Be that as it may, the point in our bureaucracies is precisely to make sure that the decisions we make are based on what we learned over the years and not what some “10x” SWE is throwing a hissy fit about in the daily standup.
For example, it is an empirical fact that rent control greatly decreases the number of people that leave a city, which especially for poorer people means that they get to keep an invaluable support network.
At the same time, there have been publications that straight up found that rent control did not reduce housing stock meaningfully and yet reduced rents.
So the assertion that it "never works" cannot be supported by the evidence because we have evidence of cases and dimensions in which it definitely worked. And that is part of the reason why some of us are subjected to rent control.
I find that this post https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control... is a good start, the video by Unlearning Economics on the subject is also pretty good, which IIRC also touches on the issue that in the rent control debate an increase in the exact same metrics (for example, mobility) is interpreted by some as good and by others as bad.
I think there is a solid case to be made that when used carefully rent control can be a good tool to use in keeping housing costs under control, though of course if used as the only tool then things are likely to end up disastrously.
Really? Would you build an apt building that rent control ensured would be a poor investment? How do you measure investors being reluctant to build more housing in a rent controlled area?
Rent control is good for the few people who get a below market rate. It's bad for everyone else, including those who can't find a place to rent because of it.
We can measure this reluctance by looking at construction rates and general supply in similar groups of cities or neighborhoods with or without rent control, of course controlling for other variables. This has been done in multiple studies, which are listed in the link I provided.
The Non-capitalist Solution to the Housing Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk
The video seems to switch to "non-market" as a description.
This is just pure and simple logic.
What ‘successes’ rent control had are hyped to an abnormal extent, since obviously those with rent controlled apartments are most keen on keeping them, and often they are not the ‘poor’. Again the poor are used here as an excuse for upper middle class bad behavior, locking people out of the city.
Turnover in a city is a good thing btw, not a bad one. But cities do seem to design themselves on keeping people out.
Turnover in a city can be argued to be good or bad. Turnover across a city is more clearly bad, but as a said it's still arguable. In any case, I believe you're not making a great case as your basic argument that limiting choices of rational actors can never lead to better outcomes is incorrect, and I think it would be a good idea to read/watch the material I linked or referred to in order to get a better idea of what I'm arguing and so you can directly try to refute the rebuttals of points I'm going to be making. It's going to be faster than relitigating most of this conversation up until that point.
If you define as achieving market efficiency, maybe that's not the objective.
It's like unionising, it may make companies less market-efficient by giving more power and control to the workers. Rent control affects landlords by giving more power to tenants.
Building more houses, etc., is an orthogonal issue to rent control.
[1] http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jkbrueck/course%20readings/gyourk...
[2] https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/RentControlMy...
Government does plenty of things that are unprofitable for the benefit of all.
This kind of policy needs to be a multipronged approach in policy to provide both new construction and long-term leases (usually 20 years).
[1] https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/www/CountryFiches/hous...
The latest "Behind the Bastards" podcast "Part One: Why is the Rent So Damn High?" explores some of this, if you have the time and inclination to listen.
Only if you ignore the secondary effects, which are legion.
> retain an unconscionable amount of empty units
A secondary effect of rent control
"Secondary effects" - please educate us on what they are, and their magnitude.
Certainly rent control distorts the market unnaturally, but it does so in favor of tenants and human rights, and proportionally speaking, I don't think it's the biggest distortion by a long shot. The much larger distortion causing the market problems is the optimization of rent prices at the expense of human rights.
If the market is to be distorted, I personally would pick the one that prioritizes continuity of housing over the one that maximizes rent income over total units rented.
The civil service is mostly designed to provide some level of basic stability and functioning so that no matter what flavor of the month politician gets elected you still get your trash picked up, and other services. (If politicians directly target something, though, all bets are off.)