Cars - or something like them, which can transport more than you could comfortably carry and can be used by people incapable of walking - are necessary. And there are definitely times when walking in a city should be criminal - unless you're okay with me strolling through your house (in a city) or your bank vault (in a city).
The only reason Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since is that they use a different definition than the US does. They have, in fact, had several shootings which would qualify as such in the US, and their rate of mass shootings was incredibly low before that anyway. New Zealand didn't change their gun laws when Australia did, and they also haven't had any mass shootings.
That's not the way the term is used in the US/English, so I suspect that's one reason why we've been arguing. Usually it does mean direct legal limitations on either rent or rent increases over time, and the building of low-income housing would simply fall under housing policy or housing projects. I suspect the authors of those studies also were using the term in this way, which is why they focused on the private market. If you include building subsidized housing as a form of rent control, then I agree it could help SF.
Finland, where rent control in the private market was gradually abolished in the 1990s? It seems as though currently in Finland, tenants can appeal to the court if they think a rent increase is unreasonable, but otherwise increases should be stipulated in the contract. There are voluntary guidelines but those aren't rent control either. Sweden, on the other hand, has fairly strict national rent control, and has a national shortage of housing while having similar rent-to-income ratios as Finland (second link). In Helsinki, large amounts of land set aside for public housing has contributed to insufficient housing supply, in addition to the long wait lists for said public housing.
Let's also not ignore the fact that Finland's population growth rate is significantly lower than that of San Francisco's, and has many fewer restrictions on constructing new dwellings.
Look, I'm not saying rent control is always bad, just that when it's combined with other policies like it is in SF, it can make the problem worse. Rent control (here we're talking about regulations on rent, not constructing more affordable housing) reduces supply. When you already have high population growth (and that growth is primarily people with higher incomes), a really burdensome and uncertain process to get approval to and then start building, a reduction in supply is the last thing you want. Overregulation or misregulation can be just as bad as underregulation.
Great, then it shouldn't be hard for you to pick one so you can back up your assertions. If you aren't going to do that - actually make an argument - then I think we're done here.
I'm saying you haven't shown any specific cases where rent control has been shown to work in a situation like the one in SF, and just saying "it works, trust me" isn't an argument. There are plenty of economists on both sides of the aisle that think rent control has significant limitations in its ability to correct markets in general, let alone a weird case like SF. And your suggestion that it works in every single case is ludicrous.
You can throw around whatever assumptions you have about my hypotheses you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asserting a lot of stuff without any evidence.
Forcing people to build houses or units that are rented far below market value instead of non-price-controlled units is a disincentive to increase supply, so supply grows more slowly than it otherwise would. In addition, it raises the rent on the units that are not earmarked as "affordable", thus making two distinct housing markets - the small, extremely difficult to get "affordable" housing that nobody wants to build because it loses money, and the really expensive units that everybody who doesn't meet some narrow criteria and/or is unlucky has to put up with. IF they could build a lot of "affordable" housing, then rents could go down - but because supply is so constrained, and the affordable housing is so far below market value, they exert an upward influence on the rest of the new housing.
You keep saying rent control solves problems, but you're not showing a lot of evidence for it.
Building subsidized housing can also make the issue worse, as the article I posted explains. Did you even read it? And I would hardly count building of subsidized housing as a form of rent control.
That's the usual argument but it fails on a number of levels. First, the original conversation was about something *illegal*, not *wrong*. There are plenty of reasons to hide things that aren't illegal. Second, most people don't want everyone knowing what sort of porn they watch, or bad TV or something. That doesn't mean those are necessarily wrong, but people want to hide them anyway.
You could make that argument. However, normally in places with rent control schemes, building new units isn't nearly as hard as it is in SF. Rent control exacerbates shortages in the long term but do curb abuses in the short term. That only gets you so far though, especially with such an unusually high population growth and severe limits on adding additional housing. Making rent controls more strict without fixing the supply problem will only make things worse.
I grew up in the Rust Belt. I know what the area is like. The jobs aren't there. Nevertheless, total output has risen, because most of our factories now are so highly automated.
So while I think there probably were crimes committed, there are reasons to destroy evidence even if no crimes were committed. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it would make you or your agency look good.
And I'm saying that rent controls there have actively made the problem worse by preventing unit remodeling and discouraging investment in new buildings. Because rent control holds so many places under market value, the lost revenue has to be made up somewhere else, like new units (if they can get built, which is another problem) or via new leases. And it's not (just) a case of greedy landlords - property values and taxes are extremely high there as well, and rent control often means rent doesn't keep up with increased property value.
Clearly the real estate market there is much higher than the rest of the US, but - as the article I linked to explains - supply has been severely constrained by a number of factors, one of which is rent control.
Of course not, but this is much easier to independently verify, and there's no reason to think that the numbers presented are substantially inaccurate. There was plenty of reason to think that Stalin's grain harvest numbers were a complete fiction, as evidenced by all the starving people. It's just a really weak argument.
San Francisco has some of the strongest rent controls in the US, and the required affordable housing distorts incentives. This piece does a pretty good job of explaining it.
Total manufacturing output in America has been steadily rising. Jobs, however, have been falling, as the average manufacturing worker is now more productive.
As another scientist, I think you're partially right about macroeconomics but wrong about microeconomics. Both have some situations where models make testable predictions and, when applied correctly, make reasonably accurate forecasts. Econ is a hell of a lot better than most of sociology and psychology, at least.
And yet, people still call for price controls. Rent control and required affordable housing (and the tortuous building approval process) is a huge reason the SF housing market is the way it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Cars are given priority because they can move faster and cause more damage in collisions.
Cars - or something like them, which can transport more than you could comfortably carry and can be used by people incapable of walking - are necessary. And there are definitely times when walking in a city should be criminal - unless you're okay with me strolling through your house (in a city) or your bank vault (in a city).
Terrorism requires ideological or political motivation. So far, there doesn't seem to be evidence for that.
The only reason Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since is that they use a different definition than the US does. They have, in fact, had several shootings which would qualify as such in the US, and their rate of mass shootings was incredibly low before that anyway. New Zealand didn't change their gun laws when Australia did, and they also haven't had any mass shootings.
If it's legal, it's not murder.
Having a military base that the government of that country agreed to is not the same thing as a military occupation of that country.
I haven't looked into it much, so maybe you can help: what is the difference between Obama's use of FB and Trump's?
That's not the way the term is used in the US/English, so I suspect that's one reason why we've been arguing. Usually it does mean direct legal limitations on either rent or rent increases over time, and the building of low-income housing would simply fall under housing policy or housing projects. I suspect the authors of those studies also were using the term in this way, which is why they focused on the private market. If you include building subsidized housing as a form of rent control, then I agree it could help SF.
Finland, where rent control in the private market was gradually abolished in the 1990s? It seems as though currently in Finland, tenants can appeal to the court if they think a rent increase is unreasonable, but otherwise increases should be stipulated in the contract. There are voluntary guidelines but those aren't rent control either. Sweden, on the other hand, has fairly strict national rent control, and has a national shortage of housing while having similar rent-to-income ratios as Finland (second link). In Helsinki, large amounts of land set aside for public housing has contributed to insufficient housing supply, in addition to the long wait lists for said public housing.
Let's also not ignore the fact that Finland's population growth rate is significantly lower than that of San Francisco's, and has many fewer restrictions on constructing new dwellings.
Look, I'm not saying rent control is always bad, just that when it's combined with other policies like it is in SF, it can make the problem worse. Rent control (here we're talking about regulations on rent, not constructing more affordable housing) reduces supply. When you already have high population growth (and that growth is primarily people with higher incomes), a really burdensome and uncertain process to get approval to and then start building, a reduction in supply is the last thing you want. Overregulation or misregulation can be just as bad as underregulation.
Great, then it shouldn't be hard for you to pick one so you can back up your assertions. If you aren't going to do that - actually make an argument - then I think we're done here.
I'm saying you haven't shown any specific cases where rent control has been shown to work in a situation like the one in SF, and just saying "it works, trust me" isn't an argument. There are plenty of economists on both sides of the aisle that think rent control has significant limitations in its ability to correct markets in general, let alone a weird case like SF. And your suggestion that it works in every single case is ludicrous.
You can throw around whatever assumptions you have about my hypotheses you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asserting a lot of stuff without any evidence.
Forcing people to build houses or units that are rented far below market value instead of non-price-controlled units is a disincentive to increase supply, so supply grows more slowly than it otherwise would. In addition, it raises the rent on the units that are not earmarked as "affordable", thus making two distinct housing markets - the small, extremely difficult to get "affordable" housing that nobody wants to build because it loses money, and the really expensive units that everybody who doesn't meet some narrow criteria and/or is unlucky has to put up with. IF they could build a lot of "affordable" housing, then rents could go down - but because supply is so constrained, and the affordable housing is so far below market value, they exert an upward influence on the rest of the new housing.
You keep saying rent control solves problems, but you're not showing a lot of evidence for it.
Building subsidized housing can also make the issue worse, as the article I posted explains. Did you even read it? And I would hardly count building of subsidized housing as a form of rent control.
That's the usual argument but it fails on a number of levels. First, the original conversation was about something *illegal*, not *wrong*. There are plenty of reasons to hide things that aren't illegal. Second, most people don't want everyone knowing what sort of porn they watch, or bad TV or something. That doesn't mean those are necessarily wrong, but people want to hide them anyway.
You could make that argument. However, normally in places with rent control schemes, building new units isn't nearly as hard as it is in SF. Rent control exacerbates shortages in the long term but do curb abuses in the short term. That only gets you so far though, especially with such an unusually high population growth and severe limits on adding additional housing. Making rent controls more strict without fixing the supply problem will only make things worse.
I grew up in the Rust Belt. I know what the area is like. The jobs aren't there. Nevertheless, total output has risen, because most of our factories now are so highly automated.
Can you guarantee that the torture will only be used on people who are guilty of murder, and not just suspected of it? If so, how?
So while I think there probably were crimes committed, there are reasons to destroy evidence even if no crimes were committed. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it would make you or your agency look good.
And I'm saying that rent controls there have actively made the problem worse by preventing unit remodeling and discouraging investment in new buildings. Because rent control holds so many places under market value, the lost revenue has to be made up somewhere else, like new units (if they can get built, which is another problem) or via new leases. And it's not (just) a case of greedy landlords - property values and taxes are extremely high there as well, and rent control often means rent doesn't keep up with increased property value.
Clearly the real estate market there is much higher than the rest of the US, but - as the article I linked to explains - supply has been severely constrained by a number of factors, one of which is rent control.
Of course not, but this is much easier to independently verify, and there's no reason to think that the numbers presented are substantially inaccurate. There was plenty of reason to think that Stalin's grain harvest numbers were a complete fiction, as evidenced by all the starving people. It's just a really weak argument.
San Francisco has some of the strongest rent controls in the US, and the required affordable housing distorts incentives. This piece does a pretty good job of explaining it.
Total manufacturing output in America has been steadily rising. Jobs, however, have been falling, as the average manufacturing worker is now more productive.
People hate rules when they have no control over them. Many people love inventing rules to control other people.
As another scientist, I think you're partially right about macroeconomics but wrong about microeconomics. Both have some situations where models make testable predictions and, when applied correctly, make reasonably accurate forecasts. Econ is a hell of a lot better than most of sociology and psychology, at least.
And yet, people still call for price controls. Rent control and required affordable housing (and the tortuous building approval process) is a huge reason the SF housing market is the way it is.