Stigler (1946). They argued that a cap on rents would lead landlords to sell their rental properties to owner occupants so that landlords could still earn the market price for their real estate.
This is bizarre.
They say they will highlight the potential negative consequences of rent control then for their example they give an argument of everything working well.
QuoteRent control can also lead to "mis-match" between tenants and rental units. Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, he may not choose to move in the future and give up his rent control, even if his housing needs change
Yes. This is definitely a tricky point. It exists too in the private sector of course, not all landlords are cunts. But definitely more potential for it if you enforce fair treatment.
A clear solution exists to this one, the main solution to housing issues overall: build more of it.
In lieu of this perfect solution there's also other fiddling that can be done to incentivise people living in appropriate sized homes; the infamous bedroom tax, property exchanges, making small housing near facilities particularly appealing to pensioners, and then outright housing officer persuasion.
But also worth considering are factors the economists won't go near such as that a house can be a home and not necessarily just something you keep based on your logical needs for the moment.
QuoteOf course, rent control also offered potential benefits for tenants. For example, rent control provides insurance against rent increases, potentially limiting displacement. Affordable housing advocates argue that these insurance benefits are valuable to tenants. For instance, if long-term tenants have developed neighborhood-specific capital, such as a network of friends and family, proximity to a job, or children enrolled in local schools, then tenants face large risks from rent appreciation. In contrast, individuals who have little connection to any specific area can easily insure themselves against local rental price appreciation by moving to a cheaper location. Those invested in the local community are not able to use this type of "self-insurance" as easily, since they must give up some or all of their neighborhood specific capital. Rent control can provide these tenants with this type of insurance.
Not really mentioned here but need highlighting this isn't necessarily just a benefit for the tenants themselves.
Allowing workers vital to the community to continue to live there such as nurses, teachers, and so on benefits others far more than the key worker themselves.
This is a factor in places like central London where highly paid professionals would otherwise completely price out these more modestly paid key workers, and less reported but equally important, is in places like the Lake District and Ceredigion where house buying becomes the problem and social housing the solution with the threat of second home buyers forcing out people who are vital to the health of the community (and where 'just move further out' is far less practical than in London).
QuoteDiamond, McQuade, and Qian (2018) (DMQ) examine the consequences of an expansion of rent control on renters, landlords, and the housing market that resulted from a unique 1994 local San Francisco ballot initiative. In 1979, San Francisco imposed rent control on all standing buildings with five or more apartments. Rent control in San Francisco consists of regulated rent increases, linked to the CPI, within a tenancy, but no price regulation between tenants. New construction was exempt from rent control, since legislators did not want to discourage new development. Smaller multi-family buildings were exempt from this 1979 law change since they were viewed as more "mom and pop" ventures, and did not have market power over rents.
Sounds like the problem here is that they incentivised building new blocks that had less than 5 apartments, potentially replacing far more efficient older larger blocks. This sounds very silly and obviously doomed to worsen the housing situation.
Its not the fact that rent control was introduced that was the problem here, its that it was selectively imposed in completely the wrong way.
QuoteThis exemption was lifted by a 1994 San Francisco ballot initiative. Proponents of the initiative argued that small multi-family housing was now primarily owned by large businesses and should face the same rent control of large multi-family housing. Since the initial 1979 rent control law only impacted properties built from 1979 and earlier, the removal of the small multi-family exemption also only affected properties built 1979 and earlier. This led to a differential expansion in rent control in 1994 based on whether the small multi-family housing was built prior to or post 1980—a policy experiment where otherwise similar housing was treated differently by the law.
I mean why on earth would you give an exemption to small newly build housing?
QuoteRent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive.
If you get mauled by a bear and take some pain killers then sure you're going to feel a bit better, but you really still ought to see a doctor about the actual problem.
QuoteIf society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords' incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. .
No.
The UK does this.
It just means private landlords get to extort local government rather than residents.
Which again, yeah, lessens the pain on needy people, but doesn't really solve the overall problem, it only worsens it by incentivising buy to let people and draining council budgets.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2024, 01:38:09 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:37:25 AMIf profit isn't your main motive then how on earth does reduced rental income decrease your incentive to build?
I will repeat, because this sentence shows that you do not understand what I have been saying.
Private builders, profit important, hence rent control important.
The state, profit not important, hence rent control not important in determining how much to build.
You've basically just summed up a chunk of what I was saying there.
Though social doesn't necessarily mean "the state", nor even government of any level.
What bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
Why can't people with curiosity and humility have this kind of dedication? :(
I'm not curious?
And I'll always admit when I don't know something- most people here won't do that.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
Well thats my points proven wrong.
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 07:22:08 AMQuote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
Well thats my points proven wrong.
You are distoring all evidence to fit your preconceived notions. That's not fertile ground for a good faith discussion.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 07:33:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 07:22:08 AMQuote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
Well thats my points proven wrong.
You are distoring all evidence to fit your preconceived notions. That's not fertile ground for a good faith discussion.
How am I distorting them?
I'm pointing out the flaws in them directly.
This isn't a black and white issue.
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 07:22:08 AMI'm not curious?
And I'll always admit when I don't know something- most people here won't do that.
I don't think it's possible for anyone to always admit that, for that you have to know when you don't know something first. I'm not convinced the latter part happens all that often for you.
QuoteQuote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
Well thats my points proven wrong.
Lots of people are trying to prove you wrong, only to run into total unwillingness to engage. You reply, but you don't engage. I'll pass on that experience, thank you.
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 03:28:27 AMQuoteI will repeat, because this sentence shows that you do not understand what I have been saying.
Private builders, profit important, hence rent control important.
The state, profit not important, hence rent control not important in determining how much to build.
You've basically just summed up a chunk of what I was saying there.
Though social doesn't necessarily mean "the state", nor even government of any level.
Here's the way I see it.
I say "governments aren't interested in profit."
You reply "no, no, no, you're wrong. Governments do NOT care about profit."
That's why I've concluded you just don't understand what I'm saying.
Your second sentence makes me wonder if HVC (or maybe it was Grey Fox) was right; that social housing means something different to you than it does to the rest of us. To be clear to me it means state provided housing. Here we call it the projects or section 8 housing.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
I'm training myself to communicate with the modern Twitter and Tik Tok generation. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 11:53:58 AMYour second sentence makes me wonder if HVC (or maybe it was Grey Fox) was right; that social housing means something different to you than it does to the rest of us. To be clear to me it means state provided housing. Here we call it the projects or section 8 housing.
It's often provided by housing associations here which are not for profit regulated social housing providers. But fundamentally social housing is not the same as rent control or particularly relevant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 11:55:32 AMQuote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
I'm training myself to communicate with the modern Twitter and Tik Tok generation. :)
He's too old to blame youth :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 03, 2024, 11:56:46 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 11:53:58 AMYour second sentence makes me wonder if HVC (or maybe it was Grey Fox) was right; that social housing means something different to you than it does to the rest of us. To be clear to me it means state provided housing. Here we call it the projects or section 8 housing.
It's often provided by housing associations here which are not for profit regulated social housing providers. But fundamentally social housing is not the same as rent control or particularly relevant.
No, not really. The housing sector differentiates between social housing (provided by local authorities) and affordable housing (provided by registered social landlords). They are governed by different statutes and are quite different in terms of e.g. right to buy, access through waiting lists and (yes) the way that rent is set.
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2024, 03:49:02 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:37:25 AMWhy, when there are no restrictions on the rent you can charge, isn't there a glut of rental building from the private sector?
This doesn't pass a basic logic check. Yi send rent controls tend to depress new private construction. For that to be true doesn't necessitate the inverse that absent rent control construction will boom. Removing one disincentive need not be game changing.
This is a better argument than you are giving Squeeze credit for. Basic microecon says if left free of artificial barriers supply will increase until it meets demand at the market clearing price. The fact that this appears not to be occurring in London therefore requires some explanation other than the rental price is not high enough.
I challenge us to do better. Let's also have a megathread about aspargus vs broccoli. Which makes your pee smell worse?
I'd just like to throw this in here. Were the interest rates for borrowing too low after the subprime crisis in 2008-09?
QuoteHere's the way I see it.
I say "governments aren't interested in profit."
You reply "no, no, no, you're wrong. Governments do NOT care about profit."
That's why I've concluded you just don't understand what I'm saying.
It seems quite mutual.
This is really core to the whole point however. Immediate profit whether from rent or sale is not the only motive at work in the housing sector.
When politicians talk about rent control, people going "no no no. The economists say its bad!" is a valid argument to make no doubt, but it's not the only valid argument. It largely misses the fundamental point.
QuoteNo, not really. The housing sector differentiates between social housing (provided by local authorities) and affordable housing (provided by registered social landlords). They are governed by different statutes and are quite different in terms of e.g. right to buy, access through waiting lists and (yes) the way that rent is set.
Affordable housing is a different thing but doesn't mean all housing managed by housing associations. They also do social housing.
QuoteIt's often provided by housing associations here which are not for profit regulated social housing providers. But fundamentally social housing is not the same as rent control or particularly relevant.
Not particularly common in the uk but elsewhere in Europe you get a lot of social housing ran by Co ops too.
And yes. Social housing isn't the same as rent control though in the UK and everywhere else I'm aware of social housing is subject to rent control so theres a relationship.
Social housing is absolutely relevant to the topic. It's a bit weird to try and discuss the topic without including social housing.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2024, 08:30:35 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 07:22:08 AMI'm not curious?
And I'll always admit when I don't know something- most people here won't do that.
I don't think it's possible for anyone to always admit that, for that you have to know when you don't know something first. I'm not convinced the latter part happens all that often for you.
QuoteQuote from: garbon on September 03, 2024, 04:50:24 AMWhat bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?
Well thats my points proven wrong.
Lots of people are trying to prove you wrong, only to run into total unwillingness to engage. You reply, but you don't engage. I'll pass on that experience, thank you.
Yeah... Analysing the points and discussing them really shows I'm the one with an unwillingness to engage here...
Do fuck off.
Quote from: Gups on September 03, 2024, 12:07:24 PMNo, not really. The housing sector differentiates between social housing (provided by local authorities) and affordable housing (provided by registered social landlords). They are governed by different statutes and are quite different in terms of e.g. right to buy, access through waiting lists and (yes) the way that rent is set.
Oh okay - I thought housing associations did social rent as well or is that different than social housing?
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 02:33:39 PMIt seems quite mutual.
This is really core to the whole point however. Immediate profit whether from rent or sale is not the only motive at work in the housing sector.
When politicians talk about rent control, people going "no no no. The economists say its bad!" is a valid argument to make no doubt, but it's not the only valid argument. It largely misses the fundamental point.
Odd that it's a valid argument now, given that for the last four pages you have been arguing it's not true.
"Immediate profit whether from rent or sale is not the only motive at work in the housing sector" is yet another straw man in a never ending list of straw men.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 02:47:18 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 02:33:39 PMIt seems quite mutual.
This is really core to the whole point however. Immediate profit whether from rent or sale is not the only motive at work in the housing sector.
When politicians talk about rent control, people going "no no no. The economists say its bad!" is a valid argument to make no doubt, but it's not the only valid argument. It largely misses the fundamental point.
Odd that it's a valid argument now, given that for the last four pages you have been arguing it's not true.
"it's a valid argument" != I agree with its conclusions.
I've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.
My fundamental view however is that it's not asking the right questions. It's completely missing the point.
There's so many factors at work in the housing sector that to insist rent control is the problem and can never be a viable tool to use if your motives lie in different places than private landlord profits is just wrong.
Quote"Immediate profit whether from rent or sale is not the only motive at work in the housing sector" is yet another straw man in a never ending list of straw men.
Is strawman another word that means something totally different in your world?
But so goes this pointless discussion. I point out why going on about how the economists say rent control reduces the incentive for private builders to build is missing the point and you just keep repeating yourself to avoid even engaging with the topic
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 01:48:12 PMQuote from: garbon on September 02, 2024, 03:49:02 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 02, 2024, 03:37:25 AMWhy, when there are no restrictions on the rent you can charge, isn't there a glut of rental building from the private sector?
This doesn't pass a basic logic check. Yi send rent controls tend to depress new private construction. For that to be true doesn't necessitate the inverse that absent rent control construction will boom. Removing one disincentive need not be game changing.
This is a better argument than you are giving Squeeze credit for. Basic microecon says if left free of artificial barriers supply will increase until it meets demand at the market clearing price. The fact that this appears not to be occurring in London therefore requires some explanation other than the rental price is not high enough.
Of course because there are other things that preventing ready supply. Or as I said 'removing
one disincentive need not be game changing'.
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 02:54:45 PMI've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.
QuoteQuoteMany people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.
So say the liberal economists assuming their perfect green field scenario.
In reality it's a nonsense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 03, 2024, 02:41:13 PMQuote from: Gups on September 03, 2024, 12:07:24 PMNo, not really. The housing sector differentiates between social housing (provided by local authorities) and affordable housing (provided by registered social landlords). They are governed by different statutes and are quite different in terms of e.g. right to buy, access through waiting lists and (yes) the way that rent is set.
Oh okay - I thought housing associations did social rent as well or is that different than social housing?
They do, I know there is social housing with in my complex owned by a housing association.
Greenwich's website says this:
https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200177/apply_for_a_home/2526/apply_for_social_housing
QuoteSocial housing is housing owned by local councils and housing associations. We offer it to people and families who have been assessed as having the greatest housing need.
There is a severe shortage of social housing, and the housing register, also called the waiting list, is extremely long. Most people will be on the housing register for years and will never get a social housing property.
This guide will explain how to apply for social housing but it's usually better to try other options. For example, like moving outside London where properties can be more affordable and waiting times may be shorter.
You are more likely to be able to rent privately outside London than get a social housing property.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 03:00:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 02:54:45 PMI've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.
QuoteQuoteMany people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.
So say the liberal economists assuming their perfect green field scenario.
In reality it's a nonsense.
Yes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.
Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 03:05:01 PMYes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.
Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.
It's amazing to me that you think economics are "basic equations a 3 year old can solve".
Even some of the most basic, Intro Economics 101 type insights are things that escape the large majority of people.
Out of curiosity - have you ever taken a university-level economics course?
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 03:05:01 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 03:00:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 02:54:45 PMI've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.
QuoteQuoteMany people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.
So say the liberal economists assuming their perfect green field scenario.
In reality it's a nonsense.
Yes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.
Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.
I didn't say 2 plus 2 equal 4. I didn't say in large and complex countries housing is NOT an especially wicked problem.
I said there is a causal relationship between rent control and housing construction.
THAT is what you called a nonsense.
Now you want to defend calling it a nonsense, but modify that it is something valid which you disgree with. That sort of statement makes perfect sense when it comes to questions of taste which are inherently subjective. You like red Bordeaux? That's valid, but I prefer white Burgundies. The relationship between rent control and housing construction is not a question of taste. It's an empirical question. It's either true or it's not true.
Quote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 02:54:45 PMIs strawman another word that means something totally different in your world?
But so goes this pointless discussion. I point out why going on about how the economists say rent control reduces the incentive for private builders to build is missing the point and you just keep repeating yourself to avoid even engaging with the topic
I think straw man means the same thing where ever you are.
The way a normal person makes the point you are trying to make above is something like: That is a good point, however there are other factors one should consider when deciding to impose rent control or not.
I know what a strawman is, over the years, I've looked up the definition multiple times.
But why that term? Any origin story?
One of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church's criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack."
Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. Generally, scholars agree that the term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that's easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.
from Grammarly
QuoteI didn't say 2 plus 2 equal 4. I didn't say in large and complex countries housing is NOT an especially wicked problem.
I said there is a causal relationship between rent control and housing construction.
THAT is what you called a nonsense.
Because in reality it usually is.
There's so many more factors at work than whether or not there's rules on what you can charge in rent.
In theory oh sure, it makes perfect sense. If it costs 10 to build a house but the rules say your profit from it can only be 8 then of course you're not going to build it, if the rules say it can only be 12 then why of course you've a wide range of alternative theoretical places to put your money which means no housing gets built.
But in a reality where the potential profits are 50 and they get limited to 30?
Where the demand for housing is so insanely high that any potential plot up for development has a mad scramble of developers eager for it?
Where social housing is a thing that exists?
Where in practice the overwhelming majority of landlords aren't actually building anything and will realistically never be in a position to do so (under an uncontrolled system)?
Where rules don't have to be completely universal binaries and instead can be targeted at particular situations?
QuoteNow you want to defend calling it a nonsense, but modify that it is something valid which you disgree with. That sort of statement makes perfect sense when it comes to questions of taste which are inherently subjective. You like red Bordeaux? That's valid, but I prefer white Burgundies. The relationship between rent control and housing construction is not a question of taste. It's an empirical question. It's either true or it's not true.
This isn't true. Thats literally what a wicked problem means. Its not black and white.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2024, 03:11:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 03, 2024, 03:05:01 PMYes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.
Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.
It's amazing to me that you think economics are "basic equations a 3 year old can solve".
Even some of the most basic, Intro Economics 101 type insights are things that escape the large majority of people.
Out of curiosity - have you ever taken a university-level economics course?
Seriously? :lol:
Are you familiar at all with the concept of analogy?
Rocket science is...well. Rocket science. Its well known for being bloody hard. But if you're planning a Mars mission and all you look at is the rocket science then its not going to go very well, there's a lot more to it than just designing the rocket.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 09:59:11 PMOne of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church's criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack."
Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. Generally, scholars agree that the term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that's easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.
from Grammarly
Thank you.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 04, 2024, 07:48:57 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2024, 09:59:11 PMOne of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church's criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack."
Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. Generally, scholars agree that the term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that's easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.
from Grammarly
Thank you.
I like the more recent counter-example - the steel-man argument.
You take the other side of the argument, but then try to build up the most honest version of it, fixing the holes you see in the most charitable way possible, and then engage with that argument.
I'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.
I think I've solved the puzzle Squeeze. You think causal relationship means that nothing else matters. That's not what it means.
In fact I think that is the glory of economics as an academic discipline: using the power of multiple regression to isolate the effect of one independent variable (in this case rent control) on a dependent variable (construction by for profit builders) in situations where there are a number of other factors influencing that outcome.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2024, 10:58:24 AMI'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.
The people who benefit from it are happier.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2024, 01:57:17 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 04, 2024, 10:58:24 AMI'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.
The people who benefit from it are happier.
I mean yeah, of course.
But I think even the most intelligent, pro-rent-control proponent could come up with something stronger than that.
Why do you think that?
Well it addresses a serious social ill. That's good.
It does it in a short sided and counter-productive way. That's bad.
Of course in a place like Manhattan there probably are no good ways to solve the rent being too damn high.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2024, 02:32:08 PMWhy do you think that?
Because that's what "steel-manning" an argument is all about.
Let's just say I find Jos to be quite incoherent and nonsensical on the topic. But out of a sense of charity and good-will I'd like to think a somewhat more sensible more argument could be made in favour of rent-control, even if at the end of the day I find it unconvincing.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2024, 03:10:25 PMBecause that's what "steel-manning" an argument is all about.
Let's just say I find Jos to be quite incoherent and nonsensical on the topic. But out of a sense of charity and good-will I'd like to think a somewhat more sensible more argument could be made in favour of rent-control, even if at the end of the day I find it unconvincing.
The way you described steel manning (a term I've never heard before FYI) it sounded like a mechanism for improving one's own thinking by addressing the best counter arguments, not for saving the feelings of people who disagree with you. And there is a difference between wishing there was a better counter argument and believing it actually exists.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2024, 02:19:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2024, 01:57:17 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 04, 2024, 10:58:24 AMI'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.
The people who benefit from it are happier.
I mean yeah, of course.
But I think even the most intelligent, pro-rent-control proponent could come up with something stronger than that.
I think that the likeliest and most persuasive argument one in favor of rent control could make was similar to the one used for the minimum wage: within a certain range, it benefits the low wage earners without causing significant perturbations in the economy. Such an argument would have to acknowledge that the range of rent controls possible without market distortion is, like minimum wage, market-specific. A $15 minimum wage has no measurable market impact in California, but a significant one in Montana.
I don't know where one could find the evidence for that argument, though.
In a stable housing market, it provides a way for the leasing class from being taken to the cleaners by landlords. Landlords that are by default anti free market. The state by taking that free market away and giving the advantages to the leasers rebalances society in a better, more sustainable way.
A possible argument for rent-control:
If you combine rent control at sufficient scale with sufficient incentives to build and maintain properties (i.e. it provides a steady but not astronomical return), you can improve the quality of housing for the population as a whole without the major negative outcomes.
Basically trying to move housing into the utility space (water, electricity, etc) where being a londlord provides a steady, predictable, but non-extravagant rate of return through a mixture of rent-ceilings and financial guarantees.
The benefit of having sufficient affordable properties is that it will decrease homelessness (with the public stepping in to cover rent in emergencies as part of the risk protection for landlords), and reduce inflationary pressure.
If we accept arguments that there's a public interest in providing access to affordable water, sewage, roads, electricity, internet etc then it's not that big a stretch to suggest there's a public interest in providing access to affordable housing - and that maybe some of the models applied to those utilities can constructively be applied to housing (including rate caps).
I guess the steel-man argument is something like: rent control as a singular measure is doomed to fail (as evidenced by some of the examples), but as part of a comprehensive policy ensuring a steady supply of accessible housing will drastically improve the life of the citizenry (by reducing negatives associated with housing insecurity) and improve the economy (as increasing the spending power of lower income people is an effective means of boosting the economy).
The challenge is primarily one of designing the right balance of programs and incentives; and of overcoming the political pressure against it.
... something like that, maybe?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2024, 03:50:25 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 04, 2024, 03:10:25 PMBecause that's what "steel-manning" an argument is all about.
Let's just say I find Jos to be quite incoherent and nonsensical on the topic. But out of a sense of charity and good-will I'd like to think a somewhat more sensible more argument could be made in favour of rent-control, even if at the end of the day I find it unconvincing.
The way you described steel manning (a term I've never heard before FYI) it sounded like a mechanism for improving one's own thinking by addressing the best counter arguments, not for saving the feelings of people who disagree with you. And there is a difference between wishing there was a better counter argument and believing it actually exists.
It's a useful term IMO.
And yes - it's more a matter of improving one's own critical thinking on a topic, and not saving someone else's feelings.
I mean I already called Jos "incoherent and nonsensical", so I'm clearly not trying to protect his feelings.
Sorry Jos (okay now I am).
You narrowed it down to just this topic, that was generous and feelings saving of you :P
I think an argument could be made for short term rent control, like a few months, in an emergency scenario. Such as with Covid, where so many people were temporarily out of work.
Quote from: Jacob on September 04, 2024, 04:29:24 PMIf we accept arguments that there's a public interest in providing access to affordable water, sewage, roads, electricity, internet etc then it's not that big a stretch to suggest there's a public interest in providing access to affordable housing - and that maybe some of the models applied to those utilities can constructively be applied to housing (including rate caps).
The arguments I heard in the classroom for regulating utility prices were not affordability per se but rather that utilities were natural monopolies, and hence if left to their own devices would charge monopoly prices. In other words price setting is an attempt to replicate competitive prices, not affordable prices.
One argument for some benign level of rent control is that it protects individuals against sudden major disruptions to their lives from arbitrary actions of landlords.
In theory, having a job or having housing is just a marketplace transaction, so it's most efficient to let the market figure out the optimal terms. In practice, when one party is a lot less resilient against disruption than the other party, the party that is more resilient tends to have disproportionate power. Employers can afford to have an opening, or landlords can afford to have a vacancy, a lot more than individuals can afford to go without a job or go without a home for a while.
I think there is some benefit to making sure that most of the time when a family moves out, it's because they were the one who decided to move out, and not because all of a sudden they had to scramble to find new housing because their existing landlord evicted them, either directly or constructively. Sometimes hurting economic efficiency just a little bit is worth it if the little people have increased stability in their lives in return.
And why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 01:14:30 AMAnd why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?
Being limited in how much you can profit isn't the same as paying for it.
And the way things work best case is that the landlord is ultimately funded by taxes and there's a broader gain for society beyond the individual's gain of being able to afford to live in a place.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 01:14:30 AMAnd why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?
Because society decides that it's a necessary cost of doing business, to achieve a desired policy goal. Much like any other tax, duty, fee, or profit restriction government can impose.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 01:14:30 AMAnd why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?
I don't get the question. Who's "you" here, what is the charity?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 01:14:30 AMAnd why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?
Same reason the landlord has to comply with other rules and laws related to being a landlord.
The issue is whether or not it is a good idea and has possible social ills or benefits, not whether the landlord is supposed to have to obey rules that serve the community. I mean I guess we could talk about that but that seems like discussing the legitimacy of libertarianism and that seems like a different conversation.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2024, 07:53:13 AMI don't get the question. Who's "you" here, what is the charity?
You is the taxpayer and charity is not evicting someone when they are late on rent.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2024, 07:50:09 AMBecause society decides that it's a necessary cost of doing business, to achieve a desired policy goal. Much like any other tax, duty, fee, or profit restriction government can impose.
That's my point. Two wolves desire a policy goal and the sheep gets to pay for it. Similar to the price gouging case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 03:35:07 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 05, 2024, 07:53:13 AMI don't get the question. Who's "you" here, what is the charity?
You is the taxpayer and charity is not evicting someone when they are late on rent.
I didn't say anything about not evicting someone when they're late on rent. I was talking about protecting people who did fulfill all reasonable obligations, but whom landlord wants to get rid of anyway for various reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2024, 04:24:57 PMI didn't say anything about not evicting someone when they're late on rent. I was talking about protecting people who did fulfill all reasonable obligations, but whom landlord wants to get rid of anyway for various reasons.
Gotcha. My bad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 03:39:48 PMThat's my point. Two wolves desire a policy goal and the sheep gets to pay for it. Similar to the price gouging case.
Do you really find that convincing or care about it?
I mean first of all the sheep has a fuckton of money to shape the opinion of the wolves and historically in the history of democratic societies, there is one thirty year period when the "wolves" (or everyday people, as I'd call them) enforced a political and economic model that worked against "sheep" (or plutocrats). In the case of the US there's an overlap of at most 10 years between having full democratic rights and that economic model.
But also - yes, that's how democracy works. Obviously political opinions aren't ingrained and inherited, like species (a better example is maybe two meat eaters and a vegetarian trying to work out an order in a restaurant) - but ultimately if you want to win you need to (within the rules of your system) convince a majority.
And I'm not really sure what the alternative is - protected status for the scheduled class of *checks notes* landlords and owners of capital? This feels like the same argument against democracy that we've heard since the Greeks and it was wrong then and democracy was right and it's wrong now and democracy is right. Make the argument and win support to form part of a majority.
When will somebody think of us poor landlords? :cry:
Yeah rent control is about limiting the amount of rent you can charge for a property, and - I think even more to the point- limiting how much you can increase rent for existing tenants.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 04:40:09 PMWhen will somebody think of us poor landlords? :cry:
This is why I hate rights based discourse (kind of joking...kind of not) :ph34r: :lol:
See also the recent Dutch Supreme Court decision (the second of its type) that the proposed Dutch wealth tax breaches the European Convention of Human Rights <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2024, 04:37:24 PMDo you really find that convincing or care about it?
I mean first of all the sheep has a fuckton of money to shape the opinion of the wolves and historically in the history of democratic societies, there is one thirty year period when the "wolves" (or everyday people, as I'd call them) enforced a political and economic model that worked against "sheep" (or plutocrats). In the case of the US there's an overlap of at most 10 years between having full democratic rights and that economic model.
But also - yes, that's how democracy works. Obviously political opinions aren't ingrained and inherited, like species (a better example is maybe two meat eaters and a vegetarian trying to work out an order in a restaurant) - but ultimately if you want to win you need to (within the rules of your system) convince a majority.
And I'm not really sure what the alternative is - protected status for the scheduled class of *checks notes* landlords and owners of capital? This feels like the same argument against democracy that we've heard since the Greeks and it was wrong then and democracy was right and it's wrong now and democracy is right. Make the argument and win support to form part of a majority.
I really find that convincing and care about it.
I know one dude here who owns like six rental houses. He has a day job working in a quarry. I don't believe he has spent a penny to influence opinions.
I am aware that's how democracy works. Athens was maybe the purest democracy history has seen. Thucydides gave example after example of democracy delivering dumbass decisions. In Republican states the democratic process has produced severe abortion restrictions. I oppose those outcomes even they were arrived at democratically.
The alternative is for the general population to impose taxes on themselves to pay for nice shiny things they want.
I've been thinking about the Whiskey Rebellion since this topic came up. A Continental Congress made up of Boston lawyers, New York bankers, and southern slave owners decide to tax west Pennsylvania hillbilly moonshiners. Was that fair? Was that morally defensible? It was, as you mentioned, democratic.
I'm very happy with two wolves voting in favor of taxing everyone.
If the sheep horde all the wool eventually the wolves eat the sheep. That's the true benefit of democracy. Keeps the coercion state controlled and relatively peaceful. The alternative is bloody, either from the top or the bottom.
Well they taxed every distiller of spirits, not just the hillbilly ones.
Quote from: HVC on September 05, 2024, 05:12:58 PMIf the sheep horde all the wool eventually the wolves eat the sheep. That's the true benefit of democracy. Keeps the coercion state controlled and relatively peaceful. The alternative is bloody, either from the top or the bottom.
I dispute the use of the words horde (I think you mean hoard) and coercion as accurate descriptors of reality.
Indeed. Though I do like the image of menacing piles of wool :D
Stacking pyramids of renter skulls outside Babylon. Guzzling fermented mare's milk before raping renters' wives and daughters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 05:02:35 PMI really find that convincing and care about it.
I know one dude here who owns like six rental houses. He has a day job working in a quarry. I don't believe he has spent a penny to influence opinions.
Which would matter if he was the only landlord in America. But he's not. He benefits from the other landlords who do influence and shape opinion.
QuoteI am aware that's how democracy works. Athens was maybe the purest democracy history has seen. Thucydides gave example after example of democracy delivering dumbass decisions. In Republican states the democratic process has produced severe abortion restrictions. I oppose those outcomes even they were arrived at democratically.
I also think they're bad. My view is that the way you fix them is democratic politics. There is no form of politics that is immune to bad decisions and that shouldn't be the goal because it's setting all politics up to fail.
And Athens was a democracy of a type. Athenians were an autochthonous people tied to that land and its Gods but excluding all outsiders of all types. I don't think that type of engaged duty-bound democracy and society works at scale or in the modern world - I think part of the attraction of democracy is in many ways the opposite of Athens "pure" democracy. It is precisely that it provides a common framework for me and someone very dissimilar, at the other end of the country to both have a shared say - and I'm bound by them and them by me, but it doesn't require that active, involved, tied Athenian citizenship.
QuoteThe alternative is for the general population to impose taxes on themselves to pay for nice shiny things they want.
They do: income tax, sales taxes, social security contribution, property taxes, fuel duty, additional vice taxes on tobacco, alcohol etc.
It applies general taxes and if you meet the conditions you pay them. I'd maybe get your issue if being a landlord was caste or something inherited (though historic experience suggests that in those circumstances they tend to accrue power :P). But it's a choice.
QuoteI've been thinking about the Whiskey Rebellion since this topic came up. A Continental Congress made up of Boston lawyers, New York bankers, and southern slave owners decide to tax west Pennsylvania hillbilly moonshiners. Was that fair? Was that morally defensible? It was, as you mentioned, democratic.
I think slave owners is the first clue of whether or not that was democratic decision making or not.
Putting that to one side, were the Pennsylvania hillbilly moonshiners able to vote and participate in the democratic process? And did they just lose? Because that's fine. All politics involves winners and losers and different interests competing - democracy is a way of doing it that gives everyone a chance. It is mechanistically fair, it doesn't mean it will deliver a fair or a "morally defensible" result (although I find even thinking about those treading into dangerously abstract, wooly territory). There will still be losers, as there always will - again I'm not convinced the owners of property and capital have generally been losers in Western democratic societies.
I have to be honest I'm surprised you're such a fan of equity v equality :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2024, 05:47:34 PMThey do: income tax, sales taxes, social security contribution, property taxes, fuel duty, additional vice taxes on tobacco, alcohol etc.
And I'm pointing out a case where they do not.
QuotePutting that to one side, were the Pennsylvania hillbilly moonshiners able to vote and participate in the democratic process? And did they just lose? Because that's fine. All politics involves winners and losers and different interests competing - democracy is a way of doing it that gives everyone a chance. It is mechanistically fair, it doesn't mean it will deliver a fair or a "morally defensible" result (although I find even thinking about those treading into dangerously abstract, wooly territory). There will still be losers, as there always will - again I'm not convinced the owners of property and capital have generally been losers in Western democratic societies.
I have to be honest I'm surprised you're such a fan of equity v equality :P
And I'm critiquing a case where I believe the result is not fair or morally defensible. What are we disputing?
I don't know what that last bit means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 06:00:26 PMAnd I'm pointing out a case where they do not.
How is that different than booze or fags?
QuoteAnd I'm critiquing a case where I believe the result is not fair or morally defensible. What are we disputing?
I'd read your argument of two wolves one sheep as being that the process was illegitimate or unfair and morally indefensible, not that you just disagree with the result.
I've no problem with disagreeing with a result (believe me, 2024 is the first time the side I voted for won in over a decade of elections and referendums :lol:).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2024, 06:14:46 PMHow is that different than booze or fags?
The consumption of booze and fags creates health and behavioral consequences that must be born by society at large. Therefore it is logical that consumers pick up the tab. Sin taxes also diminish the behavior.
QuoteI'd read your argument of two wolves one sheep as being that the process was illegitimate or unfair and morally indefensible, not that you just disagree with the result.
I've no problem with disagreeing with a result (believe me, 2024 is the first time the side I voted for won in over a decade of elections and referendums :lol:).
You're restating it as a bit of semantic issue, no? The original maxim is democracy without guaranteed rights is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Does that mean the process (voting) is illegitimate, or that the outcome (mutton for lunch) is unfair and immoral? I don't want to rewrite the constitution, I want people to internalize the principle that coercing a subset of the population to pay for a goody that you and one other wolf wants is immoral.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 06:29:22 PMThe consumption of booze and fags creates health and behavioral consequences that must be born by society at large. Therefore it is logical that consumers pick up the tab. Sin taxes also diminish the behavior.
I think there are costs borne by society to do with housing: the cost of homelessness, needing to provide social housing, subsidised or fully met rent payable to (private) landlords.
I'm generally dubious on the effect of sin taxes. But practically tax isn't hypothecated. Taxing tobacco and alcohol is not put into a pot to pay for the social costs. If that was how it worked, I very much doubt if they're anywhere near high enough - and if that was the goal we should be taxing red meat, sugar and fat at a far higher rate.
But taxes in general aren't allocated to specific spending. So if we have x amount of spending commitments then we need to raise it and that's just a question of politics. I think I'd object to a tax as problematic in principle if it was based on some characteristic (gingers pay higher tax than brown-haired people) or it it was bill of attainder style creating of conditions that the only person paying tax is Mr A Yi. Beyond that it's fair game and the question should be what other consequences they have and if that outweighs the revenue it would bring in and, practically, if it's politically possible.
QuoteYou're restating it as a bit of semantic issue, no? The original maxim is democracy without guaranteed rights is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Does that mean the process (voting) is illegitimate, or that the outcome (mutton for lunch) is unfair and immoral?
I think it's an argument against democracy in the long line of democracy as mob arguments. The issue isn't that voting is the process but that all those votes are equal. That's what I mean by the equity v equality thing:
(https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png)
And I do think there's a really important difference between "I think it is wrong for two v one to reach a decision that binds them" and "I think two v one reached the wrong decision".
Although also practically on that maxim, to take it really seriously and look at the outcomes - what alternative is more fair and moral? Surely the only other alternatives are they all eat grass (two wolves starve), they eat one of the wolves (one wolf eaten and the sheep starves) or they all starve. Not to be purely utilitarian - but how are those fairer or more moral?
QuoteI don't want to rewrite the constitution, I want people to internalize the principle that coercing a subset of the population to pay for a goody that you and one other wolf wants is immoral.
I'm way out of my comfort zone talking about morality. But there's coercion all the way down. That's the nature of living in a society and being governed. Democracy is simply the fairest process for reaching those decisions.
Your verbosity kung fu is easily defeating my terseness kung fu. :(
Yeah. All of human society is about controlling people. We just try to do it in as nice a way as possible.
Has Yi recently become one of those tax is theft types or has he been one all along?
One point at I time is all I can manage.
Landlords and builders do not create social problems who's costs must be borne by others. If I rent an apartment to a family I have not created homelessness. I have contracted with a private party to our mutual benefit. There is no other party to the transaction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2024, 06:56:36 PMBut taxes in general aren't allocated to specific spending. So if we have x amount of spending commitments then we need to raise it and that's just a question of politics. I think I'd object to a tax as problematic in principle if it was based on some characteristic (gingers pay higher tax than brown-haired people) or it it was bill of attainder style creating of conditions that the only person paying tax is Mr A Yi. Beyond that it's fair game and the question should be what other consequences they have and if that outweighs the revenue it would bring in and, practically, if it's politically possible.
But that's my point. It would be wrong to tax only gingers to pay for something the rest of us want. How is that different than indirectly taxing landlords for something the rest of us want?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2024, 06:56:36 PMAlthough also practically on that maxim, to take it really seriously and look at the outcomes - what alternative is more fair and moral? Surely the only other alternatives are they all eat grass (two wolves starve), they eat one of the wolves (one wolf eaten and the sheep starves) or they all starve. Not to be purely utilitarian - but how are those fairer or more moral?
In our concrete example I've already given you one alternative: tax the two wolves and one sheep equally to pay for the benefit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 07:54:22 PMOne point at I time is all I can manage.
Landlords and builders do not create social problems who's costs must be borne by others. If I rent an apartment to a family I have not created homelessness. I have contracted with a private party to our mutual benefit. There is no other party to the transaction.
But there are externalities. If you rent an apartment to a family you have created a contract that will have to be enforced at others' expense. Your rented apartment creates additional demands on roads, sewers, police, firefighters, etc. The public has a vested interest in your rental contract, and you rely on others to make it effective.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2024, 08:09:16 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2024, 06:56:36 PMBut taxes in general aren't allocated to specific spending. So if we have x amount of spending commitments then we need to raise it and that's just a question of politics. I think I'd object to a tax as problematic in principle if it was based on some characteristic (gingers pay higher tax than brown-haired people) or it it was bill of attainder style creating of conditions that the only person paying tax is Mr A Yi. Beyond that it's fair game and the question should be what other consequences they have and if that outweighs the revenue it would bring in and, practically, if it's politically possible.
But that's my point. It would be wrong to tax only gingers to pay for something the rest of us want. How is that different than indirectly taxing landlords for something the rest of us want?
But doesn't that tie back to the "Sin tax" example? Gingers are born ginger, landlords choose to be landlords. Ontario has rent control and plenty of landlords so obviously there's still a profit to it.
That being said, I'm not exactly sold on rent control because of the downsides mentioned previously.
Quote from: HVC on September 05, 2024, 08:28:59 PMBut doesn't that tie back to the "Sin tax" example? Gingers are born ginger, landlords choose to be landlords. Ontario has rent control and plenty of landlords so obviously there's still a profit to it.
The justification for sin taxes is destructive or self destructive behavior, not the mere fact it is a choice. Some people choose to dance. We don't tax dancers even though it is a choice and not a condition one is born with.
And hiking rent causes a social ill as well. Lots of regulations are "unfair" in that they lower profit for the "greater good". Why shouldn't i be able to dump waste in a lake to maximize profits, what's a few dead fish?
Quote from: HVC on September 05, 2024, 08:38:28 PMAnd hiking rent causes a social ill as well. Lots of regulations are "unfair" in that they lower profit for the "greater good". Why shouldn't i be able to dump waste in a lake to maximize profits, what's a few dead fish?
Dumping waste in a lake is a destructive act. It harms our health and diminishes the quality of our lives. It is a negative externality.
Asking for more rent is morally no different than you asking for a raise. It's two parties negotiating the terms of their mutual benefit.
But we do have minimum wages yes?
Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 10:13:24 PMBut we do have minimum wages yes?
Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.
Which when it is introduced it generally isn't.
At least not at anything like the scale required.
As I've said a lot of people, left and right, when looking at housing make the huge mistake of assuming a home is a home.
The key factor is often overlooked that housing isnt just some commodity that when demand is high you can just make more of in your factory.
It has a critical tie to land, which even as a whole is finite, when looking at land within a kilometre of a certain location it is even more so.
Hell. Even if we throw out all planning and conservation rules and start razing our cities to make gigantic tower blocks - even then some locations will clearly be better than others and you can't just keep building infinitely tall.
There's only so much you can improve transit to a particular point.
There's a vital need for the broader community as a whole to have key workers able to live within a reasonable commute or their workplace.
Beyond this too research suggests there's huge societal gains in low levels of segregation and making sure areas have a healthy mix of different socio economic groups.
I can't see many circumstances where there'll never be a case for having no rent controlled housing. There'll always be a need for it to some degree and the idea that if you just eliminate it then everything will be better... It's unfounded.
What a surprise that after pages of defending rent control, you think it will always be necessary.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 10:13:24 PMBut we do have minimum wages yes?
Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.
The government has an interest in increasing the happiness of all its citizens. When we pursue policies that make one group happier at the expense of another I think we need a justification.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 04:40:09 PMWhen will somebody think of us poor landlords? :cry:
You should be reading The Telegraph.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 02:52:06 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 10:13:24 PMBut we do have minimum wages yes?
Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.
The government has an interest in increasing the happiness of all its citizens. When we pursue policies that make one group happier at the expense of another I think we need a justification.
Quite an interesting topic of research that.
Kahneman famously found pretty strong evidence that extra money over $75k doesn't have much impact on happiness, meanwhile the closer you get to 0 the more every extra bit of cash increases happiness.
Its perfectly logical when you think about it.
When I was a student having an extra £1000 would have been a revelation. It would have made my life far more comfortable and stress free.
Now an extra £1000....well I'm not going to say no. But it'd probably just go into my savings and not really impact on my happiness at all.
But then further research found it was a lot more complex than that, Kahneman had originally regarded happiness as a binary. If you allow graded levels of happiness then for a majority of people more money does equal more happiness.
I do think however that society as a whole should value the happiness of a teacher and her family having somewhere to live and a basic OK life over some landlord being able to get a few fancy extra options in his new BMW.
Quote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 03:18:11 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 02:52:06 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 10:13:24 PMBut we do have minimum wages yes?
Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.
The government has an interest in increasing the happiness of all its citizens. When we pursue policies that make one group happier at the expense of another I think we need a justification.
Quite an interesting topic of research that.
Kahneman famously found pretty strong evidence that extra money over $75k doesn't have much impact on happiness, meanwhile the closer you get to 0 the more every extra bit of cash increases happiness.
Its perfectly logical when you think about it.
When I was a student having an extra £1000 would have been a revelation. It would have made my life far more comfortable and stress free.
Now an extra £1000....well I'm not going to say no. But it'd probably just go into my savings and not really impact on my happiness at all.
But then further research found it was a lot more complex than that, Kahneman had originally regarded happiness as a binary. If you allow graded levels of happiness then for a majority of people more money does equal more happiness.
I do think however that society as a whole should value the happiness of a teacher and her family having somewhere to live and a basic OK life over some landlord being able to get a few fancy extra options in his new BMW.
And I believe if you want the teacher to be happier you can cough up the money to make her so..
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 03:29:48 AMAnd I believe if you want the teacher to be happier you can cough up the money to make her so..
In theory.
Again in practice its more complicated than that.
Paying teachers, nurses, etc... enough so that they can live in central London? Aye, I'm down with that. It sounds politically viable to some extent. Economically infeasible and doubtless to cause huge demands for wage increases nationally but.... Its not like we're talking literally impossible here.
But coffee shop workers and the like? They're needed in wealthy cities too. Paying them on a par with a banker is going to be a harder sell.
Having a ready supply of low income housing just seems the most financially logical solution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 03:29:48 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 03:18:11 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 02:52:06 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 10:13:24 PMBut we do have minimum wages yes?
Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.
The government has an interest in increasing the happiness of all its citizens. When we pursue policies that make one group happier at the expense of another I think we need a justification.
Quite an interesting topic of research that.
Kahneman famously found pretty strong evidence that extra money over $75k doesn't have much impact on happiness, meanwhile the closer you get to 0 the more every extra bit of cash increases happiness.
Its perfectly logical when you think about it.
When I was a student having an extra £1000 would have been a revelation. It would have made my life far more comfortable and stress free.
Now an extra £1000....well I'm not going to say no. But it'd probably just go into my savings and not really impact on my happiness at all.
But then further research found it was a lot more complex than that, Kahneman had originally regarded happiness as a binary. If you allow graded levels of happiness then for a majority of people more money does equal more happiness.
I do think however that society as a whole should value the happiness of a teacher and her family having somewhere to live and a basic OK life over some landlord being able to get a few fancy extra options in his new BMW.
And I believe if you want the teacher to be happier you can cough up the money to make her so..
You read Atlas Shrugged when you were young didn't you?
An article in the New York Times about the housing crisis in Ireland, which is on point our discussion. The article focusses on cork, which has very high housing costs and a lot of abandoned Housing Projects that never quite recovered from the 2008 crash.
A gifted article for your reading pleasure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/ireland-housing-immigration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ik4.iXEs.cm9IjUskR0OF&smid=url-share
Quote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 03:34:37 AMIn theory.
Again in practice its more complicated than that.
Paying teachers, nurses, etc... enough so that they can live in central London? Aye, I'm down with that. It sounds politically viable to some extent. Economically infeasible and doubtless to cause huge demands for wage increases nationally but.... Its not like we're talking literally impossible here.
But coffee shop workers and the like? They're needed in wealthy cities too. Paying them on a par with a banker is going to be a harder sell.
Having a ready supply of low income housing just seems the most financially logical solution.
There is no theory, only practice. Either you want to pay more in tax to increase the teacher's happiness and have enough votes to do so or you don't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 08:44:03 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 03:34:37 AMIn theory.
Again in practice its more complicated than that.
Paying teachers, nurses, etc... enough so that they can live in central London? Aye, I'm down with that. It sounds politically viable to some extent. Economically infeasible and doubtless to cause huge demands for wage increases nationally but.... Its not like we're talking literally impossible here.
But coffee shop workers and the like? They're needed in wealthy cities too. Paying them on a par with a banker is going to be a harder sell.
Having a ready supply of low income housing just seems the most financially logical solution.
There is no theory, only practice. Either you want to pay more in tax to increase the teacher's happiness and have enough votes to do so or you don't.
Or you could just use your tax income to provide rent controlled social housing. A far more efficient and less messy way to solve the problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2024, 06:40:50 AMAn article in the New York Times about the housing crisis in Ireland, which is on point our discussion. The article focusses on cork, which has very high housing costs and a lot of abandoned Housing Projects that never quite recovered from the 2008 crash.
A gifted article for your reading pleasure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/ireland-housing-immigration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ik4.iXEs.cm9IjUskR0OF&smid=url-share
Ireland has certainly started having me question if economic growth actually makes things better for normal people. I am not saying it doesn't but a lot of things in that article remind me of similar issues in high growth parts of Texas.
But the role of the 2008 crisis I guess might still be a major driver. In my mind the economy recovered from thay around 2014 sometime but maybe that is still driving this housing and cost of living problem.
I mean if a major side effect of economic growth is normal people no longer being able to afford to live then we really need to reconsider how we manage our economies. I mean I presume it is still vastly preferable to a shrinking economy...
Quote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 08:51:03 AMOr you could just use your tax income to provide rent controlled social housing. A far more efficient and less messy way to solve the problem.
Absolutely.
Though Milton Friedman argued that cash is always better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2024, 08:59:47 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 08:51:03 AMOr you could just use your tax income to provide rent controlled social housing. A far more efficient and less messy way to solve the problem.
Absolutely.
Though Milton Friedman argued that cash is always better.
UBI baby.
Though agreeing with Friedman gives me pause :P
Yesterday I was scolded by my landlord (or at least the clerk at the front office), for failing to inform them in timely matter that the handyman had failed for the 5th time to fix leak in my closet. So I'm not entirely oppose to hanging landlords.
I think one other area where even basic economic theory fails is when it comes to sources of happens that result from collective behaviors. For example, if I'm a child growing up in a neighborhood, I think it would be very good for me if all my playmates stay in my neighborhood for the duration of my childhood. However, maybe my friend's family wants to move for their own self-interested reasons, how is my benefit going to enter into their calculations?
Where rent control comes in is that it forces decrease of people's mobility. Maybe there are a lot of positives to mobility, but I think the cost of uprooting personal relationships, especially for younger people who have no say in the decisions to move, is real and substantial.
My dad still keeps in touch with many of his friends from school 60 years later, but that is much more likely to happen when you spend entire childhood with the same people together. In his case the reason for lack of mobility was communism, and not the slightly less overbearing rent control, but the dynamic is the same.
Quote from: DGuller on September 06, 2024, 10:00:24 AMI think one other area where even basic economic theory fails is when it comes to sources of happens that result from collective behaviors. For example, if I'm a child growing up in a neighborhood, I think it would be very good for me if all my playmates stay in my neighborhood for the duration of my childhood. However, maybe my friend's family wants to move for their own self-interested reasons, how is my benefit going to enter into their calculations?
Where rent control comes in is that it forces decrease of people's mobility. Maybe there are a lot of positives to mobility, but I think the cost of uprooting personal relationships, especially for younger people who have no say in the decisions to move, is real and substantial.
My dad still keeps in touch with many of his friends from school 60 years later, but that is much more likely to happen when you spend entire childhood with the same people together. In his case the reason for lack of mobility was communism, and not the slightly less overbearing rent control, but the dynamic is the same.
Yes, mobility has its good and bad points.
On the one hand yes, a kid born in a nothing-town but who has the ability and the interest to make something of himself should be able to move to the city where he can do that.
People should be free and encouraged to get out of their comfort zone and see the world a bit.
On the other hand a kid born in a thriving city or a picturesque rural area might want to stay just where they are.
Interfering in the market to allow small villages to remain viable communities with the young who want to stay there being able to do so, and not just having all the housing snapped up by wealthy second home buyers, strikes me as a big positive. It carries deeper issues when you come to areas like Ceredigion where the incomers will broadly monolingual English speakers displacing the Welsh community.
The key, the ideal to shoot for, overall should be choice. Allowing people to be mobile whilst at the same time balancing the rights of those "indigenous" to a place who want to remain there.
This also connects to other issues as noted in CC's article about Cork with the far right being eager to try and profit from locals being displaced by "immigrants", even if those immigrants are most often from the same country.
It all comes back to building really. Efficient, dense building of basic but perfectly acceptable housing. Even in little picturesque villages for whom the entire point is that they aren't built up there should be a lot more 3 story blocks of flats to allow local kids the opportunity of actually continuing to live there (with priority given to those with local links of course as in current social housing in such places).
This is something the UK really fails at.
In the big cities of course the scale should be drastically bigger and a lot more mixed up than we do at current.
So just on the topic of landlords...
I have vaguely considered trying to build a backyard housing as a means of some retirement income in a few years. We have a "pie shaped" lot which means the backyard is really quite large, and we would have access to the LRT once construction is finished in 4 years (probably more than that) so it might be enticing. I'm thinking a 2-story, 2-3 suite building. As I understand the updated zoning in Edmonton that would all be allowable. There'd be no real parking available - but that's why the new transit might make it enticing.
Downside of course is we'd lose our backyard, and at two stories in our south-facing backyard you'd lose a lot of sunlight.
Not sure if it would be profitable enough to make it worthwhile though, since you'd have to take out a mortgage to build the darn thing and in retirement you'd me more interested in income, not building equity.
I can also say that if I thought we'd be subject to a rigorous rent control scheme there's no way I'd consider it.
Quote from: DGuller on September 06, 2024, 10:00:24 AMI think one other area where even basic economic theory fails is when it comes to sources of happens that result from collective behaviors. For example, if I'm a child growing up in a neighborhood, I think it would be very good for me if all my playmates stay in my neighborhood for the duration of my childhood. However, maybe my friend's family wants to move for their own self-interested reasons, how is my benefit going to enter into their calculations?
Where rent control comes in is that it forces decrease of people's mobility. Maybe there are a lot of positives to mobility, but I think the cost of uprooting personal relationships, especially for younger people who have no say in the decisions to move, is real and substantial.
My dad still keeps in touch with many of his friends from school 60 years later, but that is much more likely to happen when you spend entire childhood with the same people together. In his case the reason for lack of mobility was communism, and not the slightly less overbearing rent control, but the dynamic is the same.
On the flipside, I'm not sure why childhood friendships should be prioritized. As a highly mobile person I found my tribe as it were in other places. Prioritizing childhood relationships feels like it might just entrenched world views rather than expand them.
Quote from: Josquius on August 31, 2024, 11:32:43 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 31, 2024, 03:57:26 AMQuote from: Solmyr on August 31, 2024, 03:33:57 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 30, 2024, 03:39:19 AMQuote from: Solmyr on August 30, 2024, 01:51:58 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:19:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 29, 2024, 03:08:22 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 29, 2024, 03:05:15 AMRent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.
And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.
The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.
Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.
Finland is not a good example of the housing market. :lmfao: If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.
I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.
Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.
I don't see crazy prices, but regardless that situation is infinitely better than rental contracts being simply unavailable.
In Stockholm organizations have problems recruiting people because there's no place for them to live. Buying a place isn't an option for many, and even if you have the money lying around taking that kind of risk when you don't know how long you're gonna stay is often unattractive. This is harmful to society and everyone in it.
Stockholm has a bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,
From what I gather the controlled system was in place decades and things worked fine as the government actually built housing.
It's alongside the move to a more free market system from the 90s on that things have become a mess. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but the relationship seems to be the opposite of what you imply.
There is a connection between price control and supply not meeting demand.
Good news out of the UK Housing policy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/selling-35-rental-homes-labour-not-only-one/
QuoteFor him, the decision to downsize has been four years in the making. First it was the introduction of Section 24, which abolished mortgage tax relief, then high interest rates, and now the Renters' Rights Bill – dubbed the biggest overhaul of rental law in over 30 years.
:cry: :cry: :cry: Babies, all the way down.
:lol:
Yes. Good to see but a drop in the ocean alas. Prices are rising faster than ever.
Quote from: The Brain
link=msg=1454045 date=1725813440]
There is a connection between price control and supply not meeting demand.
And the million homes program?
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 12:56:35 PMYes. Good to see but a drop in the ocean alas. Prices are rising faster than ever.
Quote from: The Brain
link=msg=1454045 date=1725813440]
There is a connection between price control and supply not meeting demand.
And the million homes program?
The state is free to build homes and rent them out cheaply if it wants to. No need for rent control.
Do you want Brutalism? Because that's how you get Brutalism.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 17, 2024, 01:19:07 PMDo you want Brutalism? Because that's how you get Brutalism.
:ph34r:
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 12:58:58 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 12:56:35 PMYes. Good to see but a drop in the ocean alas. Prices are rising faster than ever.
Quote from: The Brain
link=msg=1454045 date=1725813440]
There is a connection between price control and supply not meeting demand.
And the million homes program?
The state is free to build homes and rent them out cheaply if it wants to. No need for rent control.
That's a form of rent control.
No it's not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2024, 01:26:48 PMNo it's not.
Flats with a legally limited rent price?
It's the very definition of the term.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 01:23:05 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 12:58:58 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 12:56:35 PMYes. Good to see but a drop in the ocean alas. Prices are rising faster than ever.
Quote from: The Brain
link=msg=1454045 date=1725813440]
There is a connection between price control and supply not meeting demand.
And the million homes program?
The state is free to build homes and rent them out cheaply if it wants to. No need for rent control.
That's a form of rent control.
No.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 01:50:52 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2024, 01:26:48 PMNo it's not.
Flats with a legally limited rent price?
It's the very definition of the term.
Where did you get legally limited rent price from? Nothing I said.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 01:50:52 PMFlats with a legally limited rent price?
It's the very definition of the term.
I said it a few times earlier - social housing has nothing to do with rent control. They're different things.
And as I said a few times that's wrong. Social housing is key to the issue.
If housing has its rent legally limited then that's rent control.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 01:56:35 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 01:50:52 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2024, 01:26:48 PMNo it's not.
Flats with a legally limited rent price?
It's the very definition of the term.
Where did you get legally limited rent price from? Nothing I said.
Maybe Sweden is different. But that's usually how social housing works.
It's not the state as a monolith building housing and freely deciding to charge a low price.
Theres legislation in place controlling what local authorities, HAs and whoever else can charge for social housing.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:11:41 PMAnd as I said a few times that's wrong. Social housing is key to the issue.
If housing has its rent legally limited then that's rent control.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 01:56:35 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 01:50:52 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2024, 01:26:48 PMNo it's not.
Flats with a legally limited rent price?
It's the very definition of the term.
Where did you get legally limited rent price from? Nothing I said.
Maybe Sweden is different. But that's usually how social housing works.
It's not the state as a monolith building housing and freely deciding to charge a low price.
Theres legislation in place controlling what local authorities, HAs and whoever else can charge for social housing.
So something completely different from what I said.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 02:15:20 PM]
So something completely different from what I said.
:blink:
This doesn't make sense. It's entirely what you said.
Or are you ignoring the context we were talking about (swedens previous impressive house building) and imagining some theoretical where the state operates as a private land lord?
There's a difference between an entity choosing to rent at a set price, and requiring all entities to rent at a set price. The latter is rent control, the former is not.
Quote from: frunk on September 17, 2024, 02:19:45 PMThere's a difference between an entity choosing to rent at a set price, and requiring all entities to rent at a set price. The latter is rent control, the former is not.
So rent control has never existed anywhere I believe.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:11:41 PMAnd as I said a few times that's wrong. Social housing is key to the issue.
If housing has its rent legally limited then that's rent control.
Okay, fine. But it's not what the rest of the world means when they're talking about rent control, including all of the economists who have said the overwhelming real world evidence is that rent control does not work.
None of them are talking about social housing. In fact, often, especially for left-wing economists social housing is part of what they argue for instead of rent control from an economic point of view (because it doesn't distort supply).
This is why I said it a couple of times because they are separate issues.
Edit: Even in the article you posted in support of rent control - there were a broad number of measures required for rent control to work and one of them was massively increased social housing, which is because they're different. (In that case, I suspect, in crease in social housing is basically state pumping supply to counteract the decline because of rent control.)
Yeah if I just decide I am going to rent each of my units for 1$ that is not rent control. That's just me deciding to rent at a huge loss.
[
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2024, 02:26:06 PMYeah if I just decide I am going to rent each of my units for 1$ that is not rent control. That's just me deciding to rent at a huge loss.
What are you talking about?
Who is suggesting this?
In the UK at least, and I believe in most of Europe at least, that's not what social housing does.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2024, 02:23:17 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:11:41 PMAnd as I said a few times that's wrong. Social housing is key to the issue.
If housing has its rent legally limited then that's rent control.
Okay, fine. But it's not what the rest of the world means when they're talking about rent control, including all of the economists who have said the overwhelming real world evidence is that rent control does not work.
None of them are talking about social housing. In fact, often, especially for left-wing economists social housing is part of what they argue for instead of rent control from an economic point of view (because it doesn't distort supply).
This is why I said it a couple of times because they are separate issues.
There's a difference between social housing and private sector rent control. Obviously.
But both are rent controlled housing.
I have never seen anyone deny this fact. When economists rage against rent control they usually do include social housing in this.
And don't make stuff up. There is not "overwhelming" real world evidence it "doesn't work".
Evidence suggests it does tend to work at doing what it's meant to do, however it clearly has trade offs.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:22:55 PMQuote from: frunk on September 17, 2024, 02:19:45 PMThere's a difference between an entity choosing to rent at a set price, and requiring all entities to rent at a set price. The latter is rent control, the former is not.
So rent control has never existed anywhere I believe.
Sweden has rent control.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:30:30 PMWhat are you talking about?
Who is suggesting this?
In the UK at least, and I believe in most of Europe at least, that's not what social housing does.
You are building units with the intention of renting them out at well below market prices yes?
Well even if they are free, that is still just renting it out at well below market prices.
That isn't establishing rent control.
QuoteYou are building units with the intention of renting them out at well below market prices yes?
Well even if they are free, that is still just renting it out at well below market prices.
That isn't establishing rent control.
Who is the "you" here?
The social housing providers?
They're building housing with the intention of renting them out at below market price and the legal obligation to do this.
This is the very definition of rent control.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 02:31:29 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:22:55 PMQuote from: frunk on September 17, 2024, 02:19:45 PMThere's a difference between an entity choosing to rent at a set price, and requiring all entities to rent at a set price. The latter is rent control, the former is not.
So rent control has never existed anywhere I believe.
Sweden has rent control.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't according to this alternative definition. Aren't newly built apartments exempt?
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:42:04 PMWho is the "you" here?
The social housing providers?
They're building housing with the intention of renting them out at below market price and the legal obligation to do this.
This is the very definition of rent control.
The landlord. Just like I can just decide to lose money on my units, the government can just decide what it wants to rent out its units for. It's "legal obligations" are self inflicted and are not applied to other landlords.
Rent control are laws that apply to all landlords in an area yes?
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2024, 02:56:24 PMRent control are laws that apply to all landlords in an area yes?
No.
As said I don't think there are many places in the world that would have rent control under this definition.
Well. I said nowhere but I thinkkkk maybe Switzerland would apply - at least I'm not aware of the exemptions. It's in the minority however
Rent control laws tend to be targeted. They specify which housing they apply to and various exemptions.
QuoteQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:42:04 PMWho is the "you" here?
The social housing providers?
They're building housing with the intention of renting them out at below market price and the legal obligation to do this.
This is the very definition of rent control.
The landlord. Just like I can just decide to lose money on my units, the government can just decide what it wants to rent out its units for. It's "legal obligations" are self inflicted and are not applied to other landlords
That's not how government works.
The body setting laws about rent controls are not the same ones managing the day to day of social housing. Very often they're not even ran by the same party. Then you've the housing association angle.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:42:04 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 02:31:29 PMSweden has rent control.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't according to this alternative definition. Aren't newly built apartments exempt?
Going off of wiki, here's a wordier definition of rent control:
QuoteRent price controls remain the most controversial element of a system of rent regulation. Modern rent controls (sometimes called rent leveling or rent stabilization) are intended to protect tenants in privately owned residential properties from excessive rent increases. This is usually done by mandating gradual rent increases or rent freezes, while at the same time ensuring that landlords receive a return on their investment that is deemed fair by the controlling authority.
It isn't the same thing as social housing, which doesn't dictate what private landlords are charging.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:42:04 PMQuoteYou are building units with the intention of renting them out at well below market prices yes?
Well even if they are free, that is still just renting it out at well below market prices.
That isn't establishing rent control.
Who is the "you" here?
The social housing providers?
They're building housing with the intention of renting them out at below market price and the legal obligation to do this.
This is the very definition of rent control.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 02:31:29 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:22:55 PMQuote from: frunk on September 17, 2024, 02:19:45 PMThere's a difference between an entity choosing to rent at a set price, and requiring all entities to rent at a set price. The latter is rent control, the former is not.
So rent control has never existed anywhere I believe.
Sweden has rent control.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't according to this alternative definition. Aren't newly built apartments exempt?
Your statement isn't even internally consistent.
Quote from: frunk on September 17, 2024, 03:10:14 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:42:04 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 02:31:29 PMSweden has rent control.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't according to this alternative definition. Aren't newly built apartments exempt?
Going off of wiki, here's a wordier definition of rent control:
QuoteRent price controls remain the most controversial element of a system of rent regulation. Modern rent controls (sometimes called rent leveling or rent stabilization) are intended to protect tenants in privately owned residential properties from excessive rent increases. This is usually done by mandating gradual rent increases or rent freezes, while at the same time ensuring that landlords receive a return on their investment that is deemed fair by the controlling authority.
It isn't the same thing as social housing, which doesn't dictate what private landlords are charging.
This quote says nothing about it not applying to social housing.
I know the law around this in the UK (on a medium level at least. Better than most due to past work experience but lawyer I ain't) . Our social housing is very definitely rent controlled. And we aren't weird in this.
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 03:12:39 PMThis quote says nothing about it not applying to social housing.
It's not about whether rent control applies to social housing, it's that social housing isn't rent control. They are two different things.
Quote from: frunk on September 17, 2024, 03:16:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 03:12:39 PMThis quote says nothing about it not applying to social housing.
It's not about whether rent control applies to social housing, it's that social housing isn't rent control. They are two different things.
Looking again I see they put the word private in there. It's a low down sub section of a minor article but this needs fixing as it's bollocks.
Rent control is a type of policy that can be applied to any segment of the housing market, large or small, social or private.
All I wanted was to share some good news on the on going liquidation of Landlords in the United Kingdom.
:mad: :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2024, 03:25:11 PMAll I wanted was to share some good news on the on going liquidation of Landlords in the United Kingdom.
:mad: :(
And now we are stuck in a loop. Thanks for that. <_<
I *think* Squeeze is talking about non profits when he says social housing. At least that would make sense.
Can we do another round of steel manning, please?