You, on the other hand, are very dumb, because if you continue reading that very sentence and the one after it:
…it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control.
Almost as if I had already given answer to those points in my previous comment about supply of housing (Buenos Aires example) or reduced construction (publicly driven construction) and you just refused to address those points! I explicitly said rent control is a band-aid and I gave solutions to literally every “problem” you brought up in the study such as higher rent for uncontrolled units (control them all), lower mobility (that’s a good thing meaning people get evicted less), and reduced residential construction (can be solved by public construction and has historically been solved like that).
Half of your original claim was that it does nothing to solve rent prices, and your own source claims that you’re wrong on that, and you have the ballz to be here questioning my sourcing abilities lmao
You’re just projecting because you’re full of shit. I did respond to your points, all of them, and in great detail too. But you chose to ignore them entirely because you’re simply incapable of responding to ANY of the points that I made. You still haven’t responded to how I dismantled your blatant misinformation of about the Soviet housing model or why public housing on a societal scale hasn’t worked. You ignore my responses, and then you have gall to pretend that I didn’t respond to your original claims? Get outta here with that bullshit.
If you had even a shred of honesty, which I’m 100% sure you don’t, you would go back to my previous comments, and reply to the points that I made properly. Instead of throwing out some brain dead insult like “bootlicker” or giving some lazy excuse like “do your own research”, how about stop trying to deflect and distract and actually prove me wrong? It should be easy, right? Then go ahead and do it. But you won’t, and I’m fully confident in that.
I explicitly said rent control is a band-aid and I gave solutions to literally every “problem” you brought up in the study such as higher rent for uncontrolled units (control them all)
lower mobility (that’s a good thing meaning people get evicted less),
I think you might actually be ignorant enough to not know what this means. Social mobility doesn’t eviction, it means people being able to change their socioeconomic status over time. If there was no social mobility then people in poverty will literally never be able to get out of it. How can you possibly talk about a concept you don’t even understand?
Half of your original claim was that it does nothing to solve rent prices, and your own source claims that you’re wrong on that, and you have the ballz to be here questioning my sourcing abilities lmao
You provided a single paper, that doesn’t claim what you said it did (because you clearly didn’t read it), gave me a source dumb that you got from chatGPT when you explicitly refused to provide sources when I debunked your narrative about the Soviet housing model, and you’re still actively avoiding telling me what claims you want sourced after I told that you that I’m more than happy to provide sources. It sounds like you’re afraid that you’ll look small if I started sourcing my claims because you know you have nothing.
You claim I haven’t read the papers, yet you’re confusing social mobility (not mentioned in the paper) with residential mobility (the one referenced). From the study you linked:
In addition, reduced housing mobility stemming from rent control can lead to decreased labor mobility
Housing mobility or residential mobility is a distinct concept, and you’re either not reading or misunderstunding. It’s what I referred to when I talked about evictions. The article is even explicit about it:
This mismatch can lead to situations where, for instance, an elderly widow remains in a large rent-controlled apartment long after her family has moved out, while larger households are desperately looking for homes of an appropriate size
This is explicitly about evicting people so that others can move in, that’s literally what “residential mobility” means, and it’s the mobility that the study is referring to, not social mobility as in ascending in income.
These concepts are all interlinked. The idea of social mobility is that people change their socioeconomic status over time. This includes their work and housing. It’s baffling how you’re actually dense enough to quote an example from the study that I linked that echoes exactly the point that I’ve been barking at all this time, as some sort of win for you. My god, you’re slow.
This example is there to clearly demonstrate how rent control worsens the housing crises by creating conditions that fuck over people in need. In this very example, the elderly lady’s socioeconomic status has changed. She’s no longer raising a family and she’s most likely retired. She’s all alone in a big unit that she doesn’t need, she’s literally only there because she wants to cling on to the controlled rent. But by doing so, she’s clogging up the unit from households that are still large and need that extra space. This is bad for her because downgrading to a smaller unit would better suit her needs but she feels the need to stay in the larger unit even though it’s unnecessary, and it’s also bad because there’s a large household out there that either doesn’t have a house at all or lives in a house that doesn’t suit their needs.
This has nothing to do with evictions, and everything to do with how rent control creates conditions that stifle housing opportunities for everybody. Mobility is an integral part of any functional economy because people and society aren’t static, they’re dynamic. Situations and circumstances constantly change, and there needs to be a system that’s able to provide people with options that allows them to adapt to their current needs.
If your level of education is quoting something that you clearly didn’t understand with such confidence then you’re a lost cause. As evidenced by you ignoring everything else that I stated in my previous comment, again, it’s clear at this point that you’re ignorant, an idiot, or a bad faith actor… if not all of the above. Since you have no interest in being honest or accurate, there’s no point in me continuing wasting time on you any further. You will forever continue to lie, deny, and cry. Therefore, this will be my last reply to you.
You, on the other hand, are very dumb, because if you continue reading that very sentence and the one after it:
This directly supports my claim.
Almost as if I had already given answer to those points in my previous comment about supply of housing (Buenos Aires example) or reduced construction (publicly driven construction) and you just refused to address those points! I explicitly said rent control is a band-aid and I gave solutions to literally every “problem” you brought up in the study such as higher rent for uncontrolled units (control them all), lower mobility (that’s a good thing meaning people get evicted less), and reduced residential construction (can be solved by public construction and has historically been solved like that).
Half of your original claim was that it does nothing to solve rent prices, and your own source claims that you’re wrong on that, and you have the ballz to be here questioning my sourcing abilities lmao
You’re just projecting because you’re full of shit. I did respond to your points, all of them, and in great detail too. But you chose to ignore them entirely because you’re simply incapable of responding to ANY of the points that I made. You still haven’t responded to how I dismantled your blatant misinformation of about the Soviet housing model or why public housing on a societal scale hasn’t worked. You ignore my responses, and then you have gall to pretend that I didn’t respond to your original claims? Get outta here with that bullshit.
If you had even a shred of honesty, which I’m 100% sure you don’t, you would go back to my previous comments, and reply to the points that I made properly. Instead of throwing out some brain dead insult like “bootlicker” or giving some lazy excuse like “do your own research”, how about stop trying to deflect and distract and actually prove me wrong? It should be easy, right? Then go ahead and do it. But you won’t, and I’m fully confident in that.
I think you might actually be ignorant enough to not know what this means. Social mobility doesn’t eviction, it means people being able to change their socioeconomic status over time. If there was no social mobility then people in poverty will literally never be able to get out of it. How can you possibly talk about a concept you don’t even understand?
You provided a single paper, that doesn’t claim what you said it did (because you clearly didn’t read it), gave me a source dumb that you got from chatGPT when you explicitly refused to provide sources when I debunked your narrative about the Soviet housing model, and you’re still actively avoiding telling me what claims you want sourced after I told that you that I’m more than happy to provide sources. It sounds like you’re afraid that you’ll look small if I started sourcing my claims because you know you have nothing.
You claim I haven’t read the papers, yet you’re confusing social mobility (not mentioned in the paper) with residential mobility (the one referenced). From the study you linked:
Housing mobility or residential mobility is a distinct concept, and you’re either not reading or misunderstunding. It’s what I referred to when I talked about evictions. The article is even explicit about it:
This is explicitly about evicting people so that others can move in, that’s literally what “residential mobility” means, and it’s the mobility that the study is referring to, not social mobility as in ascending in income.
Educate yourself, lib
These concepts are all interlinked. The idea of social mobility is that people change their socioeconomic status over time. This includes their work and housing. It’s baffling how you’re actually dense enough to quote an example from the study that I linked that echoes exactly the point that I’ve been barking at all this time, as some sort of win for you. My god, you’re slow.
This example is there to clearly demonstrate how rent control worsens the housing crises by creating conditions that fuck over people in need. In this very example, the elderly lady’s socioeconomic status has changed. She’s no longer raising a family and she’s most likely retired. She’s all alone in a big unit that she doesn’t need, she’s literally only there because she wants to cling on to the controlled rent. But by doing so, she’s clogging up the unit from households that are still large and need that extra space. This is bad for her because downgrading to a smaller unit would better suit her needs but she feels the need to stay in the larger unit even though it’s unnecessary, and it’s also bad because there’s a large household out there that either doesn’t have a house at all or lives in a house that doesn’t suit their needs.
This has nothing to do with evictions, and everything to do with how rent control creates conditions that stifle housing opportunities for everybody. Mobility is an integral part of any functional economy because people and society aren’t static, they’re dynamic. Situations and circumstances constantly change, and there needs to be a system that’s able to provide people with options that allows them to adapt to their current needs.
If your level of education is quoting something that you clearly didn’t understand with such confidence then you’re a lost cause. As evidenced by you ignoring everything else that I stated in my previous comment, again, it’s clear at this point that you’re ignorant, an idiot, or a bad faith actor… if not all of the above. Since you have no interest in being honest or accurate, there’s no point in me continuing wasting time on you any further. You will forever continue to lie, deny, and cry. Therefore, this will be my last reply to you.