The second 8 podcasts in review. Summaries and additional comments
Direct download
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm Ben, and welcome to The Silent Consensus. The premise of this podcast is that all too often, the language and framing of political rhetoric manipulates people into voting or thinking a certain way. Consensus is created around false information and sound bites, not thoughtful analysis of what's really going on. When America has a more accurate analysis of the issues, there will be a different consensus. Since that consensus needs to be made active, it is currently The Silent Consensus
3 comments:
"Rent controls don't help anyone."
Well, certainly they help those paying the rent-controlled rent.
"In places with rent controls (i.e. San Francisco and Manhattan), rents are higher than in places without."
I take it you mean the rents on non-rent controlled units are higher, right? Suppose rent controls were removed for apartments in these two cities. If rents would still be higher than elsewhere, then wouldn't this just force out all low income residents that live there only in virtue of rent control?
"The reason they result in "stability" is because if the tenant were to vacate for one reason or another, they'll have nowhere to go because they'll see a huge jump in their rent elsewhere!"
Isn't this same problem going to exist for all of the current renters under rent control who are going to have to pay a huge increase if they move and lose rent control after CPOFPA is enacted?
"In other words, the landlords have a captive audience, and can throw ultimatums on the tenants. They have no reason to pay for maintenance or do anything to accommodate the tenant."
See above comment. This seems like an empirical question; what evidence do you have that rent control has resulted in the widespread tenant abuses like these?
"I get so sick of this notion that government gives people rights, and therefore can take them away if they see fit, and can add in other rights they see fit."
Whoa, you are getting much more philosophical here. Is this really what is up for debate, the issue of where rights come from?
"I don't know if it's a side effect of the separation of church and state view (which I wholeheartedly agree with), or what it is."
I don't see how this is related to your point.
"Our rights don't come from government. They don't come from the constitution. They exist regardless of those two things."
This is perhaps a bit confusing. First off, I agree with the basic premise which is that there are certain inalienable rights; rights that exist regardless of whether or not the state grants them to you. But, there are certainly categories of rights that exist in virtue of your being granted them by the state. Take, for instance, your Miranda rights when being arrested. Are these rights inalienable like life, liberty, etc.? Do you have a right to drive on the right side of the road assuming you are appropriately licensed by the state to drive? I guess I am curious about what you thinks constitutes a 'right'. If the only legitimate class of rights are just those which you consider to be inalienable, then I think I can agree with you that we do not have such rights in virtue of being granted them by the state.
"With that in mind, our inalienable rights are not supposed to come at the expense of others. I have a right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, privacy, etc... to the extent that NO ONE, not even government, can take them from me."
Okay, so there are certainly inalienable rights, and one of these, according to you, is a right to property. This is vague; I take it you mean everyone has a right to the property they acquire through just means (of course this warrants further specification, but I hope you take such a claim to be non-controversial). So, now, we have a moral claim about what the state should do. Namely, the state ought not take away the justly acquired property of individuals. Do you really believe this statement in its unqualified form? Do you really think that there should be no forms of taxation? Aren't all forms of taxation just instances of the state infringing on our property rights?
"Health care is not an inalienable right. If it is, then I guess doctors are prohibited from quitting."
Even if you granted that healthcare was an inalienable right, doctors would still be allowed to quit, since not allowing them to quit would be infringing on their inalienable right to liberty, right? And the state cannot take away that right from them. It could be the case that healthcare is an inalienable right, but no one is required to provide us with it. Similarly, my right to property doesn't instill an obligation on anyone to give me any, though it may arguably instill an obligation on others not to take it away from me once I have justly acquired it.
"Housing is not an inalienable right"
Suppose I couldn't pursue happiness without having at least some basic form of shelter.
"especially living in someone else's house at their expense."
I agree, but I don't think that this is the case in the majority of rent control cases; unless by expense you mean something roughly like losing the rent amount they would have made if the rental had been paid at the market rate.
"If it was, then it would be illegal for landlords to take their rental units off the market."
It doesn't look like this strictly follows from what you have said.
"It's only a right if it doesn't take from others"
I take it that this is supposed to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a 'right'.
"Are any of the people in favor of rent controls landlords?"
Probably not, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the legitimacy of rent controls. If no one was in favor of paying taxes, would that necessarily answer the question of whether or not taxes ought to be imposed?
"Have they gone, taken a risk, and invested their capital, time, money, and energy into being able to rent out property? Have they then rent controlled their own property? If they want to do that, I will fully support them in that. But otherwise, they have no credibility in arguing that demand should be forced on others."
See above.
"Also, the arguments in this article for rent control apply more to food. Food is a greater need than housing, but no one thinks about limiting the price of food. The Soviets did, result: millions starved. Instead, we have food stamps, and that works out nicer."
Wait, but isn't this just a case of the government violating my inalienable right to justly acquired property (by taxing me)in order to redistribute my income to those who need food? Do the hungry have an inalienable right to food? Even if they did, how could the state justifiably violate my property rights by taxing me in order to provide the hungry with food in the form of food stamps? Furthermore, no one has a right to food stamps under your theory since the states provision of them requires the violation of my property rights. And something can't be a right if it takes from me.
"Let's have something similar for housing if we don't already, but don't ask one group of people (landlords) to fix a societal problem that they didn't create!"
Should there be any restrictions against price gouging? In the case of apartments you could respond that the market won't allow price gouging since people can always just move to an apartment where the landlord doesn't price-gouge. Of course, moving from one apartment to another is a bit more involved than choosing Pepsi when Coke is more expensive, but let's assume that isn't a big problem. But my problem with CPOFPA has to due with the more complex issue of mobile home lot rents.
Suppose that you have just bought a mobile home for $50,000 and you live in an area with a local rent-control ordinance. If the control is removed, there is nothing to keep the landlord from price gouging if he or she or it has any reason to think that you will pay. After all, you either own or are paying a mortgage on that original 50 grand, so you would have to sell the place in order to end your land lease. But of course, with the higher lot rent, you simply can't sell it for 50,000 because the market-value of the mobile home is tied in an inverse relation to the rate of the lot rent.
Now, CPOFPA is supposed to prevent this scenario from occurring by grandfathering in all of the mobile home owners who bought before the removal of rent control. So current owners can't be gouged for rent. But what happens when they try to sell their mobile homes? Of course, they will all be worth much less due to the increase in lot rent for any perspective buyer.
Fundamentally, I think there may be arguments (though it seems at heart that they are emprical questions that can be settled by doing appropriate statistical analyses) to support an end to rent control for apartments. But mobile home parks (which are one of the only truly affordable housing sources left in California) seem to need some form of rent control due to the relationships between rents and the market values of the units themselves. If 98 passes, and local governments want to subsidize MH park landlords for providing lower rents, then so be it; but I don't see why you wouldn't also argue against this given your position about property rights.
"That aside, all current rent controls for current tenants are allowed to remain under CPOFPA."
Thereby making neglect and tenant abuses even more likely on the part of landlords given your above arguments against rent control.
I would be curious to know what your responses are to at least some of these objections. Sorry to respond to this on your blog post, but I couldn't figure out any other way to contact you about the comments you left at the other website.
Thank you for your comments. Here are my responses
"I take it you mean the rents on non-rent controlled units are higher, right?"
No. Landlords can set whatever price they want after the tenant has vacated, and those places tend to have higher rents than in places without rent control. Can't really blame them; they want to be able to secure the highest profit for the most amount of time
"Isn't this same problem [of tenants having nowhere to go] going to exist for all of the current renters under rent control who are going to have to pay a huge increase if they move and lose rent control after CPOFPA is enacted?"
Yes, but I won't vote against it because it doesn't solve that problem.
"This seems like an empirical question; what evidence do you have that rent control has resulted in the widespread tenant abuses like these?"
The ex-foreign minister of Vietnam said it best. "Americans could not destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city through very low rents. We realized it was stupid and must change policy." One of my friends did research on this too and found this to be true; he wrote a paper about why they are bad from a liberal perspective
"Do you really believe this statement in its unqualified form? Do you really think that there should be no forms of taxation? Aren't all forms of taxation just instances of the state infringing on our property rights?"
No, because without taxes, there would be no authority to ensure my property is protected. I support giving up a partial amount of property to ensure the rest won't be taken rather than a society where anyone can take anyone's property without punishment
"This is perhaps a bit confusing. First off, I agree with the basic premise which is that there are certain inalienable rights; rights that exist regardless of whether or not the state grants them to you. But, there are certainly categories of rights that exist in virtue of your being granted them by the state. Take, for instance, your Miranda rights when being arrested. Are these rights inalienable like life, liberty, etc.? Do you have a right to drive on the right side of the road assuming you are appropriately licensed by the state to drive? I guess I am curious about what you thinks constitutes a 'right'. If the only legitimate class of rights are just those which you consider to be inalienable, then I think I can agree with you that we do not have such rights in virtue of being granted them by the state."
Yes, these rights all come back to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Miranda rights, for example, are an extension of our rights to liberty.
"Even if you granted that healthcare was an inalienable right, doctors would still be allowed to quit, since not allowing them to quit would be infringing on their inalienable right to liberty, right?"
It would be infringing on their right to liberty, and that's precisely why it's not a right
"Suppose I couldn't pursue happiness without having at least some basic form of shelter."
Pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee. Right to pursuit of happiness is just that: the right of pursuit. It's not a guarantee nor a requirement that people will make you happy
"unless by expense you mean something roughly like losing the rent amount they would have made if the rental had been paid at the market rate."
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If the tenants are spending less money with rent controls while getting the same product/service, then someone has to be paying for it. In this case, it's the landlords
"Probably not, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the legitimacy of rent controls. If no one was in favor of paying taxes, would that necessarily answer the question of whether or not taxes ought to be imposed?"
I see your analogy, and it's apples and oranges. I just meant my argument from the standpoint that until someone is going to take a risk in this regard, they have no credibility in taking it out on those who do take risks
As far as food stamps, they aren't a right, but they don't mean we shouldn't have them. As I mention in one of my podcasts, the lower 1/4 of society is holding up the upper 3/4 of society by taking these low-wage inconvenient jobs. We would all be in big trouble if those jobs disappeared, and they are undercompensated for their contributions, and if their pay was to be raised to match it, the products/services would suddenly be unaffordable to some. Food stamps are an example of a market correction
As far as mobile homes, the best rent control is owning your own lot
"Thereby making neglect and tenant abuses even more likely on the part of landlords given your above arguments against rent control."
I was mainly using this argument to point out that the cries of "thousands of seniors, disabled, and poor people will be tossed out in the streets" are unfounded.
As far as increasing neglect and tenant abuses, not necessarily. Given that the initial rents are lower when no rent control is in place than when rent control is in place, it could make actually reduce the problem
If you want to respond to this, please use my e-mail. thesilentconsensus@hotmail.com
I would appreciate more visual materials, to make your blog more attractive, but your writing style really compensates it. But there is always place for improvement
Post a Comment