GBG also adds to "complexity" and the perception thereof. It makes any "solution" yet another gimmick, which in turn begets more gimmickry. Government bureaucracy swells with "experts" to manage the confounding complexity and "challenges" induced by the notoriously "unintended consequences". Ultimately, "no one man" can manage all this and we're told we need committees to oversee and "manage" the complexity. Scaled up, this is the Federal (feral) government - out of control complexity induced by gimmicks.
Humans are behind market actions just like humans are behind government actions. And, of course, the corollary is that the action can be beneficial or malign. If I understand it correctly, the logic behind rent control is that people will be priced out of the market and left with nowhere to go. However, that removes the incentive for landlords to keep up their properties and to build new housing. But, removing rent control is no panacea either. You make the most off of building the most expensive places to live which in turn displaces others or prices them out of the market. I don't have an answer because the market may be a great way of distributing goods and services but can have lousy results whereas relying upon government backfires as well. Would it be possible to drop rent control but provide incentives to build middle/low income housing?
Nearly every time government tries to "incentivize" something, it goes awry.
Why? Because there is no panacea, no perfect outcome. Because people are people, and will turn government largesse and control to personal benefit. OPM is far easier to gather via government force than competing in a free market is - and that destroys wealth and wastes resources.
Build new housing stock, and lots of it. Increase supply with demand staying steady, and prices overall will fall. Not necessarily in the new stock, but when people who can afford "upgrade" to new digs, the old digs become available and become apt to decrease in rent.
Does it seem unfair that the wealthiest get the nicest housing? They do anyway.
NYC is full of apartments that were the best of the best when first built, but are now considered "middle income."
To reiterate, there is no perfect solution. What we should seek is the path to the best solution, even knowing that solution will not achieve Eden or nirvana. All this government intervention demonstrably makes things worse. If rent control could work, it would have worked by now.
What about all the people who aren't lucky enough to find rent controlled or rent-stabilized housing? What of all those adversely affected by the housing shortage? Why perpetuate a system that benefits a fortunate few but keeps others displaced?
One more thing. You say you don't have an answer, but you still want to keep the thing that's causing the problem in the first place. Aren't those two things in conflict?
I don't necessarily want to keep rent control in place but I don't want the tragedy of people losing where they live and getting shoved out on the streets particularly the elderly.
How about allowing units to go back to market after the current tenant vacates, rather than leaving them under rent control?
How about removing the rent control shackles from the 60,000 empty units that are the "ghost apartments" I mentioned?
How about getting rid of affordable housing mandates, so that developers can actually build more stuff?
How about getting out of the way, so that 120 year old six story walkups can be replaced by modern twelve story structures?
We can ease our way out of rent control without throwing granny in the street. But, if your thoughts jump immediately to granny, aren't you just saying that the problem should persist?
And what happens to granny in the inbetween time? After all, there's no guarantee that the market will provide replacement housing for those on low income.
I answered that already. Granny in her rent-controlled apartment would stay there as long as she wanted. The apartment would go market-rate after that.
Government can't fix these problems because: 1) for the most part, government is the cause and 2) government should never have been involved at all, but once they are, they rarely back out. But, statist solutions sell when the populace is ignorant and gullible. Thus, the gimmickry.
David Copperfield and Criss Angel have nothing on the sleight of hand of which politicians are capable.
GBG also adds to "complexity" and the perception thereof. It makes any "solution" yet another gimmick, which in turn begets more gimmickry. Government bureaucracy swells with "experts" to manage the confounding complexity and "challenges" induced by the notoriously "unintended consequences". Ultimately, "no one man" can manage all this and we're told we need committees to oversee and "manage" the complexity. Scaled up, this is the Federal (feral) government - out of control complexity induced by gimmicks.
Humans are behind market actions just like humans are behind government actions. And, of course, the corollary is that the action can be beneficial or malign. If I understand it correctly, the logic behind rent control is that people will be priced out of the market and left with nowhere to go. However, that removes the incentive for landlords to keep up their properties and to build new housing. But, removing rent control is no panacea either. You make the most off of building the most expensive places to live which in turn displaces others or prices them out of the market. I don't have an answer because the market may be a great way of distributing goods and services but can have lousy results whereas relying upon government backfires as well. Would it be possible to drop rent control but provide incentives to build middle/low income housing?
Nearly every time government tries to "incentivize" something, it goes awry.
Why? Because there is no panacea, no perfect outcome. Because people are people, and will turn government largesse and control to personal benefit. OPM is far easier to gather via government force than competing in a free market is - and that destroys wealth and wastes resources.
Build new housing stock, and lots of it. Increase supply with demand staying steady, and prices overall will fall. Not necessarily in the new stock, but when people who can afford "upgrade" to new digs, the old digs become available and become apt to decrease in rent.
Does it seem unfair that the wealthiest get the nicest housing? They do anyway.
NYC is full of apartments that were the best of the best when first built, but are now considered "middle income."
To reiterate, there is no perfect solution. What we should seek is the path to the best solution, even knowing that solution will not achieve Eden or nirvana. All this government intervention demonstrably makes things worse. If rent control could work, it would have worked by now.
What happens in the meanwhile to those who are dispossessed of where they were living?
I answer that below.
"How about allowing units to go back to market after the current tenant vacates, rather than leaving them under rent control?"
Come on, David, you must get that this is possible.
What about all the people who aren't lucky enough to find rent controlled or rent-stabilized housing? What of all those adversely affected by the housing shortage? Why perpetuate a system that benefits a fortunate few but keeps others displaced?
One more thing. You say you don't have an answer, but you still want to keep the thing that's causing the problem in the first place. Aren't those two things in conflict?
I don't necessarily want to keep rent control in place but I don't want the tragedy of people losing where they live and getting shoved out on the streets particularly the elderly.
Wow, right to the cliff.
How about allowing units to go back to market after the current tenant vacates, rather than leaving them under rent control?
How about removing the rent control shackles from the 60,000 empty units that are the "ghost apartments" I mentioned?
How about getting rid of affordable housing mandates, so that developers can actually build more stuff?
How about getting out of the way, so that 120 year old six story walkups can be replaced by modern twelve story structures?
We can ease our way out of rent control without throwing granny in the street. But, if your thoughts jump immediately to granny, aren't you just saying that the problem should persist?
And what happens to granny in the inbetween time? After all, there's no guarantee that the market will provide replacement housing for those on low income.
I answered that already. Granny in her rent-controlled apartment would stay there as long as she wanted. The apartment would go market-rate after that.
I missed that in your earlier comment. My apologies. I'm still getting over a nasty virus. That seems more than a workable solution.
Elie Mystal in The Nation....Marxist propaganda guaranteed.
Government can't fix these problems because: 1) for the most part, government is the cause and 2) government should never have been involved at all, but once they are, they rarely back out. But, statist solutions sell when the populace is ignorant and gullible. Thus, the gimmickry.
David Copperfield and Criss Angel have nothing on the sleight of hand of which politicians are capable.