Hacker News Reader

Comment by mywittyname | Hacker News Reader

I prefer this system too. Forcing people out by jacking up rent prices is the capitalist's solution, but not a good solution when applied to housing, IMHO. Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along? You can't pay a bunch of money and force a poorer person out of the hospital.

"Sorry, but we're full" is a completely valid response if maintaining affordable housing is more important than accommodating fervorous growth.

View on HN

That's always been the drawback to renting as opposed to owning.

And the article sure makes it sound like folks in Stockholm move often. Why does it matter if they're 'kicked out' by someone with more money, versus being unable to find stable housing because of the Swedish policies?

It's fairly blind to say that Sweden's solution works so well, while completely ignoring the intended consequences. I see folks in housing policy doing that often -- if your system doesn't work as intended, it doesn't matter that the intent was good!

"Would-be renters without a first-hand contract have the option of either subletting from someone with a long lease or renting from a private landlord. But contracts are often for a year or less, since individuals who choose to let out their homes are usually limited to a fixed period agreed by the building’s housing association and only for a valid reason such as travelling abroad or moving in with a partner."

> That's always been the drawback to renting as opposed to owning.

Owning has the same problem. Rich people move into a neighborhood and jack up property value, making taxes affordable for original residents, who are then forced to move.

I think this is a fairly legitimate position: those who support these controls are essentially saying that the city government should serve the people who currently live in the city, not some outsiders who want to live there to the detriment of those who do so right now.

Of course one ought to be consistent. For example, apply this on a national level and the implications re: immigration policy are obvious.

> Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along

Why should a store that has had groceries all day be forced to give away their groceries when someone with more money comes along?

Which of these sounds better to you:

1) Starving Alice buys a loaf of bread for 1 dollar and obtains 10 units of happiness.

2) Rich Bob buys a loaf of bread for 10 dollars and obtains 1 unit of happiness.

Thing is, in this case Alice might still be starving because Bob got earlier in line and went home with the $1 price-controlled loaf of bread, having saved the $9 to spend on luxuries.

I'm not a utilitarian. If I'm not personally Alice or Bob, I don't care.

Your statement makes no sense.

To use your example in the same vein, why should people be forced to starve because somebody with more money bought up all the food in the region? Oh, and they get to raid their pantries too, but instead of paying the person for the food they get from the pantry, they pay the grocery store they bought it from.

Some people think it's perfectly fine to feed the rich first and let the poor have the scraps. That is the essence of capitalism: scarce goods are distributed based on the willingness to pay. But it's perfectly valid for a society to reject this notion.

It's not perfectly valid. If you consume more than you produce, you will die. I did not make the rules.

> You can't pay a bunch of money and force a poorer person out of the hospital.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you probably can. I would assume you can also get bumped higher up on lists for organ transplants etc if you have the right connections (read: are willing to pay, i.e. by donating a nontrivial amount of money to support research the hospital is doing).

Maybe in the US, but not in Sweden.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Listen to/read this: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/09/tina_rosenberg.html

Summary: most of the world doesn't allow selling internal organs, but Iran does, and it's been interesting to study how that's developed.

Explicit exchange of goods for kidneys isn't allowed in the US, but you can join a "donor chain" which, when you donate to another person, through a chain of people, someone you care about can eventually get a kidney. The chain acts as a central clearinghouse in the absence of direct monetary exchange.

Obviously organs can't be sold. Not sure I'm entirely wrong though, as it seems money can still get you one faster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wealth-may-give-advantag...

> Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along

Because they are renting and that's what renting means?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com