Prices should increase in the case of increased demand. Prices must increase in that case if you want the supply to increase, which is the only way to actually meet demand.
It's how the market works ffs.
It's how the market works ffs.
There's no need to swear at people, this is an interesting and complicated topic with many valid points to debate.
Supply and demand is one of the simplest concepts in economics and yet rent control does nothing to increase supply. In fact, it decreases supply by not shifting prices higher to induce more production.
That's what makes it one of the weakest. The housing market does not follow a standard supply-demand curve for a number of reasons.
> Rent control has never been good anywhere.
Citation needed. Rent control has helped a lot of people find stability in a time of need, enabling less trauma, stress and improving chances of class mobility.
> In fact, it decreases supply by not shifting prices higher to induce more production.
Is this a real effect that you can measure in the real world? Has this ever happened in reality before? Or is this a theoretical concept? One that you assume plays out under ideal circumstances and that I assume are never met in real life?
That would make it the first in history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>Rent control has helped a lot of people find stability in a time of need
So has the lottery. Doesn’t mean it’s not bad overall. The massive portion of people that don’t hit the rent control lottery (I.e. anyone who has to move) get screwed and the whole middle and upper class gets screwed by a poorly incentivized supply.
>Is this a real effect that you can measure in the real world?
Yes. Look at any place where there is rent control and you will find it still has unaffordable prices often far above the national average. It has never been a net good for society. It doesn’t increase housing supply and the pigeon hole principle should be simple enough for you to understand what that means.
You can't have it both ways: saying you should have free reign in determining the value of your property, while also claiming the government can't tax you according to that value.
In fact a land value tax could replace property tax in a revenue neutral fashion, and would incentivize development of property and density, rather than disincentivize those like property tax does.
If you were to tax on the basis of land value the immediate impact would be massive increases in taxes payed in rural areas as a byproduct of the necessary increase in tax rates on land.
Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people.
PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.
The point still stands that rent control is a terrible way to keep rent down, it causes a ton of problems.
So arbitrary rent is a much better way to keep rent down? Come on...
And yes, if you’re living in a rent controlled place and paying $1000 per month when the same place is going for $3000, it’s virtually a cash transfer from the landlord to you every month.
That’s why you hear about massive ($100k+) buyouts in SF.
It's mind blowing how landlords forget that the reason the vast majority of them can afford to be a landlord is because they don't pay market rate property taxes.
These laws are not reducing rent, only slowing the increase yr/yr
I live in a city where there are more residential properties than families. Prices are a tiny fraction of what y’all on the coasts cite. Apartments under $1000/month in trendy neighborhoods is common here. I’ve rented small apartments here for $500/month.
Rent controls may slow price increases, but encouraging supply decreases price. You can’t fix the problem until you treat the root cause rather than the symptom.
If you do, you couldn't be more wrong. Healthcare is the most regulated, least free market in the US.
Pretty sure rent controls would have no effect on the amount of substance abuse and mental illness that plagues so many homeless.