'Renters Are Struggling': Economists Back Tenant-Led Push for Federal Rent Control
'Renters Are Struggling': Economists Back Tenant-Led Push for Federal Rent Control
"We have seen corporate landlords—who own a larger share of the rental market than ever before—use inflation as an excuse to hike rents and reap excess profits beyond what should be considered fair and reasonable."
You're viewing a single thread.
My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.
The better plan here would be to stop companies from buying residential properties, to incentivized the conversion of commercial properties into apartments, to penalize banks and individuals who are sitting on unused residential properties.
Oh, and wipe out all student loan debt so that younger generations have a prayer of buying a house someday.
There's also an underlying layer to this problem with a specific type of home owner: the foreign investor. These individuals use American properties to hide their wealth from their home countries. Tax evasion, high ROI, and increased scarcity in every purchase. Homes often go months and years without occupancy, sometimes with minimal furnishings so as not to appear vacant.
I'm not saying foreigners shouldn't buy homes in America. However, if they do buy a home they should be required to occupy each individual property for a minimum of 6-9 months every year. Otherwise, a heavy tax that exceeds the property's/ies annual appreciation to encourage occupancy or selling would be ideal.
Georgia had this problem decades ago and fixed it by lowering adverse possession requirements down to 13 months of occupation. It's back to over a decade now but I liked that approach.
Which sounds nice, but how do we prove they are or are not actually living there?
I mean, if they lie about their primary residency, that's a whole set of legal problems they've got themselves in
Even if they lie requiring X months would at least put a cap on how many they could own since there are only 12 months in the year.
Iirc primary residency is already living in a single home more than 6 months out of a year, or where you lived the majority of the time
True I guess I was reading more into the original comment on taxing more than appreciation and such. I know there are tax benefits to primary residence already, which maybe covers their original idea, but I figured it would be even higher taxes for foreigners for non-primary residence or something was what they were suggesting.
Technically true but want to guess how many realtors buy a house , homestead the place for a couple of years then sell it?
Hint: the number is a lot higher then people might think.
There are a lot of ways to get around problems just by thinking outside of the box. Might it slow down the problem? Maybe.
So they're buying a new house every few years and selling the old one? If they have only one house at a time, I don't really care much. The issue is when billion dollar corporations buy up single family homes to rent out, not an individual buying a house to live in and sell it in a few years
Utility usage? Pull up the last 6 months of, like, water use (since you need to have water so it's a solid metric).
My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.
Yeah, the basic problem with rent control is that it creates the opposite long-term incentive from what you want.
Rentable housing is like any other good -- it costs more when the supply is constrained relative to demand, costs less when supply is abundant relative to demand.
If rent is high, what you want is to see more housing built.
What rent control does is to cut the return on rents, which makes it less desirable to buy property to rent, which makes it less desirable to build property, which constrains the supply of housing, which exacerbates the original problem of not having as much housing as one would want in the market.
I would not advocate for it myself, but if someone is a big fan of subsidizing housing the poor, what they realistically want is to subsidize housing for the poor out of taxes or something. They don't want to disincentivize purchase of housing for rent, which is what rent control does.
Where's all this housing being built as a result of sky-high rents? If they are being built, they're being snatched up immediately by "investor" parasites.
New construction is happening. Just not as fast as we need it. And the cost of materials isn't helping.
What are you referring to? I don't see all this new housing being built. I only know about three active sites in my city. I also know that our local zoning board has been rejecting applications because of neighborhood character.
I would run to serve but it's an appointed position. Which yeah not great.
I also know that our local zoning board has been rejecting applications because of neighborhood character.
Sounds like you already know what one of the biggest issues is.
It's so bad in California that the state legislature has been passing laws directly addressing city zoning boards that won't approve housing.
If you subsidize housing you create increased demand for housing, ultimately leading to rent going up for all.
Zoning reform is the solution. Cities are no place for single-family exclusionary zoning and height limits on housing
If you subsidize housing you create increased demand for housing, ultimately leading to rent going up for all.
So, as I said, I'm not an advocate of subsidizing housing out of taxes. I'm just saying that people who are arguing for rent control are arguing for a policy that tends to exacerbate the problem in the long run.
Subsidizing housing doesn't normally run into that, because it's normally possible to build more housing.
It is true that that's not always the case, and one very real way in which that can not be the case is where there have been restrictions placed on constructing more housing. If housing prices are high, the first thing I would look at is "why can't developers build more housing, and are there regulatory restrictions preventing them from doing so". It is quite common to place height restrictions on new constructions, which prevents developers from building property to meet that demand, which drives up housing prices (and rents). In London, there are restrictions placed that disallow building upwards such that a building would be in line-of-sight between several landmarks. That restricts construction in London and makes housing prices artificially rise. Getting planning permission may also be a bottleneck. I agree with you that that sort of thing is the thing that I would tend to look at first as well: removing restrictions on housing construction is the preferable way to solve a housing problem.
I remember an article from Edward Glaeser some time back talking about how much restrictions on construction -- he particularly objected to the expanding number of protected older, short buildings -- have led to cost of housing going up.
How Skyscrapers Can Save the City
Besides making cities more affordable and architecturally interesting, tall buildings are greener than sprawl, and they foster social capital and creativity. Yet some urban planners and preservationists seem to have a misplaced fear of heights that yields damaging restrictions on how tall a building can be. From New York to Paris to Mumbai, there’s a powerful case for building up, not out.
By Edward Glaeser
It looks like it's paywalled, so here:
Ah if you meant subsidizing housing construction I'm 100% with you
Part of the problem with rent control is that it doesn't subsidize the building of new housing. The times in which housing prices dropped in the USA were typically when a government either opened up land to development, subsidized the building of housing, or built the housing themselves.
My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.
There are critiques against rent control that have persisted for decades that are now seeing a growing body of counter-evidence that it maybe isn't that bad after all. Hence the resurgence of rent control being suggested as a policy tool. It makes sense that the myth that rent control is bad has persisted for so long - high earning economists (yes, they're very high earners) who are thus more likely to own rental units have an incentive to publish research showing that policies that harm their rental income are bad, and have less incentive to publish research that shows policies like these benefit the renter over the landlord.
Here's a great article by J. W. Mason, who has a PhD in economics, who goes over more recent research around rent control. He shows that it's far more nuanced and less clearly "bad" than right wing economists have been trying to push us to believe.
https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/
This better matches my understanding than OP's take. It's not necessarily that certain folks were being disingenuous (though of course with financial matters that's also common), but more so that rent control is designed to help people closer to the bottom of the financial ladder, and those people are also disenfranchised in other ways, including their results bring unreported or thrown under the rug.
The difference now is that the housing system is so screwed and skewed overall, rent control would likely benefit far more folks than those at the absolute bottom of the financial ladder -- that, or the wealth gap is just so large that there's a huge number of people at the bottom, all roughly equivalent to each other given how rich the rich have become.
test
I'm not really worried about commercial landlords. Most of them are okay. A few are great, a few are slumlords.
What I'd really like to see is more and denser housing being built, period. And investment in infrastructure like public transit so that places are more accessible, more livable.
Who told you rent control backfired? Cause that's a lie. It was just never adopted as widely as it should have been, and rich owners always have the ear of lawmakers ... the same can't be said of poor/working poor people.
Capitalist/free market* economists.
Rent control works just fine in a more socialist model, especially when the government is a prime builder of housing without seeking profit, as almost every European country was during the 50s-70s. It's only when government gets out of house building and everything gets privatisated and for-profit that rent control fails.
Can you name some countries/policies where it's a continuing success?
Depends on your definition of "success." Countries such as Holland, France, Canada, Germany, and China all have caps on the amount by which a landlord can increase rent in any given year, usually by law it's less than 5%, or indexed to inflation (but with 5% as the max). These laws are incredibly popular with renters and have been around for decades.
Berlin implemented a hard rent freeze in 2020 which was extremely popular with renters, but not with landlords, naturally.
However, rent control isn't just a hard price cap like back during the war, there are many nuanced aspects, see here for information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/23/berlin-rent-cap-defeated-landlords-empty
You may want to look at how rent control turned out there, and why Europe is broadly turning against rent control, and seeing it as a mistake https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-02/berlin-s-rent-controls-are-proving-to-be-the-disaster-we-feared?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner
I unfortunately can't read that article as it's paywalled, but looking at the link, it's an Opinion piece, so not factual reporting. It's also from Bloomberg, one of the most pro-capitalist publications out there, second only to The Economist in its championing of all things pro globalist and pro capitalist.
The main stream media which is all very pro capitalist (as they're all owned by billionaire oligarchs) has been shitting on rent control for decades.
Here's a more nuanced article on the matter which doesn't come from such a pro-capitalist, classical economic outlook: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/23/berlin-rent-cap-defeated-landlords-empty
That article is literally about how rent shot up because of rent control policies.
Also it is an opinion article and written as if rent control is a good thing.
Rent didn't shoot up, how could it, the whole point of the law was it was frozen.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees in this entire conversation: rent has been skyrocketing everywhere, in every G8 country, for the last 20 years. Especially in places like London, NYC, LA, Seattle, Paris, Toronto, Bay Area, etc. Hell, even in Salt Lake City where I used to live my rent went from £1816/mon to £2600/mon for the same flat, in just 2 years. And none of those cities have classic rent control (NYC has a few places which have it, but overall it doesn't). So clearly with a free market, pure capitalist approach, rents have only been skyrocketing. Same thing for housing to buy, have you tried buying a house lately?
So to claim that rent control or rent freezes lead to higher rentals or less supply is wrong, because rents are going up in a free market too, and supply is already at an all time low (hence the prices shooting up).
So you're fucked in either situation. The real problem is there just isn't enough supply of shelter for people, and that's because if you leave it to the free market, there's no incentive to build affordable housing with no profit. Hence, because shelter is something required by citizens, government should be building it even at a huge loss. Just like government provides fire brigade and military at a financial loss, because people need these things. You don't leave essential services to the private market because it may not be profitable to do them, for example, rural communities have shite internet, why? because it's not profitable to dig and lay fibre optic cable into some rural hinterland for just a few hundred customers. So in Norway, the government steps in lays that fiber optic at a financial loss because it wants its citizens to have a better life. Same for housing. If the private sector isn't doing it, the government should be. Just like in the 60s.
Rent goes up because we have insufficient housing construction, and we have insufficient going construction becuause zoning laws prevent housing construction. Literally none of the places you bring up have anything approaching a free market wrt housing construction.
I am aware that the government can encourage building and it should do so. Vote locally to repeal zoning laws.
If government says the private sector cannot do something, then yeah you'll see few or no businesses doing that thing.
Zoning is only a small part of the problem. Even if you zoned a bunch of new land today, if you let the private, free market have its course, then what do you think will be built on that land? Highly unaffordable luxury flats/houses, because that is what leads to the highest profit margins for the private sectors builders. And those flats will be bought up by investors or wealthy individuals to create more unaffordable rent.
That's the core issue, individual private sector interests are not aligned to be altruistic interests for the good of society. They want to maximise profit, nothing more. Hence, you need someone willing to build houses and sell them at a loss, so average people can afford housing again. Only the government can sell for a loss and remain in business.
Ergo, you can zone all the land you want, but if you only let private sector builders have it, then you'll just get more and more unaffordable properties built, chasing rich foreign investors, tech millionaires, or pension funds.
This is the core issue with Thatcherism/deregulation/privatisation. An individual company's profit margins don't always align with the good of society, but society needs essential services (water, sewage, electricity, food, housing, defense). These things need to be provided to all citizens, urban and rural, but doing so doesn't always guarantee a profit, so you can't just leave it to the private sector only.
Don't know if you've noticed this yet, but the United States has a capitalist economy.
The US has lots of socialized losses but privatized profits. To call it a capitalist economy is a gross oversimplification which glosses over the fact that no corporation is actually competing in a free market at this point.
And it's failing
Semi. It's got bits and pieces of all systems, which is a hint that the "-ism" powering any country's economy doesn't have as big an impact as its leaders.
Unfortunately, capitalism tends to reward corruption, it's much easier and profitable to be corrupt than to do the right thing™.
Libraries are socialist. Otherwise every person in a fully capitalist system would be expected to buy their personal copy of a book.
Libraries are not socialist. Socialism is not, in fact, when the government does things.
Thank you, boring and incorrect pedant.
It truly depends on the definition of socialism. Is it socialist anytime a service is provided by the govt? Or solely when public policy limits the abilities of capital?
You and I disagree, and that's ok cuz I don't care.
Yes we disagree on the meaning of a word, which means one of us is correct, and it's me
You're wrong again and contribute nothing, as usual. How sad.
What you're referring to is called a "mixed economy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
And you're right - there are scales with capitalism and socialism weighing against each other in basically every economy. Finland, Norway, France are examples where it's tipped a bit more in favour of the "socialism" side. But the US has plenty of elements of socialism, from housing coops in the Bronx, to utility coops in the midwest (that helped pave the way for the electrification of rural America), to credit unions, to welfare policies, to the Alaska social wealth fund, and I could keep going.
Finland and Norway have among the highest percentage of private investment in the world, to the extent that investment is the leading economic driver in Nordic countries.
They are not socialist countries.
The author of that article is Megan McArdle. A quick look at her other articles:
- An article that attempts to shift blame away from media execs and onto consumers, in response to the writers/actors' protests
- "Higher minimum wages may increase homelessness" (literal article title)
- Says we shouldn't expect to keep taxing wealthy people
- Wants to reduce medicaid but conveniently doesn't mention the amount of death poor people will experience as a result of that, using the same austerity justifications we've heard in Europe already (that turned out to be bullshit)
I'm sure she has no right wing economics bias lol
Putting all your faith in economists whose sole purpose is to back the current capitalist shitshow that rapes the land and kills the poor is a strange take.
But you do you I guess.