Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghshephard | Hacker News Reader

I find it interesting that we can, with almost 95%+ success, determine who on these threads owns Real Estate in San Francisco, versus those who don't.

There are admittedly some comments that are in the margins, but the number of false positives/negatives is probably pretty close to zero.

In particular, those who rant about the evils of uncontrolled rental markets are 99% likely to not own real estate in San Francisco.

Therefore, those commentors aren't commenting on the objective good or bad of such issues, so much as they are just explaining what their personal situation is. As soon as those people who cried the evils of uncontrolled rental markets came into possession of San Francisco property, they would immediately change their tune.

Should we place any value in ethical principles which are so immediately seen to be self-serving?

View on HN

How can you verify your assumptions about whether or not a commenter owns real estate?

For example, do I own real estate in San Francisco? I think your chances of getting that right are pretty close to 50%.

You haven't made any comments about Real Estate ownership, so I can't make any guesses.

I really like Warren Buffet's perspective, the rules one believes are right, should be created without you knowing what your circumstance will be. That is, if you are trying to determine what is right, or not, about rent controls, you should create without knowing whether you will be renter, or an owner.

I've never met a real estate owner in San Francisco who was rabidly opposed to uncontrolled rent markets - so, with 99% certainly (I'm sure there are some edge cases), anybody who is highly opposed to uncontrolled rent markets is, with a high level of certainty, not a real estate owner in San Francisco.

Incidentally the technical term for what you describe is the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Most famously described by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

I agree with you that we should agree to a set of rules without knowing our circumstances.

But the rest of your argument doesn't make sense. You've never met an SF real estate owner with a certain opinion, so you know something about most of them? There are at least 10,000 SF real estate owners. Have you talked to more than 0.1% of them? And even if you had, how would that help with your original claim that you can identify whether commenters in this thread were SF real estate owners or not?

The meta point that I was trying to make, and I think is really important, not only in this context, but in a vast number of contentious threads, in HN and other arenas, is so often when we are voicing what we propose is a moral, or ethical position, is no more than a declaration of what our particular situation happens to be at that time.

Someone living in a rent-controlled apartment will be a strong believer in rent control. Someone owning real estate will be opposed to rent control. What I find fascinating is that the same person with the same knowledge, background, and education might hold two diametrically opposite positions.

Mostly agreed about your meta point. I think you're omitting the possibility that someone might be opposed to something that benefits them.

But in the non-meta discussion, all I'm saying is that you don't know which commenters are in which situation, and especially not with 95% certainty, like you claimed. Some of the commenters might oppose rent control, even though they benefit from it. Other commenters might strongly support rent control in San Francisco, even though they live in Wyoming. We just don't know.

So - I grant you that I don't have epistemological knowledge of these commentors positions. And yes, you're right, for people that don't have any skin in the game (people outside the bay area) - it's much more difficult to understand what their position is.

I guess my only hope is that when people voice a very strong opinion on this topic (or, for that matter, any topic) - that they might consider whether they are holding that position with a "veil of ignorance", or whether they are just projecting from their own situation.

Agreed, good sir or madam!

>Should we place any value in ethical principles which are so immediately seen to be self-serving?

Are you also including those who own property in SF also included in this? They too would immediately change their tune if they had to sell the property and begin renting.

One party in this made the conscious choice to buy property with these restrictions on it, and receives the benefits of being a property owner (Equity, income from rent, etc) whereas the renter is only receiving benefits intended to protect them from price gouging.

I currently rent because I'm not sure if I want to keep living in my current city, and don't want to go through the troubles of having to sell property if I do decide to move. The last few years, my landlord has raised rent more than would be possible under a SF style rent control. I don't particularly care, because I can afford it and if it reaches a level where I do not think it is a fair price for what I receive, I will move elsewhere. I have no vested interest in this, as I have no desire to rent or buy property in SF.

But your comment seems just as biased as those you are singling out for wanting to protect their own interests.

"Are you also including those who own property in SF also included in this?"

Absolutely.

It's not just owners who are hurt by rent control -- it's also market-rate renters. If rent control were removed, market-rate rents would drop from where they are today. That said, I'm not sure why you think people only argue based on self-interest. Virtually every economist agrees that rent control is objectively bad.

I don't think you need to be a property owner in San Francisco to believe in the free market economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com