|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Across the US, cities are becoming more crowded and more expensive. Low wages and gentrification are forcing many poor people to move out of neighborhoods their families have lived in for generations as housing costs rise. The proposed responses are varied, from tax breaks and subsidies for developers (a traditionally right-wing idea) to rent-control and construction of more public housing (from the left.) One of these proposals, rent control, is more controversial: many economists claim that it will distort housing markets, remove the incentive to develop and result in even LESS housing for the poor. Others contend that this is simply a bias of neoliberal economists against regulation, and that rent control works well if implemented in the right tome and place. What do you think, D&D? Is rent control a viable option for making life affordable for people getting priced out of their neighborhoods? A rent control scheme that allowed a landlord to charge enough to cover taxes, maintenance and a return on invested capital with an allowance for a vacancy rate would probably be less distorting than otherwise. OTOH, arguing with the rate board would probably be a PITA and the landlord would be have to be making less than they could in an unregulated development or else what's the point of the rent control scheme? On the third hand, it would probably suck for property owners who have lived in the neighborhood for generations and want to cash out by either selling or renting their buildings by forcing down both rents and property values. On the fourth hand, effective rent control is guaranteed to create demand for grey market subletting that whoever is renting a unit at the time the measure goes through will be able to take advantage of. And independent of all that we have to ask the question "should we care that poor people are moving out of this neighborhood anyway", and I think the response to that is not obviously "yes" independent of circumstances. So in conclusion: It would probably be more useful to talk about a specific program in a specific place than to debate the merits of rent control as a general idea.
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I... don't think you realize how incredibly unrealistic it is to 'just fix jurisdictional issues'. Pointing out that it's quite difficult to walk across an ocean is not shutting down or giving up. "Look, chronic hunger and poverty is easy. Just give people all the free food and money they need and tax the rich to pay for it! What's so hard about that?" Is a sentiment people express on this forum a lot, as if issues are that simple and the only thing lacking is political will.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Eradicating World poverty is probably outside the US's power, but we could be trying literally thousands of times harder than we are to do so. Seven trillion dollars per year or whatever could pay for a whole lot of third-world infrastructure and feed a loving LOT of starving people. That 7 trillion or so is flowing through the world economy supporting jobs and infrastructure and etc already, is the thing. And in part it constitutes the return of working capital without which companies wouldn't be able to operate. Messing with that too much would create a lot more starving people than you could feed. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don't really see what's wrong with a simple public subsidy of rent, IE if you can't pay the market rate the government will make up the difference. A simple subsidy would push rents up over time because the market rate is partly determined by what people can afford. You'd have a subsidy allowing more people to compete for the same housing, which would allow landlords to demand higher rent, which would raise the market rate, which would raise the subsidy, and repeat. Trying to monkey with the market that way is probably going to be less effective than for instance building a bunch of units and designating them affordable. Or clearing the way for high-density developments so supply exists to accommodate lower income tenants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:If you're going to quote polls of mainstream economists, let's find out what other opinions are popular: Hmm it seems like fully 60% of economists did not know what to make of that question, even though viewed as a naive hypothetical (what would happen if we kept spending the same, but removed less in taxes?) it's trivially true. OwlBot 2000 posted:Public school students would receive a higher quality education if they all had the option of taking the government money currently being spent on their own education and turning that money into vouchers that they could use towards covering the costs of any private school or public school of their choice (e.g. charter schools). Economists coming down on both sides of a complex question with no certain answer? 45% of respondents unsure? What a bunch of lockstep neoliberal shills amirite? OwlBot 2000 posted:Connecticut should pass its Senate Bill 60, which states... During a “severe weather event emergency, no person within the chain of distribution of consumer goods and services shall sell or offer to sell consumer goods or services for a price that is unconscionably excessive." Hmm. A bill that at best is too vague to enforce and at worst could lead to shortages during severe weather conditions? Clearly this result shows the profession of economics is morally bankrupt. OwlBot 2000 posted:Let's cite specific studies instead of appealing to neoliberal received doctrine. Let's not do this for one thread, maybe? If standard econ is wrong about rent control why don't you show why it's wrong instead of dismissing it as neoliberalism without actually rebutting anything? If you're right it ought to be pretty easy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:... how does nobody see the incredibly obvious problem with this idea? If you constructed a shitload of condos when there's no demand for them, you end up with a shitload of vacant buildings, at a loss of shitloads of money. Either your shiny new condos go unoccupied, or they suck people away from existing neighborhoods. Either way, you've wasted enormous amounts of brick and mortar in your attempt to subsidize housing, when instead you could have just... subsidized housing. You probably wouldn't want to drop all 100 buildings at once for multiple reasons. Instead you'd probably base your new construction on an estimate of how many families you expect to migrate to your city on net, and plan to build enough to house them plus a little extra if you want prices to fall on average. Then instead of bulldozing thriving commercial areas you'd want to replace old low-rise apartment buildings or 2-3 family units or single family homes or vacant commercial areas or etc. Basically best case scenario is you're smart about it and it works out fine but is still quite expensive. Then your plans leak and literally every home owner in your city turns against you because a substantial amount of their wealth is tied up in property and you get voted out or taken down for banging a 15 year old or whatever and the dream dies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 13:57
|
|