Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live.

I don’t believe this is at all true; it’s a myth along the same order as justifying farm subsidies on the grounds that small family farms need them to survive. The primary beneficiaries turn out to be neither small family farms nor lower middle class service providers.

But no matter. That’s not the objection I wish to raise here. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your claim is true. Let’s suppose that rents in highly desirable regions are indeed “out-of-control” (out of whose control?), which is sort of tautological; the price of highly desirable scarce resources tends to be more than the price of less desirable goods. So what? There is no God-given right to live exactly where you want to live, regardless of the costs. There are tradeoffs.

But along with an increased cost of living generally comes higher incomes,a problem that markets and property rights simply do solve, each and every day. As the cost of living in an area rises, teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen find the area less and less attractive, and either move elsewhere or don’t choose to move there at all. If other people living in that community still wish to maintain the same level of teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen, and are willing to pay for it (willingness to pay being a much stronger indication than cheap talk), then they will have to agree to a higher cost of education, police and fire protection, fast food, and armadillo salesmen in order to attract back the desired service providers, or else they must live without. There is no need for government to step in and distort prices and incentives.

Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live.

I don’t believe this is at all true; it’s a myth along the same order as justifying farm subsidies on the grounds that small family farms need them to survive. The primary beneficiaries turn out to be neither small family farms nor lower middle class service providers.

But no matter. That’s not the objection I wish to raise here. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your claim is true. Let’s suppose that rents in highly desirable regions are indeed “out-of-control” (out of whose control?), which is sort of tautological; the price of highly desirable scarce resources tends to be more than the price of less desirable goods. So what? There is no God-given right to live exactly where you want to live, regardless of the costs. There are tradeoffs.

But along with an increased cost of living generally comes higher incomes,a problem that markets and property rights simply do solve, each and every day. As the cost of living in an area rises, teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen find the area less and less attractive, and either move elsewhere or don’t choose to move there at all. If other people living in that community still wish to maintain the same level of teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen, and are willing to pay for it (willingness to pay being a much stronger indication than cheap talk), then they will have to agree to a higher cost of education, police and fire protection, fast food, and armadillo salesmen in order to attract back the desired service providers, or else they must live without. There is no need for government to step in and distort prices and incentives.

In Chicago, where there is no rent control, average rent a few years ago was 1200/1BR and market rent was 1200. In NYC, average rent was roughly the same while market rent was over 2400. These types of discrepancies occur where rent control occurs as it drastically restricts housing supply. We can’t afford to face market rates to find the space we need for a coming baby and will either end up crammed in our 1Br or have to leave the city. Without controls we could probably have found a good pad in the outer boroughs. If you dig in the NY Times you will find some vintage Krugman in which he points out that economists of all stripes are universally opposed to rent control as it decreases supply and quality of housing.

I can’t get health insurance that costs less than $300 a month because any insurance company that tried to give me a plan that had the specifics I want would violate state regulations. It will cost us something like $1200 a month for the family plan we want and that’s going to kill us. If I could purchase health insurance on the national market, I would probably pay half that or less.

Are you out there in the real world like me?

In Chicago, where there is no rent control, average rent a few years ago was 1200/1BR and market rent was 1200. In NYC, average rent was roughly the same while market rent was over 2400. These types of discrepancies occur where rent control occurs as it drastically restricts housing supply. We can’t afford to face market rates to find the space we need for a coming baby and will either end up crammed in our 1Br or have to leave the city. Without controls we could probably have found a good pad in the outer boroughs. If you dig in the NY Times you will find some vintage Krugman in which he points out that economists of all stripes are universally opposed to rent control as it decreases supply and quality of housing.

I can’t get health insurance that costs less than $300 a month because any insurance company that tried to give me a plan that had the specifics I want would violate state regulations. It will cost us something like $1200 a month for the family plan we want and that’s going to kill us. If I could purchase health insurance on the national market, I would probably pay half that or less.

Are you out there in the real world like me?

Ideology aside, in the real world: Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live. Zoning regulations have always been, for the most part, a means for the advantaged to exclude hoi polloi and other noxious things, and do not affect the production of affordable housing, just its location (i.e. not in my back yard). But while these and other aspects of urban planning can surely be criticized, the field arose out of the desire to address the conflict and deprivation inherent to human settlements that markets and property rights simply cannot solve.

And yes, the U.S. healthcare system is a patched together accident of history. But the biggest problem today is its rapidly rising cost due largely to our “infinite model”, where we just keep piling on ever more treatments, drugs and gadgets(some that work, some that do not). So while it needs to be rationed somehow, we are the only developed nation that does it through exclusion. And as they say, there are only two kinds of free-market economists, those that are standing up and those that are lying down.

Ideology aside, in the real world: Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live. Zoning regulations have always been, for the most part, a means for the advantaged to exclude hoi polloi and other noxious things, and do not affect the production of affordable housing, just its location (i.e. not in my back yard). But while these and other aspects of urban planning can surely be criticized, the field arose out of the desire to address the conflict and deprivation inherent to human settlements that markets and property rights simply cannot solve.

And yes, the U.S. healthcare system is a patched together accident of history. But the biggest problem today is its rapidly rising cost due largely to our “infinite model”, where we just keep piling on ever more treatments, drugs and gadgets(some that work, some that do not). So while it needs to be rationed somehow, we are the only developed nation that does it through exclusion. And as they say, there are only two kinds of free-market economists, those that are standing up and those that are lying down.