Housing policy megathread

[Admiral Yi]

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.

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. 

[Admiral Yi]

What bizarre nonsense. I guess I admire...your dedication?

I'm training myself to  communicate with the modern Twitter and Tik Tok generation. 

[Sheilbh]

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. 

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.

[HVC]

What 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 

[Gups]

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. 

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.

[Admiral Yi]

Why, 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.

[Norgy]

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?

[Josquius]

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.

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.

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.

Affordable housing is a different thing but doesn't mean all housing managed by housing associations. They also do social 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.

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.

I'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.

What 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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Oh okay - I thought housing associations did social rent as well or is that different than social housing?

[Admiral Yi]

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.

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.

[Josquius]

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.

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.

"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

[garbon]

Why, 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'.

[Admiral Yi]

I've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.

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.

[garbon]

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.

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

Social 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.

[Josquius]

I've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.

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.

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.