Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This uncontrolled lust for profit at the expense of fellow members of the species is not going to lead anywhere good if it continues to be the absolute center of gravity for our society. Capitalism (or whatever you want to call what we have) does go farther than many other strategies, but I guarantee we could go a lot farther as a society with only minor modifications to how we approach things. Although since it takes a fundamental change in peoples personalities, much more so than merely laws, we're not likely to change anytime soon (it takes a serious force of nature to get someone to change, intrinsically, how they think and approach things).
But blind lust for profit at the expense of others is where it's at for the foreseeable future, so better learn to live with it I guess.
Totally agree, but don't take it out on the individual landlords who also live in Santa Clara Valley. It is the foreign interest who are driving the high prices in many aspects of life here and many of them don't even live here. They try to turn individuals against each other to deflect their own lust for the American dollar.
I think the government shouldn't tell you how to set prices. But, let me ask you a riff off that idea of limited government. As a landlord, how would you feel about the government loosening development restrictions, and thereby increasing the supply and flattening rent growth?
Your question, of course, is rhetorical.
At the same time it illustrates the hazard of governmental interference in the marketplace. The specific marketplace doesn't matter -- whenever the government threatens to regulate (or tax) any industry -- or to remove regulations from the marketplace -- it threatens to introduce distortions in the efficient allocation of capital, and it also attracts all sorts of possibly effected parties to come out of the woodwork to lobby for their interest.
Developers lobby for less restrictive development regulations. Environmentalists lobby for tighter development restrictions. Advocates for lower income families lobby for requirements for affordable housing. Construction unions lobby for less restrictive regulations but only alongside of requirements for union labor. Existing homeowners come out to lobby for more restrictions to preserve their quality of life. Etc etc.
Lobbying is only a slightly less distasteful word for legalized bribery via campaign contributions.
George Stigler won the Nobel Prize in Economics some 30 years ago by showing, among other things, that much governmental regulation exists because it has been demanded (in the economic sense of the word) by the industries being regulated. The textbook example was regulations banning advertising of cigarettes TV in 1970. At the time, there was public discussion of the danger that young impressionable children would be influenced to start smoking cigarettes. Hearings were held in Congress & in the Senate and public interest advocates came out of the woodwork to testify of the evils of cigarette advertising.
However, if you go behind the scenes, you discover substantial lobbying & campaign contributions to elected representatives from... drum roll please ... Big Tobacco and also from TV networks & stations. Big Tobacco's contributions were aimed at getting TV ads banned (that's right - banned) because Big Tobacco realized that TV advertising was the only effective way for a given brand to get a larger slice of the pie, but was not cost effective at increasing the overall size of the pie. Thus, from the point of view of the entire Tobacco industry, they realized TV advertising was essentially zero-sum and a drag on industry profits.
TV networks & stations lobbied the reverse - they wanted TV commercials for cigarette advertising because it helps their bottom line.
Ultimately, Big Tobacco won. And their profits went up.
When it comes to the marketplace for housing, it seems pretty clear who won - politicians who receive the campaign contributions.
This uncontrolled lust for profit at the expense of fellow members of the species is not going to lead anywhere good if it continues to be the absolute center of gravity for our society. Capitalism (or whatever you want to call what we have) does go farther than many other strategies, but I guarantee we could go a lot farther as a society with only minor modifications to how we approach things. Although since it takes a fundamental change in peoples personalities, much more so than merely laws, we're not likely to change anytime soon (it takes a serious force of nature to get someone to change, intrinsically, how they think and approach things).
But blind lust for profit at the expense of others is where it's at for the foreseeable future, so better learn to live with it I guess.
I'm not sure what position you're advocating. After all, those who enjoy rent control are profiting because their rent is subsidized by the other tenants - which means they too are greedy.
I know someone who pays 2,000 a month up in the city for an apartment that would normally go for 4,000 a month - you think the landlord eats up that lost profit rather than pass it on?
Actually, moving half-a-continent away was the only solution I could come up with. So far so great. I'm not bashing Sunnyvale though. I liked it there, especially in April.
Yes, one I have mulled over. The only real issue keeping us from leaving is that all our family is in the area.
Beyond that, I don't think the quality of life here in the bay area is so fantastic that it warrants spending such a high percentage of income on housing.
This uncontrolled lust for profit at the expense of fellow members of the species is not going to lead anywhere good if it continues to be the absolute center of gravity for our society. Capitalism (or whatever you want to call what we have) does go farther than many other strategies, but I guarantee we could go a lot farther as a society with only minor modifications to how we approach things. Although since it takes a fundamental change in peoples personalities, much more so than merely laws, we're not likely to change anytime soon (it takes a serious force of nature to get someone to change, intrinsically, how they think and approach things).
But blind lust for profit at the expense of others is where it's at for the foreseeable future, so better learn to live with it I guess.
Have read most comments and I think most people agree the government should not enforce rent control. Instead they should loose regulations to enable developers to build more housing. I totally agree. How can this be communicated to the government?
At the same time it illustrates the hazard of governmental interference in the marketplace. The specific marketplace doesn't matter -- whenever the government threatens to regulate (or tax) any industry -- or to remove regulations from the marketplace -- it threatens to introduce distortions in the efficient allocation of capital, and it also attracts all sorts of possibly effected parties to come out of the woodwork to lobby for their interest.
Developers lobby for less restrictive development regulations. Environmentalists lobby for tighter development restrictions. Advocates for lower income families lobby for requirements for affordable housing. Construction unions lobby for less restrictive regulations but only alongside of requirements for union labor. Existing homeowners come out to lobby for more restrictions to preserve their quality of life. Etc etc.
Lobbying is only a slightly less distasteful word for legalized bribery via campaign contributions.
George Stigler won the Nobel Prize in Economics some 30 years ago by showing, among other things, that much governmental regulation exists because it has been demanded (in the economic sense of the word) by the industries being regulated. The textbook example was regulations banning advertising of cigarettes TV in 1970. At the time, there was public discussion of the danger that young impressionable children would be influenced to start smoking cigarettes. Hearings were held in Congress & in the Senate and public interest advocates came out of the woodwork to testify of the evils of cigarette advertising.
However, if you go behind the scenes, you discover substantial lobbying & campaign contributions to elected representatives from... drum roll please ... Big Tobacco and also from TV networks & stations. Big Tobacco's contributions were aimed at getting TV ads banned (that's right - banned) because Big Tobacco realized that TV advertising was the only effective way for a given brand to get a larger slice of the pie, but was not cost effective at increasing the overall size of the pie. Thus, from the point of view of the entire Tobacco industry, they realized TV advertising was essentially zero-sum and a drag on industry profits.
TV networks & stations lobbied the reverse - they wanted TV commercials for cigarette advertising because it helps their bottom line.
Ultimately, Big Tobacco won. And their profits went up.
When it comes to the marketplace for housing, it seems pretty clear who won - politicians who receive the campaign contributions.
It was not, in fact, rhetorical. I was asking the question seriously because, for all the conservative talk about the danger of big government and its intrusion in to business, many of these same characters raise a call to arms regarding new developments, and seek government fiat to block them. Free market until it hurts their home value. So, I honestly wanted to know if this poster, as a landlord who doesn't want government intrusion in to the market, would be comfortable if government relaxed highly restrictive zoning policies.
It was not, in fact, rhetorical. I was asking the question seriously because, for all the conservative talk about the danger of big government and its intrusion in to business, many of these same characters raise a call to arms regarding new developments, and seek government fiat to block them. Free market until it hurts their home value. So, I honestly wanted to know if this poster, as a landlord who doesn't want government intrusion in to the market, would be comfortable if government relaxed highly restrictive zoning policies.
OK. My bad.
I'm a landlord -- I own both single family homes and condos that I rent out. I benefit from government restriction of development.
I'm in favor of less restrictive development policies -- it would be difficult to find anyone who disagrees with the widespread conclusion that we have a housing shortage compared to demand. The community needs more housing.
At the same time, most people also would say we have too much traffic -- and more housing means more cars and more congestion. Since roads are saturated during commute hours, we know that adding more cars slows down everyone, and we know it slows faster than a linear relationship to the number of cars added or the number of total cars on the road. Thus, adding even a few cars makes everyone else's life miserable.
Add in impending water shortages. Drive by any of the areas reservoirs and it is shocking at how low they are.
At some point, it probably is reasonable to say "enough." At some point, it probably is reasonable to say we don't have road capacity or water capacity or school capacity or other public services capacity to allow more development. When do we hit that point? Some say we already have hit that point.
I know someone who pays 2,000 a month up in the city for an apartment that would normally go for 4,000 a month - you think the landlord eats up that lost profit rather than pass it on?
What kind of profit are we talking about "losing" here? The kind of profit where "what I'm getting for it is really close to what it costs to maintain..." or the kind of profit where "I'm not getting for mine what The Jones are getting for theirs"? A few months of rent, at exorbitant bay area prices, is enough to cover the property tax. Now, does the rest of the normal wear and tear maintenance and cleaning really cost thousands of dollars per month? I don't know, so I'm honestly curious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Troll much?
That's ignorant. Please explain how it's trolling. I'm saying that it's sad that profit is the only thing that drives people these days, and in a detrimentally aggressive manner. I'm curious as to why. I'm talking about the really low, down deep, rock bottom root cause of its pursuit. On an individual basis; not something generic and ethereal like "it's our right," or "because we can." I mean really why.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
