“Argentina’s 2020 Rental Law, intended to protect tenants, ended up making housing unaffordable for the average Buenos Aires resident. The issue isn’t unique to Argentina—rent control measures have had similar outcomes elsewhere. In San Francisco, expanded rent control laws led to in a spike in evictions. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, rent caps have prompted property owners to sell their buildings and exit the rental market, according to Reason’s Christian Britschgi.
Argentina’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale for policymakers: Well-intentioned policies aimed at protecting tenants can sometimes backfire, causing more harm than good.”
“Trump fans applauded when he said he’ll eliminate taxes on tips. Then Harris proposed that, too. Her audience applauded. Trump then proposed not taxing overtime. More applause.
But narrow tax exemptions are bad policy.
In my new video, economist Allison Schrager explains how they create nasty, unintended consequences.
“No one likes tipping,” says Schrager, “but all of a sudden, you’ll have to pay tips for everything.…More people will be paid in tips.””
…
“Trump’s proposal to eliminate tax on overtime would reduce hiring.
“Employers may hire fewer people so they can give more overtime to employees they have already,” says Schrager.”
…
“rent control is destructive. “Sounds really good,” says Schrager. “But all it means is that people are less inclined to rent to you.”
“Why would you enter a market where it seems like the government is actively trying to hurt you?” Adds Mercatus Center economist Salim Furth. “You’re providing an essential service, something human beings need to live, and the government views you as a hostile outsider. I wouldn’t want to bring any service into a market like that.”
Argentina’s new libertarian president just scrapped rent controls. The supply of rental apartments doubled, and prices declined by 40 percent! That’s good policy.
But Harris proposes the opposite!”
…
“Trump’s (and Joe Biden’s) tariffs don’t just punish China, they reduce choice and raise prices in America.
“Free trade is good!” says Schrager. “It brings lower prices, making our own industries more dynamic, raising our income.”
“But trade does take away some Americans’ jobs,” I point out.
“But it creates a lot of other new jobs,” she replies.
It sure does. More and better jobs than those lost through trade.”
…
“She proposes giving “first-time homebuyers” $25,000. Again, her fans applaud.
Schrager explains, “free” money from government doesn’t increase the supply of homes. When every buyer has $25,000 more, “they just bid up prices even higher!””
“In July, the Dutch government expanded nationwide rent controls—which had already covered about 80 percent of rental units—to almost all remaining rental properties. Fully 96 percent of Dutch rental housing is now subject to rent caps.
A report from Bloomberg published last week details the results: Owners of rental properties are selling their buildings and getting out of the rental housing market.
The tenants of those units are being forced to try and find one of the few remaining market-rate units or purchase a home in the Netherlands’ hot housing market. In either case, home hunters face spiking prices and limited availability.
These results are what one would expect from rent control. The economic literature is unambiguous that when rent control effectively holds rents below market levels, the result is a shortage of available rental housing.
More honest boosters of rent control will argue that while the policy limits housing supply, it increases stability for tenants. Protected from sudden, unaffordable rent increases, renters are able to stay in their homes for longer.
But in the Netherlands, at least, rent control is having a pro-displacement effect. Tenants who had an affordable rental unit are now being forced to move.
Proponents of rent control like to wave away the problems created by the policy as something that can be fixed with better and/or more sweeping controls of rental housing.
In fact, different rent control designs just produce different problems.
Apply rent control to new construction, and developers build less rental housing. Apply rent control to existing rental housing and landlords sell out to owner-occupiers. Prevent landlords from taking their units off the market, and housing quality deteriorates. (In the long run, this also reduces supply by preventing the redevelopment of existing rental housing.)”
“a software company called RealPage is being sued by the Department of Justice for using an algorithm that suggests rent prices to corporate landlords. The DOJ argues that its algorithm has driven rents higher, and constitutes an illegal information sharing scheme. That is, competitors (the landlords) who would otherwise be acting independently, have exchanged “nonpublic, competitively sensitive data” to the detriment of renters who don’t have access to such knowledge.”
“Vance is an outspoken protectionist, nationalist, and anti-corporate hawk who’s bound to shift any future Trump administration in an anti-trade, anti-immigration, and anti-market direction. That can only mean bad things for the cost and availability of housing.”
…
“The federal government hasn’t regulated rents at private buildings since World War II. There’s a good reason for that. A mountain of economic evidence suggests rent control is a terribly counterproductive policy.
The research couldn’t be clearer that where rent control policies suppress rents, they also suppress the supply of rental housing (by reducing construction or encouraging conversion of rental units to for-sale units) and reduce the quality of rental housing (by limiting investment).
The people who get a rent-controlled unit pay lower prices and stay in their units longer. The people who don’t get a rent-controlled unit end up paying higher prices. Cities as a whole suffer from declining investment and economic growth.
A rent control policy adopted in St. Paul, Minnesota, saw an exodus of developers from the city. New York City’s long-standing “rent stabilization” policy is producing vacant, dilapidated buildings that no one has the money to fix or redevelop.”
…
“Vance is an arch-protectionist who’s endorsed Trump’s call for 10 percent tariffs across the board. Slapping taxes on imported materials needed for housing construction would make the costs of construction higher, lower housing production, and ultimately raise costs for consumers.
The Republican Party’s 2024 platform calls for deporting immigrants as a means of making housing more affordable.
Vance has been an outspoken proponent of this idea, saying on X last month that “not having 20 million illegal aliens who need to be housed (often at public expense) will absolutely make housing more affordable for American citizens.”
There’s a certain chilling logic to this idea: Lowering housing demand through mass deportations will lower housing prices as well.
New research however suggests the negative supply effects of kicking immigrants out of their homes outweigh any price declines caused by falling demand for housing. While immigrants consume housing, they also build housing. A recent study found that increased immigration enforcement creates a shortage of construction labor that lowers housing production and increases housing costs.”
“In Texas — a state that often sees some of the hottest temperatures in the country — extreme heat killed more than 330 people in 2023, setting a new record. More recently, millions of people in cities like Houston have had to deal with a massive heat wave while navigating power outages caused by Hurricane Beryl.
Despite the growing toll, there’s shockingly little regulation around protecting people from the effects of heat. It’s a stark contrast to how policies tend to treat the extreme cold. And while extreme cold continues to be deadlier than extreme heat, as heat waves become more dangerous, the gap between the two is likely to shrink.”
“They point out that restricting the price of housing discourages owners from maintaining and improving their property. It can also make it attractive for landlords to pull apartments from the rental market and put them up for sale as owner-occupied dwellings. Those enjoying deals on housing costs might also find themselves in the equivalent of golden handcuffs.
“Tenants in rent‐controlled units become less mobile to avoid losing access to below‐market rents,” add Miron and Aldighieri.
The authors point to studies finding that rent control has reduced the supply of rental housing in communities as far apart as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and San Francisco.”
…
“the 2019 study cited last month by Miron and Aldighieri looked at a 1994 law change in San Francisco that suddenly extended rent control to housing constructed before 1980. Sure enough, tenants benefiting from controlled rents became less likely to move, while landlords subject to restrictions converted their properties to condos and co-ops or redeveloped them to escape regulation.
Rent controls “reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15 percent,” the study concluded. “This reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run.” Contrary to housing activists’ intentions, “the conversion of existing rental properties to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing ultimately led to a housing stock increasingly directed toward higher income individuals.””
“Documents shared with Reason show the rents paid by several New York City tenants at their rent-stabilized apartments. Other documents shared with Reason, as well as public property information, show the same tenants own additional property worth north of $1 million. Some of these rent-stabilized tenants are themselves landlords who rent out their properties for more than what their rent-stabilized apartments cost.
That includes a married couple with a four-bedroom home in the tony community of East Hampton, New York. The husband is a wine broker. The wife is a real estate associate with Sotheby’s International Realty. A county document show their East Hampton property has an appraised value of $2 million.
The couple’s address on that same document is a rent-stabilized apartment in Lower Manhattan where the legal rent as of September 2023 is $931 a month. Online rental listings show market-rate one-bedroom apartments in the same neighborhood renting for anywhere from $3,000 to $7,000.
Another woman, an anthropologist with her own consultancy firm, is listed as the lessee of a Brooklyn Heights apartment with a legal monthly rent of $2,436. Market-rate one-bedroom apartments in the same neighborhood go from $4,000 to $5,000 a month.
County property records show that the same woman owns a home in the Long Island community of Greenport, New York. She advertises it as a vacation home for rent on her personal website, and it’s listed on several rental websites with a quoted monthly rental price of $12,000.”
“This is all perfectly legal. New York’s rent stabilization law has no means-testing requirements. That means people of any income can benefit from its suppressed rents.
Wealthy tenants are getting some of the best deals out of the state’s rent stabilization law. An in-depth Wall Street Journal analysis from 2019 found that regulated rents in richer Manhattan are around half that of market-rate rents. Regulated rents in working-class areas of Queens and the Bronx are at most few hundred dollars less than market rents.
Higher-income rent-stabilized tenants were paying 39 percent less rent on average than their peers in market-rate apartments. Lower-income rent-stabilized tenants were paying only 15 percent less than their peers in market-rate apartments.”
“in St. Paul, Minnesota. In 2021, city voters passed a ballot initiative that imposed a 3 percent annual cap on rent increases without exemptions for new construction or allowances for inflation.
The result? Developers fled town en masse, walking away from already in-progress projects and canceling permit applications. The city hurriedly worked to weaken the voter-passed law.”