Turnabout is fair play. If owners organize politically to control supply, tenants can organize politically to control prices.
The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: government artificially suppressing supply, and government manipulating prices which has bad side effects for mamy even if its good for a few.
Also, in reality, the powerful often don't get hurt, and arbitrary market manipulations just introduce new ways for them to get an advantage somehow.
There are way more renters than owners. Prices have been going up more than 5%. Owners are most definitely not the "less-powerful" here.
So in reality the gov't might be artificially surpressing supply (though it's mostly due to owner pushback), but the "manipulating prices" (trying to keep rent growth from getting out of control) is helping less-powerful.
I get the point about how this can default owners to just increase prices. Well they were going to be doing that anyways! Especially with surpressed supply!
Arguing that "overall price increases with this law" > "overall prices increase without this law" is non-intuitive and probably just not true.
(thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law? This law doesn't prevent other owners from offering _lower_ rents, if the market calls for it)
If you don't raise it now then you can no longer do it later in the event that taxes or mortgage interest rates or some other cost increases. That creates a major risk for the landlord, which most of them would prefer to mitigate by raising rents even if it means apartments going vacant longer. And when they're all similarly situated, they all do the same thing, which means the tenants can't avoid the rent increases by moving to another apartment, which allows for more of the landlords to get in on the rent increase without incurring vacancies.
source?
Previously: "Rent control policies generally lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled market, with rents some-times substantially higher than would be expected without rent control (i.e., between 10 to 25 percent higher). Over time, if rent control does not apply to new construction, there is some evidence that the impact on uncontrolled rents diminishes." https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-con...
It also follows from supply and demand. Owners are more likely to sell rather than rent out their places, and tenants are more likely to stay in their below-market rent units, both of which reduces supply for new (i.e. market-rate) tenants.
In the spirit of furious agreement, yes the best option would obviously be not to suppress construction.
Just because one interest group wants stupid things to happen that benefit them in the short term doesn't make it a good idea to go open season on stupid things. The goal should always be to improve the state of affairs; not to spread the pain around.
Everyone bar no-one needs institutions stuffed with people who make sensible long-term decisions. The best way to get that is to always pressure them in that direction. Bending to political expedience encourages people who make bad decisions; not a good strategy.
Visible benefits; invisible costs. Great politics.
Who you don't see are the people outside looking in that want an apartment but can't find one, or can't afford one, or need to sign a new lease at a very high rent.
Rent control doesn't unequivocally help current renters. It also keeps them stuck in one place for a long time, even when it's not a great fit for them.
And pretty much every economist says rent control raises rents and lowers quality overall, hurting those trying to move in.
AKA ignore the entire foundation of the previous poster's point?
Edit: upon re-reading your comment I think maybe you don't know what the phrase 'Turnabout is fair play.' means.
It's a bit fatalistic but if we're going down anyway, we're going down together!
The reason is that landlords know exactly what rent control does.
Landlords know that the tenants with the strongest interest in local housing costs are the people who already live there and plan to continue to do so indefinitely. Rent control is a method of buying them off without actually solving the problem in general, so that overall rents and housing costs remain high but the subset of people most likely to be politically active in doing something to correct that gets a bribe to stop objecting while overall housing costs continue to rise faster than inflation.
What it is, then, is not a step on the road to a real solution, it's a roadblock preventing that from happening by weakening opposition to the status quo by just enough that no actually effective reforms can be enacted.
If you're asking how to get that passed, well, that's an education problem. You need people to understand why rent control is not a solution so that they are not willing to accept it over something that actually works.
It's the sort of false compromise that happens in politics all the time. Instead of solving the problem, you enact some alleged solution that really does nothing or makes the problem worse, but then politicians get to go tell the voters that they've done something. Then, when it doesn't work, they get to go back and pass another ineffective bill to "solve" it again in the next election cycle, meanwhile we get another four years of young people not being able to afford housing.
It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction.
A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlords to stop opposing construction.
95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas.
All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.
$1000 a month for a brand new 740 square foot apartment in the middle of San Francisco. Plus with modern finishes that are frankly much nicer than anything you'll find in the low-end SF rental market. I'd imagine quite a lot of people would sign up.
This is mostly from an NYT article, so perhaps it's just one school if thought among many, but I found it convincing on the merits. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/shipping-containe...
I'm in a high-demand city in Canada. The house I'm in right now is worth about $70k. The land it sits on is worth $900k. Shipping containers aren't going to help with that.
Don't know where you live, but I doubt it's more expensive land than San Francisco, where the average acre of land costs $3.2 million[1]. Taking that acre of land, save half the area for green-space and courtyard. Use half the footprint for shipping containers. Stack the containers 8 high.
You now have 242 double-pod units. The amortized land cost per unit is $13,000. Assuming a generous rental yield of 12%, the land cost only adds $130 a month to the rent. That's hardly anything for a 720 square foot apartment.
The lesson is that even San Francisco land costs are no match for the power of high-rise high-density housing.
[1] https://www.6sqft.com/study-shows-huge-disparity-in-u-s-urba...
If cheap, abundant, shipping containers pull 25% of the demand out of the low-end multi-family segment, that's a 50% drop in prices. Low-end housing is a substitute good with mid-end housing for at least some of the demand.
The prime example are people who live with roommates in mid-end housing, who with cheap enough low-end prices, would get their own place. A 50% price shock to low-end multi-family at the very least would pull 10% of the demand out of the mid-end. That would lead to a 20% drop in mid-end multi-family prices.
Just the same there's at least some substitutability between mid-end multi-family and mid-to-high-end single family. A prime example are empty-nesters looking to downsize. With a 20% price shock to multi-family, that would suck at least 5% of the demand out of the single-family segment. That's a minimum of a 10% price reduction.
Hence a positive supply shock in the form of cheap, abundant shipping container homes would reduce the price of mid-high-end single family homes by at least 10%. This is all micro-econ 101.
Modular apartment buildings also exist and can be thrown together quickly and affordably.
Not to be rude, but the problem is likely going to take a bit more to solve than throwing shipping containers at it..
There's obviously money to be had in leveling a block of houses and increasing the population density by 10-30 times the amount. The market demand is extremely high. Real estate developers would jump at the chance to do so if they thought they could get through all the red tape. The landlords owning those houses would certainly sell for the right price.
The entire society is abandoning free market principles in favor of social engineering. If they're not careful, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.
I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
What about...petroleum? Like it or not, it's necessary for survival today. Absolutely ruthless capitalism at play, and at the hands of a lot of people we don't like. And yet...the system works pretty ok, I think? The last major oil shock we had was in the '70s -- not bad, considering how many financial crises we've had since then.
I don't get what is your proposed alternative to "ruthless capitalism" for housing. Are you proposing "single payer housing"? Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
Your point seems to be that food and oil are beneficiaries of subsidies in the US, therefore are not "ruthless capitalism".
The US government pays $20B/yr in farm subsidies. HUD has a budget of $40B, and the mortgage interest deduction is a $110B/yr subsidy to homeowners.
If food in the US is subsidized such that it is not "ruthless capitalism", then on this basis it would seem to me that housing has been subsidized well beyond the point of "ruthless capitalism" as well. Yet OP (and you) seem to think that food is subsidized to a far greater degree than housing. I challenge you to make a concrete case that this is true, either in the US or globally in general.
Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
Are you in fact arguing that US farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
Basically yes. The “progressive” position on affordable housing generally calls for major government investment in housing. This is not a new idea; in the U.S., much of the big buildout of middle class housing last century was heavily subsidized by HUD.
Demand for petroleum is not explained by capitalism, but rather by humanity's collective laziness
This does not seem like much of an argument against a capitalist system! I would call this a win for capitalism then, and a loss for governments sidestepping their obligations to, you know, govern.
I am the first person to agree that oil companies have used their money and influence to buy favorable regulations, putting the whole world in danger. On the other hand, this again seems like a failure of government rather than a failure of capitalism. Indeed, the powerful using their influence to protect their interests is something that has happened under every economic system ever tried, no?
>> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market [...] > Basically yes.
Are you familiar with the notion of "the projects"? I wouldn't say this turned out well for anyone...
The good news is that the major driver of cost in places like SF isn't actually the cost of building per se but instead is the cost of absurd regulations, causing it to take many years of fighting with NIMBYs just to get a permit to build anything. Solving this morass would be a huge effective subsidy to developers and would cost the public literally nothing. If you're in favor of subsidizing housing development, I hope you're in favor of starting with this?
If you play that dynamic forward you end up in a situation where everyone is overpaying compared to a more fluid market, even those longer term tenants.
Now, if we're talking about planned cities built in the 80s in orange county, maybe we have a point! Maybe.
SF has a similar story of sorts. Building code regulations were heavily relaxed after the 1906 earthquake in fear that people wouldn't rebuild otherwise.
Businesses will build whatever is most profitable. If it's more profitable to de-regulate and unzone everything, then they would be lobbying like hell to get that.
Reductionist statements like yours never really reflect any real-world policy environment. The real world is messy and complicated.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-pa...
That's fine for existing renters, but think about people who would like to move there to pursue a job, or live in a state friendlier to gay people or for whatever reason. They're going to find it harder to find a place to live, in all likelihood.
And D.C. is only doing that because it's just one city. Cities are the winners in the current economy. They happen to be liberal. Cities in Texas and Tenesee happen to be conservative, and they're doing swimmingly also.
Despite how much people get worked up, policy doesn't have a huge macroeconomic effect.
I don't know anything about Tennessee, but cities in Texas are not conservative. See these maps of 2012 and 2016 election results by county:
https://www.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/Map-co...
Even most southern cities like Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami are well into the 60s.
Even if Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are like ~52% for the last 8 years, they're a bit of an outlier as far as major cities go.
Sometimes the system has to break down before progress happens.
So when over-regulation drives up prices, the appropriate response is to introduce new regulations to fight the other regulations? Because that’s exactly what this is. It won’t even improve the problem. The problem is that there are more people who want to live in California than there is housing. The reason for that is because regulations prohibit the market from increasing supply at a rate that comes anywhere near keeping up with demand.
Yes. The effort to reduce regulations on construction has failed. As such, retaliating against the beneficiaries of those regulations with counter-regulations is appropriate.
It's not pretty or efficient, this is a fight between different interests, not a group problem-solving effort.
EDIT: to be clear, not suffering for its own sake, but to pressure owners to stop supporting the current regulations.
This law in California allows for 5% annual increases after inflation. It’s hard to see how this will even hurt landlords. Creating a pretty clear incentive to perform a maximum increase ever year doesn’t seem great for renters though.
Hopefully this move leads relaxed zoning laws and regulations, allowing new development... People who want such things will gain political clout because capital will want return on investment, and rent control shifts the calculus for good ROI in the real estate market toward new development (marginally).
I'm sure hundreds of economists have written thousands of papers about this subject, each going its own idiosyncratic way, so maybe I've actually been proven wrong in this particular case, I don't know, but I have to say that the idea that regulation only ever increases costs is silly.
It does precisely the opposite. It reduces the value of rental properties, which makes investing in constructing them less competitive against investment in constructing new housing in some other state or country, or constructing commercial properties rather than residential ones, or any other competing investment securities.
This has already been proposed by Scott Wiener as SB50. It was opposed by local councils and never put to an actual vote, and it never will be, unless political pressure is applied in the form of counter-regulation.
supply is not rising to meet demand
Lack of profit incentives is NOT what is blocking housing construction in CA right now.
This very minor, way above inflation, rent cap will not affect housing supply.
In California, 25% of a new SFR is land. Another 25% easy goes to permits and municipal utility connections. 40% construction costs (including paying the boss a salary), and if you are lucky, 10% profit. Simply reducing permitting costs and streamlining the process to reduce holding costs (without even easing restrictions, just being more efficient/faster at the municipal level) could shave 20% off a new home price. That would drive down all home prices to some extent and open up a large number of people to get out of the renters pool.
So CA government is the major player to blame for housing costs, and these laws are in place of just doing their jobs well. This might drive prices down too, eventually, but not nearly as quickly or fairly as bureaucratic reform would.
It's frequently renters talking about gentrification that oppose new housing around me.