Quote of the Day
When the government restricts return on any particular asset, that asset will be allowed to deteriorate until its value is low enough that it earns an acceptable return. If there is no value low enough, the asset will, one way or another, end up in the government’s hands and become a burden on taxpayers. Whoever…
When the government restricts return on any particular asset, that asset will be allowed to deteriorate until its value is low enough that it earns an acceptable return. If there is no value low enough, the asset will, one way or another, end up in the government’s hands and become a burden on taxpayers. Whoever used the old saw “market failure” earlier in this discussion has successfully memorized a popular socialist catch phrase but does not appreciate the law of unintended consequences. If you force landlords to rent units at below market rents, the affected housing stock will slowly deteriorate. The remaining housing stock becomes prohibitively expensive, and new renters find it difficult or impossible to get into the below market units. The below market units effectively become a one-time property transfer from landlords (who actually took risk in buying and spend money for upkeep and repairs) to whoever had the dumb luck to be in a controlled apartment when the rules took effect. The controlled housing stock is tightly clutched in the hands of a less and less deserving population until it has to be pried from their dead hands, while over time the people who actually need affordable housing stock find it impossible to find because everything that isn’t being held until death is overpriced.
— by lechacal in Democratic Assembly Passes Pro-Tenant Legislation
” I’m not talking about handy out free rides, just about leveling the playing field. You can’t tell me I work harder designing web pages than the guy who busts his ass all day doing interior demo … but I make a whole lot more than that guy does.”
Now that is getting in bed with communism! I thought it was a great idea when I was very young that a doctor would get paid the same as a garbage collector (as my old man explained it to me).
Sam, I suppose you were referring to the rent control laws as quasi-socialist, not just renting vs ownership, so I take that snipe back. But really, accusing those who disagree with rent control of wanting to throw people out of their apartments is simplistic.
“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is about the end of any nation.”
I’m not talking about welfare babies here, DIBS. I’m saying there’s an unequal distribution of wealth. Why do people in finance deserve so much more money than everyone else. There are plenty of educated, hardworking people — who get up and go to work everyday — having a tough time of things. The result is an environment where only a select, small group of people have disposable income. And when that happens businesses will fold, as is the case throughout both our city and country.
You’re opinion is valid in so much that you’re entitled to it. But I would argue that you can multiply wealth by dividing it: when you give other people an equal opportunity to invest and improve their own lives, society as a whole improves. You can’t have a small investor class hoarding the majority of the money. The last I checked 5% of the U.S.’s populatioin controlled 60% of the wealth. I don’t know what the figure for NYC is.
New York does legislate the maximum a bodega can charge for milk and the bodegas continue to ignore the law and charge more.
Benson – fair enough, but the numbers also don’t factor in the fact that rich people can afford better accountants and have access to more ways of sheltering their money. I’m not saying that everything should be equal for all – I’m not a communist. I just don’t feel that the existing US system is properly balanced.
DIBS – but what about the person who works equally hard, but at a job that happens to pay him less? I’m not talking about handy out free rides, just about leveling the playing field. You can’t tell me I work harder designing web pages than the guy who busts his ass all day doing interior demo … but I make a whole lot more than that guy does.
Sam, what on earth is “quasi-socialist” about having a city of renters rather than owners? And no one is advocating throwing people out on the street. You may wish to look up the term socialist before using it, and please pay closer attention to the discussion before attempting to pull up a stool and join it.
Benson, my statement is correct. All SF rental property is subject to rent control law. When a unit becomes vacant, the owner can charge whatever they want for it (market rate).
You folks arguing about rent control are arguing about a specific, historic form of it: New York rent control law, which is asinine and proven to be a failure.
This says nothing about rent control in general.
Mopar: Yea I admit I overreacted a bit there, but when people tell others to move to another city I think they cross a line.
I split a 3 bedroom with 2 others in Crown Heights and am doing all right. Still, what I said about improving the overall health of NYC’s economy by keeping more money in the pockets of the masses I stand by. How to best accomplish that is anyone’s guess at this point, though I’ve read some pretty good ideas here.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005)