Housing policy megathread

[grumbler]

I'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.

[Grey Fox]

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.

[Jacob]

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?

[Barrister]

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.

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).

[HVC]

You narrowed it down to just this topic, that was generous and feelings saving of you

[Razgovory]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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).

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

And why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?

[Josquius]

And 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.

[Jacob]

And 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.

[DGuller]

And why should the landlord finance that charity, and not you?

I don't get the question.  Who's "you" here, what is the charity?

[Valmy]

And 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.

[Admiral Yi]

I 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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

That's my point.  Two wolves desire a policy goal and the sheep gets to pay for it.  Similar to the price gouging case.