Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamfi | Hacker News Reader

> Rising rents due to speculation or just plain landlord greed

Well, you'd need both, not just one: landlord greed has a cap, average rents can't be much more than the cost of buying, though there will always be some folks who don't qualify for a mortgage for whatever reason. The only reason landlords can be greedy is the leverage they have because supply is constrained -- otherwise, their greed would be thwarted by developers' greed!

Speculation and landlord greed only really affect prices in a supply-constrained environment. In markets where housing is a commodity, and can actually be produced, the cost of housing tends towards the cost of land acquisition & construction. Not always smoothly, of course...if demand jumps very suddenly, the construction market needs time to adjust, etc.

View on HN

That assumes the market is rational and the actors within are rational.

I guess? But

> I advocate a combination of strong rent control, aggressively subsidized housing and consistent growth (especially vertically) where possible.

That assumes rational actors in local government, which strikes me as even more fanciful.

I'm of the mind that markets may be rational *given* (and here's the key) a long enough time period.

However, human needs have an expiration date and often cannot wait for the market to make sense.

| That assumes rational actors in local government

No it doesn't, if you can build enough power you can force local governments to enact these kinds of reforms.

All politicians can be pressured if you know where to push.

Yes, on the one hand you could bet on the power of a bunch of individuals the system serves well-enough (after all, they're still here!) to apply political pressure to some set of local governments (though, note that rent control is starting to be regulated at the state level) to change policy to help the less-well-off in their neighborhoods.

On the other hand, you could bet on "rational activity" from landlords and developers—aka greedy self-interest.

So, sure, you might get a conscientious grassroots group to apply political pressure for rent control when it's not in their own self-interest. But you can 100% count on developers and landlords to be greedy, and I'd much rather channel that group into the outcome I want while I wait and hope for the former.

| a bunch of individuals the system serves well-enough

Again, are you talking about SFBA? Because I thought we addressed that.

Nope. Look who overwhelmingly applies pressure to local governments everywhere -- it's not the marginalized and poor! This is not an SFBA phenomenon, it's almost a natural law.

| after all, they're still here!

This is a very SFBA thing to say.

| Look who overwhelmingly applies pressure

Yeah, I'm not talking about those people.

Poor and working people have mobilized plenty of times before. That's been constant throughout modern history and only in the past few decades have we had an ahistorical low period of organizing activity. I expect that lull to end in the coming years. In many ways it already has.

> This is a very SFBA thing to say.

I'm not sure how it's a very SFBA thing to point out that the people who have a voice in local politics are the people who haven't been displaced?

> Poor and working people have mobilized plenty of times before

This would require them working in their own rational self-interest too, though -- which (a) there isn't much evidence for, and (b) kinda negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors.

| people who haven't been displaced?

Displacement far enough that they are outside of the local political jurisdiction is specific to there. In places like Peoria, it's just further economic immiseration within Peoria. Most of America is not being gentrified, rents are just rising. There's a difference.

| (a) there isn't much evidence for

There is plenty of evidence for that. You might just have a recency bias.

| negates your earlier argument about assuming rational actors

I don't put people mobilizing into the ideological framework of "the market". I don't put much faith into the ideological framework of markets generally. I find it only slightly more useful of a tool of understanding social forces than, say, astrology.

Importantly, I'm not talking about what will happen by virtue of some outside force or guarantee of history. I'm talking about we need to make happen by force of will.

> Most of America is not being gentrified, rents are just rising.

Peoria has a 50%+ homeownership rate. Most of the people voting locally are not facing rising rents, let alone rents at all.

> There is plenty of evidence for that. You might just have a recency bias.

> I don't put people mobilizing into the ideological framework of "the market".

Ah, I see, you don’t actually care about whether people act in their own self-interest, you just don’t like capital-E Economics and are using this as an excuse to throw out all of our understanding that people respond to incentives.

“The market” is not the only ideological framework that assumes rational actors. Do you have an alternate model of non-rational humans that you are assuming when you’re talking about making things happen by “people mobilizing”? Are they somehow not considering their own self-interest?

> Importantly, I'm not talking about what will happen by virtue of some outside force or guarantee of history

Of course. But those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

| But those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Ha! Right back atcha, kid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com