> Edit: And rent control? Virtually every economist of all ideological stripes agrees that rent control is ultimately self defeating in the long term. And just look what happens with people that live in rent-controlled cities. Families hang on to those apartments like they're diamonds, and all it does is create a world of "haves vs. have nots", where it's like a big lottery to get a rent controlled apartment, but meanwhile you've disincentivized builders from building any new stock.
That “unanimous” agreement is starting to change and outside the US there was never unanimity on the subject.
As per usual it is an issue that has already been tackled by other nations but that we in the US insist is a “uniquely American” issue.
In countries that have a constitutions that don’t read like a product of an eleventh hour scramble to finish a homework assignment, that is to say, most western countries, they’ve chosen to enshrine certain human rights in their constitution.
Like the right to accessible housing.
This serves as a mandate for the government to enable this.
In most countries, although details can differ, this translates to strong tenant protections and market-wide rent control.
Having those two points at the foundation will literally negate any argument raised against rent control in the US.
If it’s market-wide then there are no haves and have nots, everyone is a have.
Another argument that’s often thrown around is that landlords would stop investing in the upkeep of property, but in a society with strong tenant protections and market-wide rent control that prospect simply doesn’t exist.
Why?
Because the rent control is often based on a point system that sets the price and the tenant protections require a certain standard of living.
If the property isn’t kept up the landlord will receive less rent, or hell, in egregious cases no rent at all.
You’ll see that with that stick behind the door, all of a sudden the landlord is perfectly capable to keep their properties up to par.
Another thing that’s thrown around often is that there wouldn’t be any incentive to build more housing.
Never mind the fact that in those countries this notion that the sky will come falling down has yet to come to fruition, it’s often the very same American real estate investment companies that are warning for the end of times here in the US if tenant protections and rent control will be passed, that are building and buying up rental properties over there.
In fact, the same issue here, conglomeration of big corporate landlords, is becoming an issue there. Often these corporations are American and lately also Chinese.
So it seems that landlords there still have a huge appetite, despite the strong tenant protections, strong tenant unions and strong rent control, all of which are even far beyond what is proposed here in the US.
Because the real fact of the matter is, that as long as profit can be made, however small, people will still try to make that profit and not, like you and others are suggesting, just call it quits.
This is because it simply depends on what is “normal” and in the US we need a new “normal” like the one on those other countries.
And let’s be clear, that “normal” is still nothing to sneeze at, this despite the cost of construction being significantly higher in many of those countries as well as the corporate taxes that are involved.
What we need in the US is more willingness to look at our peers and see how they’ve handled certain issues.
But the main problem is the lack of political will, across the spectrum, to actually deal with these issues, because of corporate money being pumped around into political pockets.
Which is a topic for another time I suppose.