Hacker News Reader

Comment by krisroadruck | Hacker News Reader

Is it just me or... it being his property he should be able to charge whatever the hell he feels like? If the market can support the rate so be it, if not it'll be what it is.

View on HN

You are correct and at $3000/month the tenants would be better off getting a mortgage and buying own property

Here in Ireland there is now calls to cap rent increases which is stupid, the reason for recent rent price rises is the lack of building after the Great Recession from which the country is only now emerging, making property investment pointless by putting a cap on rent rises at inflation levels would mean even less homes being build. And of course the state and counties dont have any money for Social housing, the only way they can get more money is by raising taxes to even more absurd levels or cutting public services even more, neither is an attractive option for politicians of course.

And if someone disagrees with his ability to do this, does that person disagree with tech companies charging huge margins on their products?

I could just as easily argue that Google keeps too much of their ad revenue. Should we as a society force them to share with the website owners?

We regulate all kinds of things that the free market does not deal with well.

I would argue that Google does keep too much of their ad revenue and the government should tighten tax rules so that they can't just sequester money away overseas without paying any meaningful taxes on it.

Or they need to have more competitors.

We don't regulate "things the free market doesn't deal with well", we regulate "things the politicians can get votes and/or fat donations out of regulating.

So are you arguing that regulations do not exist to address market failures?

If you define "market failure" as "failure of the market to be sufficiently biased in favour of politically important constituencies", perhaps.

It it impossible to consider the possibility that a free market can fail.

I would take issue with the view of somebody's home as a commodity or an investment. Yes, it gets treated that way legally, but this is where people live, where people raise their families. There is a huge amount of emotional investment that isn't reflected in the rent, especially when the people living there can't afford to pay more. "Oh, you can't afford to live here any more? Then get wealthier or move some place cheaper" is a pretty cold and calculating view of how people should live, especially given that in many cases they've lived here their whole lives, or their families for many generations. That they should be forced to leave because a bunch of wealthy developers like the culture they and their families have built and are willing to pay more for it strikes me as capitalism for the sake of capitalism with no real concern for the people most affected by it.

The problem is that the side effects of rent caps and hard development limits have produced so many poor results.

Rent control in New York has worked poorly. The result is a few select people pay a fraction of what everyone else pays. Development difficulties have created San Francisco's crazy, crazy prices.

In Australia restrictive planning has contributed substantially to making the Sydney median price 1M AUD for a free standing house with 10km of the CBD.

In London restrictive planning has contributed to crazy, crazy prices.

Meanwhile in Houston, with vastly fewer rules, houses are affordable for low income families.

If housing stability is essential, you should own your housing. As a renter, the tradeoff you're making is more flexibility for the potential that you might have to move.

Lots of people "should" own their housing. Turns out what one should do and what is economically capable of doing are rather divergent ideas! As a renter, the tradeoff is you can have a roof over your head because buying is absolutely beyond the reach of an alarming number of Americans.

The problem is that there is a finite supply of real property, and real estate is one of the more corrupt/nonfunctional markets that makes misbehavior by landowners a very one-sided process.

So unless you are a person in favor of cartel pricing behavior, than no, he shouldn't be able to farm more money just because he can.

He should because there are no rules against it.

If you think it's unfair it is useless to flag this guy. Your representatives are the one that needs to hear your discontent.

He should, but government should figure out whether there are any barriers to building new housing and remove them, which might be the case if market prices are somehow tripling (i.e. demand is spiking but supply somehow isn't rising as well).

SO SIMPLE .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com