The economists are right: Rent control is bad
- Thread starter DEAD7
- Start date
The same "supply and demand" that made minimum wage increases cause mass-unemployment?
Moving costs money. Its more than "externalities." Cost of living goes up, even if you do live in an "affordable area."
Artificial price inflation should not dictate where a person is allowed to live.
the higher rents aren't artificial
Like Yeezys. They charge what the market will bear. No one would argue that they deserve a certain shoe.
You cop what you can afford
That just contradicts your whole message of corruption. They charge artifically high pruces because lack of oversight and GREED. Living in a residence is a basic need for survival, not a luxury sneaker.
The current way of doing thing isn't' working for a majority of the population. With no regulation and all this free unused space, y'all are seeing what happens.I keep seeing just move like it's that simple. you need savings to move.
When the prices start going up in an area its because demand for that area is rising
If your skill or circumstance doesn't match with the higher demand, the people willing to pay the price will get the spots.
There are other places to live besides the most high demand spots
So just give all your disposable income to live closer to civilization and to your workplace???
The rural areas got those jobs outsourced.
They are artificial; this isn't a "free-market" situation by any stretch of the imagination, as such these "market-bearing" arguments are nothing more than long-since-debunked rhetoric.
NO easy answer but Rent Control is needed. Now, will you tax the person for making more money? Increase their rent? If so, it's a form of zoning and legally discriminate people to live in certain areas.
Build more buildings? Will those be rent control too?
The best bet is to have a plan where if someone proves they can successfully pay a rent-controlled unit w/incremental increases can have a chance at owning the unit. This will separate those that initially needed help and those that will always require help.
Build more buildings? Will those be rent control too?
The best bet is to have a plan where if someone proves they can successfully pay a rent-controlled unit w/incremental increases can have a chance at owning the unit. This will separate those that initially needed help and those that will always require help.
Subs.
It's easy to artificially inflate rent and home costs. You simply use corruption and capital advantages to keep a large % of homes/lots unoccupied, and force people desperate for somewhere to live to fight over the inflated costs in the too-few remaining plots.
Look at what they've done in Detroit. There is MILES of land that nobody is using. And yet working-class people can't get access to it because speculators used corruption and outsized control of capital to snatch it all up below market rates before it was even available to the general market, and will continue sitting on it until they feel they can make a profit, while people who actually wish to use the land to live in or farm on are forced to fight over a minority of available lots at much inflated prices.
Most of American cities have 30-40% of the residences owned by people who don't even live there but are just out to make a profit. Prices would be way down if the demand was only driven by actual residents.
Housing shortages are real up and down California.
extremely restrictive zoning laws ensure you have a supply that will never be able to meet the demand.
You cant fit 9 people in a Prius no matter how unfair it will be that some have to walk.The prices are there to determine who walks.
Based on how people vote, they don't have that much of a problem with it.
I keep seeing just move like it's that simple. you need savings to move.
