undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrtpg6y ago0 comments

> manipulating prices which has bad side effects for many even if its good for a few.

There are way more renters than owners. Prices have been going up more than 5%. Owners are most definitely not the "less-powerful" here.

So in reality the gov't might be artificially surpressing supply (though it's mostly due to owner pushback), but the "manipulating prices" (trying to keep rent growth from getting out of control) is helping less-powerful.

I get the point about how this can default owners to just increase prices. Well they were going to be doing that anyways! Especially with surpressed supply!

Arguing that "overall price increases with this law" > "overall prices increase without this law" is non-intuitive and probably just not true.

(thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law? This law doesn't prevent other owners from offering _lower_ rents, if the market calls for it)

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

AnthonyMouse6y ago

> thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law?

If you don't raise it now then you can no longer do it later in the event that taxes or mortgage interest rates or some other cost increases. That creates a major risk for the landlord, which most of them would prefer to mitigate by raising rents even if it means apartments going vacant longer. And when they're all similarly situated, they all do the same thing, which means the tenants can't avoid the rent increases by moving to another apartment, which allows for more of the landlords to get in on the rent increase without incurring vacancies.

tylerl6y ago

Having an actual number on the books shared by all creates an expectation. It's an anchor. If everyone agrees a 5% increase is reasonable, then everyone will do it. Now you don't need a reason, you're just keeping up with the market.