Why Rent Control Hurts Renters | 5 Minute Video

[@bernardohernandez2620]

I never understand how middle class people can afford NYC.

[@josephbattaglia3690]

lol..your right...we can't

[@alsoknownas875]

We can't.

[@beldiman5870]

In a fair society, there is no reason why they should not be able to afford it. After all they are the ones who keep the cities running. Personally I am still waiting for Superman, Batman, Spiderman and all the others working class superheros to bring justice .

[@jeffhurtson5211]

@L K Maybe its so expensive because its the bigest city in the us

[@Ace-uc5cj]

Jeffhurtson and so much taxes

[@FlAw88]

Yes, landlords who manage properties not constrained by rent control have more cash to spend on refurbishing, repairing, and improving them, but does that happen in reality? Or, does the landlord pocket most of it for him or herself?

[@sofaking1611]

Its literally Reaganomics

[@darylgud7601]

I would ask why would someone spend their life savings to invest in a property they will never live in and then turn it over to someone that could not do it for themselves? Also why does a rental property need so many more repairs than the property that a home owner lives in? Obviously being a landlord is an investment, and one would want a return on his money. So if you buy a place for 300,000.00, fix it up rent it and want a 6% return on your money, after expenses how much would you have to charge for rent? 18,000.00/ year plus taxes, insurance, costs for repairs, down time for when it sits empty, you may have to pay for utility bills left behind or unpaid rents, or damages renters made to your asset. That's if the place is fully paid for and you are not making a mortgage payment. After expenses you would have to receive about 2000.00/month of rent, or why do it, this is the question landlords are asking. Or should they invest in something with a better return on their money? When a tenant treats a house bad because it is not his house or even on purpose trashes the house and then moves on, or stops paying his rent many landlords give up, sell their asset or what is left of it and those that remain raise their rents, the law of supply and demand. It is not about greed or taking advantage, in fact tenants far more take advantage of landlords than landlords take advantage of tenants. The last one that took advantage of me, cost me 10,000.00 plus my own labor to bring my house back to a rentable state, skipped out on rent and their contract, plus legal costs to evict them and get a judgment against them, which I will never see a dime from, but it might help some other landlord from renting to them and making such a big mistake. I wish I could show before and after pictures. any profit I would have made over the last year and a half was wiped out in costs, I lost money to rent to them. Now they are asking why is there not enough affordable housing? Could it be that tenants are not held responsible for the messes they make and landlords are leaving the industry?

[@codorin]

@@darylgud7601 titally. i do work on rental properties. simetimes it amazes me how fithy some people can be. that cost money to fix. some peoe think landlords have money trees somewhere. no the money is coming from rent. i was in a place. jt was rented for about 4 years to a family. they were okay renters apparently. the house was quite destroyed. a few thoysands in repairs. it was rented to them at $1500/month. new rent is 2200/month. home owner says that he needs to rent it at minium $2000/momth to be cashflow posititve. do you think he will be nice and rent it out for less and lose money? he is not a charity.

[@darylgud7601]

@@codorin my point exactly. At one point I had six properties, I am down to my last one. I am now getting out of the business. Their is still a housing shortage here and prices are raising.

[@MGTOWPsyche]

he can pocket it all he wants....while a competitor invests and repairs his apartments... sooner or later the negligent landlords end up losing renters who rent now to the good landlord who takes care of his units!

[@formerevolutionist]

In Korea there is little if no regulation on rent (as far as I know). Yet everywhere more and more apartment complexes are going up. Way up. It is common to see nice, large apartments reaching at least 25 stories. Old apartments are demolished and bigger and better ones are quickly erected in their places. Real estate agencies are everywhere and there are several options when it comes to finding a place to live. Not bad for a country with a high population and little land, right? If places like New York and Chicago would simply stop messing with rent, ownership, and construction, then finding a decent place to live at a decent price would be much easier.

[@Alicenotinchains]

Korea lol is not NYC...common sense incl to your thumbs up who lol know this as well kid.

[@apocalypznow]

In S.Korea, where old condos are completely torn down and new ones built to replace them - is entirely a government program that uses tax dollars to improve lives of tenants of buildings that have aged. If the condo is owned, the owner pays no cost to resume living in his new suite. If the tenant is a renter, his rent is still dependent on the landlord that own the unit. In summary, this has nothing to do with having or not having rent controls, it is purely a government spending initiative (along with private companies contracted to do the building). PragerU would balk at such a socialist policy, but it works very well in S.Korea.

[@gavarnibijovug8085]

Wake up, all you lousy capitalists. At the end of the day, you're all still gonna get raped by the devil while burning in hell for your GREED. You won't even get the satisfaction of being the last ones. You'll probably be the first victims, so the devil can show off how STUPID you all were to believe his lies about how wonderful and normal CAPITALISM is. Btw, don't even think about coming crying to Jesus. It's well known that he is a SOCIALIST who has no sympathy for your greed and selfishness. (Not to mention STUPIDITY)

[@geraldbennett7035]

you are selfish and arrogant @@gavarnibijovug8085

[@manaloola2018]

Gavarni Bijovug please, tell us why

[@arthurwelsh474]

Thomas Sowell Basic Economics book speaks on this and breaks it down beautifully.

[@burtontech]

In Los Angeles, rents are getting out of control. $3000 for a studio apartment that is essentially a dump. Corporations are building massive apartment complexes in areas that used to be single family homes and in my experience, landlords have zero incentive to improve their properties until someone moves out. If landlords were concerned about not having money to cover maintenance, perhaps that should align with a law that requires them put the majority of rent increases into improving the property, and that cost can be amortized over time, eventually returning to the controlled rent. If all available lands are being bought up by corporations and wealthy families, then converted to apartments, the American dream of home ownership is dead. Shelter isn't a normal commodity that can be changed on a whim... can you imagine if you went to the emergency room and they said, "well they built a stadium down the street, we're going to triple the price just for you!". Right now there are many areas where that is completely legal. Families suddenly find themselves having to leave their job or their extended family or their kids' school, over what is essentially greed. The only way to regulate that is with rent control laws. Would you signup for a loan or a credit card that could change at any moment? Once your agreement with your landlord expires after a year, that is essentially how you're going to be living. Developers are always going to snatch up as much land as they can and turn the highest possible profit, regardless of rent control laws. So in this video, they use the island of Manhattan, which has no land, so they essentially build apartment buildings that cater to the rich. Is that how your town works? I'm sure the vast majority of people could move to the suburbs and live there for decades, as long as their landlord isn't pumping them for as much cash as possible. If renters have more expendable income, they are going to spread it around more effectively than the super rich landowners. It's the whole joke of trickle down economics. People that aren't being forced to live a nomadic existence are going to be more invested in their neighborhood and build more of a community. Where developers have been allowed to build apartments unchecked, they go for the smallest units with the highest density. They say it's to provide affordable housing, but then these groups turn around and fight every initiative to require them to provide permanent affordable housing for even only a portion of their units. It's a lie for the sole purpose of lining their pockets at the expense of their community. If you are a renter and don't support some kind of rent control, you are a fool and this video is pure propaganda funded by the developer and rental lobbies.

[@Mattxint]

burtontech Trickle Down Economics isn’t an Economic Theory btw

[@keeganmoonshine7183]

Rent controls are just terrible economic policy. It's simple math. They distort the market and lead to higher rent inflation over time as landlords jack up rents massively whenever they can. Rent control hurts current renters at the expense of those who have already been renting for a while. Not a fair system.

[@cjgt77]

The huge flaw that wasn't addressed in this video is that if you take away rent control and the landlord's jack up the price of an apartment $400 a month how is that person going to afford to stay in the apartment? And who said the landlords will start building other affordable housing? The reason why they're so many upscale buildings is because that's where the money is. Instead of focusing on rents, maybe we should focus on wages and why they don't keep up with the rate of inflation.

[@marlonivancarranzabarrient787]

if nobody is not able to pay then the landlord would died of hunger since nobody is paying so he would lower the price. apartment are not permanent housing you may have to move some day

[@GPS08]

Marlon Ivan Carranza Barrientos So what you're saying is, unless the Landlord charges twice or triple the value of his property, he's not making any money? Bullshit. It's the same with set prices for drinks, food and tobacco, it's to make sure every shop has the same fair deal a can of coke sells for example. Same with renting, it's to keep it fair and affordable. Something you wouldn't know about apparently. Maybe when you'll have to pay £600 for a small single room, in a dumphole where house is dirty, broken things, hazards, etc... you'll see what I mean. And these lack of conditions is caused by not having a rent cap. There's one thing to make profit, another thing is being GREEDY. Which is what this is all about.

[@gregcarlson8438]

Many people, including these landlords, think this will happen. But it won't. Just like a little kid that is restricting a blown up ballon in all but one area watches that one area pop out, it would be if one landlord or a group of landlords got an exemption to rent control. This wouldn't be the case however, if controls were lifted all over. total demand would drop as prices rose and supply would rise. We can see this on the supply and demand graphs and this works in all areas of the economy.

[@CatholicTraditional]

Exactly. Rental housing was never meant to be permanent.

[@geraldbennett7035]

mooching renters deserve no benefit

[@Ezpazmic]

This is a spot-on description of today's housing situation in Sweden.

[@Ezpazmic]

I don't really know but I guess it's like they say: "The road to hell is paved (?) with good intentions." That's the ironic thing about rent control in Sweden; it was introduced in order to make housing more affordable for poor people but in the long run it made it impossible to create a functioning market for building apartments, thus causing them to be in short supply today. It especially affects poor people who can't afford to just buy an apartment.

[@Ezpazmic]

None of the major cities are very large nor densely populated if you compare internationally, so it's definitely possible to build away the problem. The politicians main job would be to expand services and infrastructure for the increased population. What's stopping it is the rent control and the heavy regulations on how to build and where. But I agree that the rents would sky-rocket of the rent control was removed right away. Only solution I can come up with is that it would gradually be removed together with the construction regulations. Just look at the rest of Europe.

[@Ezpazmic]

Public transportation is being expanded at the moment as far as I know. The problem with car-traffic is mainly because the highways go through the city instead of around it. It should be remedied once Förbifart Stockholm is finished. The ghettos you're referring to were built as government-funded housing projects to deal with lack of apartments. The reason they were built that way was because the government followed the city-planning ideas that were "in" at the time. Without regulations, it should be no problem building shops and various small businesses as a part of residential buildings. You know, city-block style. And when it comes to rent control, I simply compare with our neighboring countries. They don't have rent control and no housing crisis neither.

[@forzainuu6051]

+Ezpazmic Except we do not have rent control and have not had it in ages.

[@quantumapex6169]

I agree! De-regulste some of the house building laws and remove the rent controls a small portion at a time. This will let the market catch up.

[@SRT480]

funny now in California the pricing is so high, that working people are having a harder and harder time affording to live there.

[@jasonschlierman412]

This is becuase of the anti-rent control "Costa-Hawkins" act of 1995. There is no more new rent control in the state, and the high price or rent is the aftermath of that law.

[@SRT480]

i had moved there to take care of my grand mother, when she passed i couldnt find a place regardless in size under 1 k a month

[@jasonschlierman412]

I feel your pain. It's way to expensive for what it is.

[@SRT480]

The housing she was in was free

[@kwazooplayingguardsman5615]

SRT480 well california is a populous state, from what i can remeber northern cali has cheap land. its all about supply and demand.

[@billybassman21]

I live in Houston, TX where there is no cap on rent. Virtually every apartment has air conditioning, dishwasher, disposable and a fridge. The poor ones can be pretty ghetto, but nothing like you see in places like New York. $800 a month can get you a pretty nice 1 bedroom apartment. $1000 a month can get you a small 3 bedroom house or a nice apartment. The old ran down apartments are getting demolished everyday for newer ones. The only thing that sucks is most people move every couple of years, but the new apartment is usually clean and freshly painted. BTW I own a 1200 sq house and only pay $800 a month with taxes and insurance.

[@STDrepository]

i'm looking to move to Texas, specifically Houston. No jobs here in California

[@Alicenotinchains]

Different culture.

[@CatholicTraditional]

I don't think too many rent in Texas.

[@iamaleftist3834]

Problem here is that that the policy (rent controls) is being viewed in isolation the presumption is made that other policies can't be adopted along with rent controls.For example to address the issues in the conclusion"Harms the people its meant to benefit"It only harms them in the ways mentioned in the subsequent points, this isn't an issue in of itself, and besides those issues can be addressed."Gives landlords little incentive to improve their housing stock"Truth is they very rarely improve it anyway but this can easily be rectified with legislation dictating minimum standards of upkeep and maintenance. "Discourages construction of new housing for all but the rich"Can be solved with legislation dictating all new builds must have a % (preferably a large %) of hosing units affordable for those on average incomes. This is already a policy in many places including NYC I believe and should be made more stringent. Furthermore the problem could be solved by taking the property development market out of the hands of private profit driven companies and instead handing it to co-operatives, housing associations, and not for profits who are solely fixated on providing housing, not on making a profits. Hate to break it to you folks but Socialism works mainly because free markets don't.

[@gethere1]

Rent control tenants have so much rights. They can pass down to their family and friends. It's suck to be a small landlord with the rent control apartment. Even you have the proofs that she/he doesn't live in the apartment at longest their mails still goes to the address. You can't do nothing about it. Because the laws it always feel soft for the tenants not the the landlords, just because some loudest landlords force to kick the tenants out, because most of the landlords can not support the real estate taxes and counting the winter heating bills. No one ever feel sorry for the smaller landlord, they think most the landlord are making a lot of money. They only landlords are making money is the big guys, not the little one. Who is hurting???? the lower men...

[@TrollermanSixtysevan]

smartygirl I hear ya, here in Canada, if the renters don't pay rent, you can't do anything about it. They will make prank phone calls, break your walls, but you can't do anything. If you try, they will say you put cameras in "their" home, and try to sue you. You also can't kick them out, because of the dumb law. That's why Canada (Not any big cities like Toronto) don't have much places for renters. It's just too difficult for landlords. Plus, if they break the toilet on purpose, you have to fix it or face major fines.

[@MikeJohnson-nr4yo]

I don't think anywhere in Canada has rent control but that's because the laws favour the renter way to much.

[@TrollermanSixtysevan]

drunkpolak wontreply Yeah! Like holy crap, one thing wrong and the landlord has to pay up!

[@gethere1]

That's right! It sucks to be a rent control or rent stabilized landlord. If you have money invest regular properties.

[@TrollermanSixtysevan]

smartygirl Yeah! Rent it out, and you will be forced to pay more than the rent from fixing the toilet or replacing the wall because the renters are dumb!

[@danielvalleduarte]

"WHY RENT CONTROL HELPS RICH LANDLORDS TO SQUEEZE OUT THE WORKING CLASS."

[@robertenglish9838]

Strange, isn't it, that when I ask my company for a raise, they say "We're a global economy now. You have to compete with worker's salaries in India, Pakistan, China and Mexico." But when I ask my San Francisco (where I was born) landlord to compete in this same "global economy" and the landlords of China, Pakistan, India and Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Orlando, Charlotte, he says "I'm still raising your rent 15% this year".

[@etchedinstone7562]

This is what happens when landlords and employers have too great an advantage in the policymaking sphere.

[@calebtimes453]

Robert English Funny thing hey The costs increase but wages stay more or less the same in some or many cases.

[@dr.everythingb.alright303]

+Robert English Not all that strange, considering both a job and an employee are mobile - thereby being more competitive. Your old apartment is located at a fixed location in San Francisco - therefore not subject to whatever the market is in China.

[@RichardTheTraveller]

Robert English Keep in mind that you’re competing with people on your side. As an employee, you’re competing with other employees for salaries, not the employer. While as a renter, you are competing with other renters for an apartment, not the landlord. (Similarly, employers compete with other employers for talents, landlords compete with other landlords for renters) In your case, “other employers” and “other renters” are not the same group of people. While “other employers” ask for lower salaries, “other renters” bid up the rent, hence the “strangeness”.

[@robertneville1512]

Almost as if the system is holding you down, I love how morons always say "pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a second job" but they fail to mention that no matter what the system will always hold you down even if you get 4th job.

[@getrolli469]

The more I watch this channel the more I like capitalism. ...

[@james10739]

That's because it makes sense

[@simonwalker8483]

That's because it's funded by people who want you to believe that this system that is founded on and will forever reproduce inequality is fair. It's planned propaganda and you buy into it.

[@hk4lyfe59]

And your communist/socialist bullcrap isn't propaganda?

[@palebluedot7435]

Ge Trolli I'll help look at 1920s America That's true capitalism

[@palebluedot7435]

Dean Ismail Won't work the more ruthless the capitalist the more successful he will be and he will outcompete kinder ones

[@fmendezgnu]

In my country, Argentina, there is no rent control and it is a disaster, the rents are too expensive even for people who has a good job, and it is really expensive even for those who can afford a rent, this problem made that the new buildings are mostly with apartments for only one person, because bigger apartments are imposible to rent, and other buildings are only made to wash money and have som invested capital which doesn't mind to be rented, so the landlords doesn't make an effort to rent their apartment or houses they just leave it and wait for someone who wants to pay the price that he wants

[@dankadybong7948]

Franco Mendez . renting no matter how u look at it is always a problem. owning is the solution. they own it, they can accept or leave the price.

[@Vampire_born_in_2006]

if people pay that much then they can afford. People would live more together (roommates etc) if they couldn't afford, sleep on double beds. But people choose to pay more for rent instead of spending money elsewhere and live together, that means that it is worth it for them and they can afford it. If nobody wanted to rent a high price, then price would go down, so that people would change mind

[@dankadybong7948]

Franco Mendez . think if u owned an apartment u rented out. you could just sit on your fat ass and do nothing and the renter would pay the mortgage loan for that apartment on your behalf for just living there.

[@Stormin505]

rent in Argentina is expensive yes. so is a Loaf of bread, Argentina is a Socialist country run by Bureaucrats that don't care!

[@SiegePerilousEsauMaltomite]

If nobody was renting, the rent wouldn't be high. Landlord will not sit with a high price tag on an empty building for long.

[@NorCal-Killa]

We’ve tried your way for 20 years and rent in the Bay Area is now over $2000 per room. Time for change. Yes on 10

[@kingphillieman]

I understand it hurts landlords because they have to pay taxes, but what do we do to lower property taxes? That seems to be the issue facing California. Everyone complains about property taxes when it comes to rent control, but nobody complains about the big companies that have contributed to the taxes being so high. They should pay a tax based on their economic and environmental impact. I can tell you that an apartment building in San Jose was demolished in 2016 and residents were evicted, to build market rate units. They had no choice in the matter. That's 216 units. I noticed that this was not mentioned and left out. This does happen. Not sure about New York, but in Cali, yes. Rent control means nothing here. People have been forced out and only lots of high rent units remain. Could the answer be that you just don't want low income people in these neighborhoods and/or cities? I'm not sure but I don't think anyone can answer why they won't build for everyone. You have jobs for everyone but not housing...how does that make sense. Maybe we should just get rid of lower wage/skilled workers in big cities so the rich can have them all to themselves...that looks like what they want. I would blame the people with money too. Because every time (and I mean every) someone even proposes low income housing anywhere, they rally and protest. "Why can't you build it somewhere else?!?!" Yeah ok. Let's just not build and keep everyone on the streets so the streets can be unsafe, dirty, and unsanitary. So yeah, rent control is bad, but you wouldn't need it if these intelligent college graduated people would understand that these people are your neighbors. They aren't going anywhere. So you can allow them to build, or watch as your property value starts to go down in a few years because guess what? That's what's going to happen when the small businesses leave, and there's nothing but homeless surrounding you...that doesn't make your neighborhood appealing or desirable. Thanks for coming to my Tyrone Talk....

[@JohnJacobGarza]

The one thing that city can’t use his budget correctly and only pay for what they can afford and lower taxes in Cap taxes

[@floridaman6982]

Its a death spiral that comes from squeezing the middle class. People start to leave long before the complaining begins by then its just too late

[@TheSubtilizer]

Zoning Laws also increase rent

[@darylgud7601]

Subtilizer Aegis you are right and ever increasing taxes. Add in unaccountable renters that damage properties and get away with it. It is a never ending game against the landlord.

[@tprogressasap8798]

but government intervention is good so rent control is good. the most government intervention can be found in venezuela and north korea where people are the most happy =D

[@robfromvan]

TProgressASAP lol

[@richardfry5991]

not everyone is good at sarcasm

[@gavarnibijovug8085]

Sad how you believe every thing this pea-brain D- averaging college dropout spews out from his rear. This video is just choc-full of plain stupid nonsense, for people who are stupid, who don't/can't think for themselves and who don't have sufficiently high self-esteem to believe that the deserve a better life. Also, if you believe this crap, you are dead inside and do not understand what compassion is. In other words, you are a Republican.

[@adlerdefender8067]

Let's bring an example Health care worked better when government stepped in, before insurance companies were able to turn you away if you already had an illness, after the government stepped in now insurance companies have to give you coverage

[@janeyue7491]

But SF has been 0.6%-2.2% lately.

[@erinmurphy6993]

It's really about the way rent control is implemented and applied. Replacing traditional rent control with tax credits paid to the landlord or renter like how the HUD sometimes does to lower the cost of rents for low-income housing is better than a hard price control set by a cities rent control board. Doing so allows the landlord or renter to make improvements to the property. To further improve such as system would be to give grants and tax credits to renters and landlords to make certain policy approved improvements to the property like solar cells, A/C units, energy conserving windows and doors, water conservation equipment, energy saving appliances etc.

[@mbenzsl2000]

There was a story in 2012 about 2 senior citizens paying less than 100 dollars a month, in Soho. Supposedly the landlord back in the 60's never filed the paperwork so it became an unusual situation (unique to this building I believe) How sweet would that be though? Talk about a portal back in time...

[@confusedcynic9073]

My father rented a 3bd 2bth house to a couple in there 30's in the early 60's for the going rate of 75 dollars, tragically the husband was killed, my father feeling sorry for her told her he would never raise her rent. That lasted 36 years until she died.

[@eleanormedina6703]

@@confusedcynic9073 was he killed on your family property?

[@VanillaDazzle]

We don't even have rent controlled anymore. We have rent stabilized. That means, landlords can only raise rents by so much. The alternative is that people get in there and can't afford to move so the landlord jacks up the rent. There's a built in switching cost for the consumer in the rental market. Landlords think writing off the empty apartment is like getting all the money back.

[@Partyffs]

+Vanilla Dazzle Don't like it, don't sign the contract!

[@VanillaDazzle]

Mystogan Edolas What are you talking about? Did you read my comment? It sounds like you are stupid without critical thinking skills.

[@vegacool1]

most people I know would be forced to move to shady areas of town without some kind of rent control. As it stands most of my friends cant afford to rent a decent house for their families and are growing out of the tiny apartments they currently can afford.

[@Vampire_born_in_2006]

if you cannot afford a Ferrari then you do not deserve it, then you drive a civic that you can afford. That's fair. Why bitching about not having a Ferrari when you are a dishwasher

[@rinwesley3092]

@Vampire_born_in_2006 Nobody 'deserves' to live in a high crime, unkempt neighborhood if they themselves are law abiding, hard working responsible people. It's no wonder then that renters would vote in favor of rent control if that's the attitude those against rent control take towards them. Use your damn brain.

[@josephfleeman]

Rent control worked for new york.The limit should be 10% of a man's income for rent INSTEAD of the 40% they charge now. 40 % is almost half of your income! In williston old people on social security were paying 700$ a month, they lost their homes when the oil companies came to town.The landlords licked their chops and jacked the rates up to 1,500-2,500 a month! This is called "supply and demand" which is just another term for "price gouging". The real estate developers could have built mobile home parks or even the oil companies could have had company homes the employees could have bought or rented.Many companies did this in the past and they made money off of it.

[@NicosMind]

This reminds me of all the government controls that there used to be on wheat. For 300 years, up to Adam Smith's day, governments all throughout Europe kept fiddling with the wheat market causing shortages and starvation the whole time. Since it was food and eating is necessary people argued that it needed government interference to keep the people fed (it reminds me of the healthcare argument). However alternative foods became popular like oats which didnt suffer any of these restrictions, and when governments finally gave in and removed their controls wheat quickly became the most popular food in Europe.

[@gorkyd7912]

A better solution to excessively high rent would be: Prevent non-residents from renting out multiple buildings. Prevent mortgaged residential units from being rented by non-residents. Renting is not where most Americans want to be, they would rather own or at least part-own where they are staying and then sell it when they want to move away. That way they can fix problems themselves and economically benefit from property improvements and build equity rather than throwing money away to pay someone else's mortgage as their home falls apart. As is, tenants have no desire to increase property value, that would just increase their rent, so who cares if the place turns into a dump, they can just leave and someone else will move in at a slightly lower rate. But renting is the only option in a lot of places because property prices are astronomical. They're astronomical because anyone on earth with enough money can buy property in high-demand areas like New York and rent it back to the people who actually live and work there, doubling their profit because they can turn around and sell the property at any time for what its worth. Profit is guaranteed because the higher the cost of the property the less likely the people actually living there can afford it, the more demand for renters, the higher the rent income to pay off the high-priced property. This cycle leads to a housing bubble; prices rising far above what anyone would want to actually buy for themselves. If a renter can't afford where they rent after 30 years of paying a mortgage with 1/3rd their income there's probably a housing bubble. All the cities income that should be going to maintaining properties or buying homes for actual residential owners is going to banks who collect interest on mortgages and a few wealthy investors from Saudi or China diversifying their investments with property and getting rental income to pay for it. Meanwhile the price of housing becomes prohibitive for the actual workers living in the city and they have to become renters, not even owning the properties they're paying for anymore. Markets WOULD correct this is imbalance if the banks went bankrupt during the rare times when the tables turn and this model becomes unprofitable because no one can afford it anymore. But unfortunately for tax-paying renters, the government is willing to bail out the banks (even under Republican administration) with taxpayer funds to maintain the status-quo at the acute expense of the massively growing population who can't afford to actually own the property they live in. People should be able to work for 5 years saving up with a good job and be able to buy at least a starter home in the boondocks. Right now it takes 5 years to save up for the 20% down payment on a 30 year mortgage!

[@gorkyd7912]

Doesn't matter, people would be able to actually buy and sell properties instead of being investment pawns for wealthy internationals. What's better for people in your town, being able to buy and rent their own properties or having to rent to foreigners?

[@gorkyd7912]

Obviously some people want to rent and some want to buy but the price of rent is directly relational to the price of mortgages when the majority of home "owners" are paying mortgage and need to get the same amount out of renters to not be losing money on the property. If a 2 bedroom house costs $600/month to own it's not going to be rented for less than $300 per room.

[@iainmacdonald4410]

Take a look where i live, vancouver BC, jousing prices have been a run away freight train and with it rent. People are leaving the city and the only ones remaining are forign investors, single people, students with wealthy parents. Yeah rent control may not be the best solution but the alternative also has its downsides. This video doesn't provide a better solution than New York or Vancouver.

[@syl20carle]

Yes it does offer an alternative, the free market. You say rents are high in Vancouver why aren't there more units built? You make no sense, on the one hand Landlords are greedy and on the other lazy because they won't build more to make more money? Fack, the housing crisis in Vancouver and Toronto is directly attributable to a lack of supply caused by rent control, it is that simple. Montreal's market is on the way up right now because of a supply shortage, rents are going up, pushing tenants to buy housing that they want to pay more for because their rent is higher. We Landlords don't really mind rent control, I look at it as a supply management tool, my vacancy rates have never been so low and my carrying costs are also at the lowest ever. Keep voting for socialist Governments!

[@rockwithyou2006]

@Jack Storm @Brutus Tan is not an asshole for saying that. Rent control constricts supply and eventually causes all sorts of issues which are visible after many years. One of those issues being high rent. Is it moral that a person is allowed to live in a city at low rents due to govt. coercion when there is an outsider willing to pay more for the same place? Nope. You don't earn the right to live in some place because you lived there for a few years. If there is a person willing to pay more, he should be allowed to live there. Thats good for everybody and also fair.

[@TheSkankingDevil]

So, this video was created in 2014. And she's quoting statistics from 1992. You know, only 22 year difference. Nothing significant probably happened in that time period, though.

[@PUMPADOUR]

I live on rent controlled apartment in L.A. I make 75k a year. I can not afford market rent at all. And I dont think my employer will hear me for salary increase to cover my new high rent. Also finding a better played job somewhere else is a long shot. My rent controlled apartment is a blessing to me. The current homeless explosion in LA is also because of high rents. And in no circumstances anyone likes to see high rises build L.A. So in L.A. rent control is here to stay.

[@JohnJacobGarza]

How much do you pay

[@rogersheddy6414]

Then why are these buildings always so swiftly bought up when a landlord wants to sell? Why do landlords try to add more and more and more units to their stock? I was once a building superintendent for a man who owned over 630 buildings. He was immensely wealthy,yet never paid me enough to rent even the cheapest of his rent controlled apartments--and that is saying a lot.Were there a "free" market, no one could Liv in tyne five boroughs making less than $100,000 a year. It is an unresolveable mess.

[@hamnchee]

I can't afford to live in Beverly Hills. It's an unresolvable mess.

[@jonathand.salazardejesus798]

I love how they used Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman as examples of opposite: I don't even know how Krugman got a Nobel Prize, he makes a fool out of himself every time he open his mouth

[@PrincessJonique]

Ok so I'm at a point where I'm trying to understand what's going on in my society ... So I understand how rent control can effect people however rent control does benefit most people living in " underprivileged " areas where it is common for your average household to make around 35,000 a year (roughly) so in the example given how would that old lady be able to afford her rent or even better what would be the resolution other than raising rent for her (our lower middle class society)

[@gorilladisco9108]

That old lady is strawman argument.

[@kpss4681]

Or maybe the problem is that rent control isn't being universally put in place on all property. Germany does this and their housing market is healthy, and equitable.

[@etchedinstone7562]

Germany is also a very well-run economy that didn't outsource its manufacturing. The problem in a lot of these major cities is twofold. Not enough ordinary jobs, not enough housing for ordinary earners.

[@SiegePerilousEsauMaltomite]

Tax system doesn't encourage home ownership there either. Germany ha some of the lowest home ownership rates. This is because we robust regulation, although they have struck a good balance it comes at a cost. Also, Germany heavily subsidised the wide scale construction of housing after the destruction of the war. So with an abundance of housing without burdening private owners directly, the government regulations can work. But this doesn't mean Germans pay less of their income on tent, so what's the point?

[@iamthepeppernator]

FYI, while rent control is bad, dont think that getting rid of it will solve the housing crisises we are seeing in cities. Rent control was banned in Boston in 1994, and it now has the third highest rent. More needs to be done to introduce regulation supporting or even requiring lower income housing development.

[@Misaka-gt5yj]

St. Paul Just Implemented the Nation’s Strictest Rent Control Law. It’s Already Backfiring Tremendously. Yes, some renters save money in the short term by enjoying artificially low rents. But the restricted prices limit future construction and housing supply which ultimately leads to a housing shortage and less affordable housing in the long run.

[@visearms5774]

@@Misaka-gt5yj it doesn't "ultimately" lead to a shortage. It almost immediately leads to a shortage. Whenever you have artificially lower prices you have increased demand. Increased demand without being able to counter this with higher prices leads to a shortage. It amazes me that with the abundance of evidence saying rent control not only doesn't work but in fact makes it worse, we still have politicians supporting it.

[@BlackAcesBlackEights]

Whoops. I don't disagree with some of these points... but the whole video is about rent stabilization, and not rent control. They are two entirely different things in New York City. 50% of NYC's apartments are rent stabilized. 1% are rent controlled. That she doesn't understand this, despite New York City being where her "research" is focused, doesn't give me a whole lot of faith in the rest of what she's saying.

[@JDela10]

This is a very strange criticism since rent stabilization is still price control. A board sits annually and determines the maximum amount rent can be increased in a unit subject to rent stabilization, just as she describes. Moreover, it also entitles tenants to lease renewals and so forth so your criticism is a bit pedantic to be honest. She is still talking about the same thing it's just that rent stabilization is mostly an new york thing (mostly buildings erected before 1974 I think?) and not that common elsewhere. But its effects are the same and it's very similar to rent control seen elsewhere.

[@lepetitchat123]

I doubt very much if the greedy property developers would build new housing for all social classes even if there is no rent control. They will always make the maximum profits by catering only to the wealthy given the limited supply of land. Hong Kong is a vivid example.

[@Leo-gl8fl]

If landlords can't afford to improve their owned properties because their revenue is too low, couldn't those benefitting from reduced rent be able to improve their housing based on the lack of costs in form of rent? The real threat of rent control on renters supposedly demonstrated by this video is lost on me.

[@henriturgutyan9244]

That’s taking a one size fits all formula and applying it to a large group of people with a diversity in how they handle their money’s and also what percentage of their income is attributed to rent.

[@lilbrusselsprout8261]

It removes the profit incentive to build / develop new apartments. That leads to supply dropping, aka a housing shortage (why it’s impossible to find an affordable apartment in nyc) which leads to rents rising in all the non rent controlled apartments. There are at least 4x the number of abandoned housing units in nyc as there are homeless people. Homelessness is not due to a physical scarcity of housing, but a to a *price related shortage* , which rent control creates.

[@dzhang25642000]

Does anyone know why would any landlord enter into a lease with a rent controlled tenant? Many of these contracts have started many decades ago after WWII but it doesn't make sense to me that any landlord would willingly put a rent ceiling on their property. Your input appreciated.

[@Saxshoe]

they didn't choose to put price ceilings on their apartments. rent controlled apartments are selected by the city and enforced by the city. if you happen to own buildings that have rent control imposed while you own them, you're shit outta luck. Unfortunately, you still own it, and still gotta make money. No one is willing to buy it from you now that it commands smaller revenue.

[@aggffdgubfff]

Matt S. yikes that doesn't sound good then...? So no to rent control? Or?

[@deemann2276]

In NYC even with rent control the rents are to high.

[@jakejones5736]

As a rule, the highest rents in the nation are in rent control districts. So much for protections.

[@TV-xv1le]

@@jakejones5736 I'm gonna have to disagree there. The problem is supply and demand. If builders cant come in and build where they want without zoning issues or regulations then I would say there's an argument to be made. The problem is that there's only so many apartments to go around so prices get jacked up. Most people who work in the city cant afford to live there. Likewise they can barely make ends meet living on long island and commuting because of ridiculous rent. 2500 a month for a 600 sq ft 1br now. You need to be making 80 to 100k just to be approved for most of these apartments.

[@jakejones5736]

@@TV-xv1le Disagree all you want, but the facts are on my side. New York City is just one example. There are only so many apartments to go around due to severe housing/building restrictions; better known as "rent control". The economic law of supply and demand always prevails. Thanks for making my point!

[@rredhawk]

Jimmy McMillan used to remind us of this all the time.

[@MGTOWPsyche]

they are high because rent control is preventing free market from building NEW apartments because rents can't be higher, thus alleviating demand for the old appartements!

[@higherkite]

I am a landlord and I will tell you, in my experience, rent control sucks. It comes to a point where I cant even fix much. I have to figure it all out by myself. I cant afford a professional, and dont get me started on dodging permits and such. Rent control is a horrible idea unless you can control everything else, like taxes, property tax, so on. Now I have property in a no rent controlled area. I have redone the properties, new appliances, floors, everything. I still dont make too much profit because I like to keep the rent as low as I can (personal ethics) but I can now live comfortably.

[@freethebirds3578]

You can live comfortably? You evil 1%er! /sarc I'd love to have a landlord with your ethics. I understand that owning rental property is not an easy money scheme, but in my experience landlords have little common sense. We have painted walls in the living room that look awful with all the gaping holes, but we are not allowed to fix and paint them, even at our own expense.

[@JohnJacobGarza]

You don’t need to make a profit

[@DarthTanner]

So your research completely ignore limits on supply outside of your view on rent control... New York has limited available land for building so if rent controls were abandoned you would not see new investment in new apartments, you would simply see the poor forced out to make way for the rich... which is exactly what happened in London.

[@ghr1990]

So the poor would not be able to sell their high valued property that they can't live on and move somewhere cheaper with that money?

[@mouthpiece200]

Ah, so the government should subsidize everything that the poor are priced out of? If the poor are priced out of luxury cruises, the government should price-fix that too? I'm sure New York can build higher if the demand is there. But nobody has an inherent right to live in a certain city below market rates.

[@STDrepository]

THats because london has government controls on the maximum height of buildings.

[@warnamu_com]

what she means in simple is= rent control prevent demolish very old and shallow building, and cannot build newtech highrise building and could afford even more people and its make sense when there is rent control, landlord had reasons "not to improve", and let alone like that +even received gov incentive, while they got "trapped customer" its a very profitable indeed, that means holding the building until you die it is better then buiding costly newblocks, go to hell with human standard when you still in profit, no need improvement but i do concern that renter thought of low cost rent, its also has its good points

[@Alicenotinchains]

Ryan Davidson How do you sell what you don't own, and if you are a *owner*, and not a renter, you are not poor.

[@billvojtech5686]

I once went to a party in an apartment that was occupied by squatters. They were friends of a friend. The landlord had abandoned the property. This was in Manhattan. In a desirable neighborhood. The occupants had rigged up a gas space heater and there were ceiling lights that were not up to code, but it was a great space. And the occupants were renting it from the original squatters. So why would the landlord abandon valuable property in Manhattan? Rent control kept the rent so low it did not cover heat and maintenance. I lived in a non-rent controlled apartment for nearly 20 years. The landlord kept the rent low because he liked me- I never asked for anything. When something broke, I fixed it. When it needed paint, I painted it. I had to move because he ended up having a child late in life and had a sudden need for money. He wanted to raise the rent to market rate, nearly triple what I was paying. Luckily, I found a place I could buy.

[@MadOgre22]

As much as I would normally agree with this standpoint, as a renter in New York, I think landlords are scumbags, and need to be kept in line. This is the part where I don't care about the economy but I do care about a person. Roof over one's head is essential, like food or healthcare. Therefore if we are in a situation where a bunch of apartments are standing vacant because nobody can afford the rents they are gouging, while at the same time normal people cannot afford shelter. It is my opinion, that all apartments should have a hard cap on rent, that is exactly equal to one third (!) of the average monthly income of the people living in that part of the city. For instance, if the average monthly income after taxes is 3000 in a particular place, the rent per person should under no circumstances exceed 1000.

[@hafeed5153]

Your proposal would cause an investment frenzy in rich areas, and devastation in poor ones. Eventually, gentrification would march back, displacing the poor. Your policy proposal would drive the middle class out of the city. San Francisco's rent control is structured differently, but the outcome is the same, a middle class exodus. Rent control is not compassionate because it has brutally punitive consequences for the poor and middle class. Platitudes that you care more, while brutally punishing them do not mitigate that.

[@MadOgre22]

Hafeed I am sorry, but would you mind elaborating your point. I don't really see how it would drive the middle class out. Also, why exactly do you think this will cause devastation in poor areas. I think as the member of the middle class I would be very comfortable knowing that my rent will never increase unless the salaries of people in my neighborhood increase (which hopefully means mine too). As I said before, a roof over one's head is not a luxury - it's a necessity. One can possibly live even without a car or a cell-phone, but you cannot live with out a place to live. And it is ridiculous that rent is so much higher than the salaries permit. It means that the average person is spending half or more of his or her disposable income on rent. In what world is that comfortable living? If anything this could cause me to leave the city and move to rural area. Lower rents would make people stay, not leave.

[@3sierra15]

Under your preferred arrangement, why would anyone build new apartments when they could make more money building them in rent-control free areas?

[@3sierra15]

MadOgre22 If people are entitled to a roof over their heads, why not start with yours? How is your solution any different ethically than requiring people fortunate enough to have apartments to take in the homeless?

[@hafeed5153]

3sierra15 nails is on the first reply. Absent rent control, builders will invest in housing that will be attractive to the middle class. Their competition and greater supply will hold rents in check. With rent control, those buildings are not made, supply is constrained, and any middle class people who are not insiders will be unable to afford rent in the community. For those in the community, maintenance spending falls through the floor (no fear of competition and a long line of willing renters at that price), and buildings decay. [hence second only to bombing in effectively destroying a city]

[@SethAurelius94]

Well San Diego is unregulated and isn't much better. The cheapest apartment is 1000 a month and requires renters to bring in three times the nesicary rent per month. That's obscene if you're working for minimum wage.

[@gbaker1a775]

Seth Hackley the option is to leave San Diego. $1000 a month is not that high anyway. A two bedroom apartment in the middle of Oahu, far away from the beach is $2500 a month. The price reflects the value of living there. By controlling the price you're preventing someone somewhere of the opportunity to live there in favor of someone else who refuses to pay what it is truly worth.

[@SethAurelius94]

Glen C Baker Jr Yes but you'd need to make at least 3000 a month to be eligible to rent one.

[@gbaker1a775]

Seth Hackley so?

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Is this supposed to convince me that rent control is bad?

[@earthsteward9]

They removed rent control on new buildings in Toronto in the early 90s but it didn't lead to new buildings getting built

[@SoFallsWichitaFalls]

In 1998 or so, a Massachusetts referendum eliminated all rent control in Boston and Cambridge. Rents went up, and up and up and up and have not stopped. I make an excellent living in my biotech profession. Yet my rent is 41% of my after tax income. Any new housing that goes up is out of reach as it's not priced for the middle class. Many people I know with good positions in good firms live with 1 or more roommates or opt to move out of state because of the high cost of housing is unsustainable for starting a family. I am not a fan of rent control or government controls. However, having living through the eliminatiion of rent control of Massachusetts, I can say I do not believe the outcome of more and better housing for all classes of people will actually happen as stated in the video. I wish there were a solution I could conclude with. But I am at a loss.

[@jasonschlierman412]

I simply disagree. I do not see the housing situation, especially in certain markets, ever getting better for the middle class or poor without rent control. Simple supply and demand economics demand this reasoning. There is only so much land in any given city, what inventive do landowners ever have for building affordable housing past some moral sense of "doing the right thing?" The fact is they have none, and places like Los Angeles or Boston will ever only be for the uber rich without rent control. Two decade now in California under the "Costa-Hawkins" act and this has remained the reality with rents going up in a many places as much as 800% over inflation. Rent control is the answer. Those that refute it are either people that have money to gain from land ownership or they are just naive to the reality that we find ourselves in.

[@jasonschlierman412]

Who cares about a park avenue loft? I'm talking about a simple one or two bed room apartment in a moderate, heck, even crappy part of town. You ever live in LA? Your only bet to find an apartment under $1000 is to live in the most crime infested part of town, and even that "low rent" is going the way of the dinosaur. As I've said in other comments, the middle class is being destroyed in LA and California, and housing is the biggest factor. Part of your argument is that the housing market takes time to adjust? How long? It's be well over 15 years since the full effects of California's anti-rent control law has gone into effect. Shouldn't we see some kind of clear skies by now? No. In fact what we see are native California moving out into other states and messing with their economies while whoever is left is either super wealthy or on their way to homelessness. By the way, there has been a very clear growth of homelessness in California, and not Vets come home from the war. I'm talking Millennials who went off to college, got a fancy job in a big city in California and still can't afford rent. So they live in their car. Honestly, most of them probably won't ever make enough to not live in their car. So please, tell me, are you arguing that California should be off limits to the middle class and the poor so guys like Trump can vacation there? Because that is the direction this state is heading. Excuse me if I'm not rational (another Prager U video goes into why "rational arguments don't matter), but this is my home. I was born here and lived here my whole life. I don't much care for big money from the east pushing me and others like me out my home. Would you?

[@dosilysmith8520]

if you make SOOOoooo much money ...move to New Hampshire and Commute to Bean town

[@ybrix101]

Right now, rent is high in many places in this country. I suspect two culprits. First the housing crisis which was brought on by Dodd-Frank. An abomination created by democrats. Second is the waves of illegals and refugees coming into this country. I don't have the stats on me right now but I am willing to wager that a vast majority of these people are not buying houses with cash down. They are renting houses or apartments. Therefore this has created a high demand.

[@nnslife]

Jason, prices go up because the resource - space within the city is limited. Let's say city-X (LA, New York, Boston) can accomodate 1,000,000 people but there are 2,500,000 willing to move to the city. No matter how much you control the price the amount of people city-X can accomodate doesn't increase. That is the first argument. Now let's say that all of the apartments were rented out either with or without price control. Enterpreneurs consider building new apartments near the city to rent out. In case price control exists they know that they'll be able to rent out these apartments for lower price compared to the case where rent prices are not controlled. Thus their incentive for building new middle-class-apartments is lower. That is the second argument. The first argument means that even though price control is locally-beneficial for people currently living within the city, it is unfair for people currently living out of city but ready to pay more for the same apartments. The second argument means that in perspective price control is overall detrimental because it lowers the incentive for building new housing.

[@stefanspinu8784]

I don't understand the example with the old lady (from 0:20 to 0:35). What is that supposed to mean? Could anyone please explain it to me in other words? I would be highly grateful. Thank you!

[@elgmalone]

Most elderly people live on fixed incomes. Without rent control, their cost of living will go up, but their income won't. Therefore, many of them would end up homeless, without rent control. Does that explain it?

[@stefanspinu8784]

@elgmalone - Yes, it certainly does! Thank you. If a lady has a pension of $100/month and the rent she has to pay is $50, then she manages to use the other $50 for other expenses in order to survive. If her rent becomes 100$ in the future and her pension is still 100$, then she won't have money for anything else (such as food or clothes). I re-watched the scene and now that you rephrased it for me, it seems so obvious! I don't know why I didn't get it in the first place. Thanks!

[@DirectX3]

I have been a renter in San Francisco for over 20 years. I have seen many renters are professional scammers who could live in an appointment without paying rents and breaking the walls and plumbing to make the landlord force them to leave and these renters seem know lots of tricky laws and end up to get lawyers to sue the landlord for big bucks. Therefore I chose to leave my one storage empty but forget about renting it out. That is scary.

[@runswithbears3517]

"Be wary of government bearing gifts", that's a good one. x)

[@MattSezer]

I think the biggest issue with rent control in NYC is that it only applies to old people who've lived in their units for decades, regardless of if they're rich or poor. Younger people have to pay market rates, which thanks to the money that the landlords are losing on rent controlled tenants, are even higher than if it was left to the free market.

[@madameclark3453]

What rent control? I live in one of the largest cities in USA, rent is ridiculous every where.

[@apocalypznow]

The argument that landlords wouldn't upkeep or improve properties if there were rent controls (beyond the minimum) does bear out in the real world. However, what happens is that renters then take up the burden to maintain or improve the properties, which is a boon to the landlord's asset. And if rents were low enough, renters are perfectly willing to do so.

[@rinwesley3092]

Yes! I've made improvements to my own apartment because the landlord wouldn't. I'm not bothered at all by the need for repairs because I live in a decent neighborhood and truly love where I live. What this woman doesn't get is that most people would rather live in a shoddy apartment in a good neighborhood, than in a new apartment in a crap neighborhood.

[@Weightlifting-body]

If you have landlords are buying up housing for profit then the housing market gets more expensive so your agreement is well it isn’t profitable ok so make housing for housing not profit and an asset for speculation mass production of affordable housing as well as reallocation of current housing that are owned by landlords will do the trick

[@diamondportal77]

Many cities need to change zoning laws to allow more apartments and condos be built.

[@craigenputtock]

Unfortunately we live in a time when new apartments would be priced too high for the lower and even middle class, and homelessness would become disastrously high. There has been 30 years salary stagnation, so the math just wouldn't work.

[@ibrahimozanceberut]

we dont have rent control. landlords still dont improve appartments. and charge renters for very expensive prices. for those houses which dont even have any kind of heating system. rent control is not bad. people are. especially landlords.

[@rockwithyou2006]

why can't you just move out to a better apartment if there is no rent control anyway?

[@ibrahimozanceberut]

@@rockwithyou2006 moving out is like a hell of a cost. there are a few things to consider. let's say your rent is 100 dollars. each year, it raises up according to inflation. which is about 10% in my country, normally. however, when you leave that apartment, there is no way you can find a better apartment with the same rent. or even an affordable raise. when i move out, my landowner directly increases the rent again. my rent was 100 dollars. 1 year after it became 110 dollars. i left before the second year. and my landowner raised the price more than 50% and it became at least 160 dollars and the new renter's rent is going to increase 10% in one year, again. this creates a constant increase in rents. this situation creates an opportunity for housing for investments. anyone who has some money buys a house and becomes a landlord. then squeezes the renters. this makes you, again, stuck in the same apartment for years just to have relatively low rent. ps. "100 dollars" was an example. rents might change but usually it is much more than that.

[@rockwithyou2006]

@@ibrahimozanceberut sorry it makes little sense to me. If there is no rent control why is he increasing the rent by only 10% and not the market rate? Secondly if there are so many home buys (and thereby we have a lot of homes) the landlords should be having a hard time finding renters. Is the population of your city growing at a much higher rate than the number of houses that are available ? If a landlord is able to charge 160 and is still able to find a tenant, isn't it fair?

[@ibrahimozanceberut]

@@rockwithyou2006 correct. My city's population increased like 300% in last ten years. Most of them came from istanbul. Around 100.000 families came just last 3 years. Almost all of them are richer than avarage people in my city.

[@rockwithyou2006]

@@ibrahimozanceberut ok so thats the real reason. Why the landlords don't have much incentive to take care of their apartments because there is clearly a shortage of housing for all those people who arrived from istanbul. It has nothing to do with rent control.

[@AAA999XYZ]

normally I'm a fan of these videos but I don't see how paying less than the market rate, especially 1/3 the market rate, actually hurts current renters. If I could pay 1/3 what I pay for my apartment, I'd gladly go without hot water and more!

[@crossfire7474]

Life is tough, I would rather plan for my future than waste my cash on on things that can make me comfortable.

[@munyumbamutwale2985]

what is the solution then to rising costs of housing as an honest answer because we are having a problem in zambia of price distortion in the rental markets due to too many high costs houses and shortage of affordable housing but there is no rent control.

[@bootsofescaping01]

These types of conversations are double sided. There are people who hold ethics in high regard, such as looking at a rent controlled apartment not as a product, but homes to families and then there are people who look at this conversation as a "product, commodity, capitalistic". To even have a proper debate the minimum wage needs to be discussed because that alone keeps people needing (not wanting) rent control.

[@Alicenotinchains]

Good point.

[@NorCal-Killa]

bootsofescaping01 minimum wage is already going up in California, and so is the rent. Mine went up $60 this year and I’m wondering what’s next.

[@gavarnibijovug8085]

Extremely well said. Such a relief to find a sentient being among these heartless, brain-dead automatons.

[@lennoxvesque6813]

Rent control hurts the wealthy.....not the "poor and needy"...or the average person!!!

[@LabrnMystic]

okay, I came from a small town where we had public projects to improve the city as a whole. So if they can't raise the rate they could do a fundraiser to help raise money to renovate a house. The community could ship and what they could and other people could with perhaps a tax write-off from the city. there's nothing saying that if they took away rent control the landlords wouldn't just continue to talk in it and not renovate the place either since the demand is so high in those places like New York or Los Angeles. you just have to tackle the problem in a different way.

[@elchaconaso]

how do you keep low wage people from leaving the city when they can no longer afford rent or a house? i live near orlando,fl and rents have gone out of my budged,houses start at over $250k.had to move 50 miles away,and took my labor to another cheaper city closer to where i live.Without rent control NYC will have an exodus of lower skill workers.BTW,most companies will fire you if you even hint for a raise(right to work state).

[@briant1319]

Low wage people would be wise to move out of NYC. It used to be obvious that when considering a location to live, the cost of living vs wages earned was a primary consideration. Don't live there if you can't afford it. Nah, I guess it's better to just play the victim and demand that big daddy Govt fix it.

[@hariman7727]

To quote Jim Quinn, a radio host I listen to: "Liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent."

[@SpaceJawa]

I don't think I've ever heard that statement before, but it's a brilliant observation.

[@beldiman5870]

@@SpaceJawa Actually this is the case with many ideologies including capitalism, communism, fascism. They rarely live up to their own ideals. Its dissapointing really but its historically true.

[@darthhodges]

The other thing to consider is where the housing board gets its information on what your apartment is worth. I live in subsidized housing because that is what I can afford but the government agency that administers the complex thinks my apartment is worth over $900 a month (small, midwest city). A comparable, unsubsidized apartment in a better part of town goes for just $600 a month. The only reason for the price discrepancy that I can think of is the high demand for subsidized housing (9 month waiting list for my complex). This demand is not market created but government created by the price controls. If the complex I was living in wasn't subsidized they wouldn't be charging $900 a month, because it would be empty at that price.

[@lisastarves5543]

Whats GOING to happen to THE poor people if things go to expensive.... this WORLD... is too expensive

[@eleanormedina6703]

Yes I waive my right for land devils to abuse me.Sign the lease or face eviction

[@mayo.r.857]

The first few chapters of basic economics are gold

[@tonyyang2084]

Last year my rent was 725. In the middle of the year it went up to 800. This year in April was given a 60 days notice that my went is going to be 1350 for a 2 bedroom and 1 bathroom 900 sqft in Sacramento CA in the pocket area.

[@JohnJacobGarza]

That’s pure greedy landlord

[@TheAverageJoe2014]

I am glad PragerU brought up that economists unanimously agree that rent control is a bad idea. I wish they would use economists opinion on virtually every other video they do. For instance, over 600 economists endorsed Bernie Sanders economic proposals but PragerU would just say that they don't count and are automatically wrong.

[@bejoysen4468]

+JoeYourAverageBro 600 economists is less than 1% of all economists in America. I'm sure you could find 600 economists who endorsed rent control. After all, a full 7% of economists agree rent control is good and 7% of all economists is way more than 600. I could find 600 Neo-Nazis who live in Los Angeles right now. I could find 600 of anyone given that there are 7 billion people in the world.

[@kebedezewdie8743]

There are more than 1200 economists in the world.

[@kimchi_taco]

plz explain why rental fee in SF and San Jose is so expensive but the house is rubbish like those in New York.

[@Briluvr]

+Dongseong Hwang Because the Bay Area is overpopulated

[@sdvten]

Go try and build some apartments in the bay area and see what it costs you and how long it takes just to deal with the local government. I wish you luck, you will need it.

[@rdskn4eva]

I love how they are using rent data from 1992 to justify their arguments.

[@Mikey-fi8bb]

So why would lack of rent control insentivise more constuction? That old lady on the fixed income is still only going to be able to afford so much for rent. -if the developers still cant charge her more why would they build - if she does pay a higher amount giving them insentive to build, how does does that help her? They are not going to keep building once supply brings the market value down to a place where the old lady could afford because then it would not be worth it to them to constuct that place again. So youd be stuck with the same problem only the lady would likely not be able to find a place in that area to live.

[@Mikey-fi8bb]

Housing should be a public works project/ have goverment stimulus promoting construction because it is a basic necessity and in the free market lack of construction is encouraged because it ensures the available housing will remain at a premium.

[@jlei1995]

If rent keeps getting higher and prices keep getting up, theres gonna be a point where no one will be able to afford anything and businesses will fail. Renters will be force to lower their rent. I believe something needs to be done.

[@rockwithyou2006]

you answered it, nothing needs to be done. The free market takes care of ceiling the rent.

[@animal16365]

While I agree with this lady. The one problem still remains. How can anyone who makes a certain amount of money or lives on a fixed income (like the old lady). Pay for higher rent?? The one biggest problem is that the cost of living keeps going up (food. Fuel. Clothing ) plus city, state and county taxes are always being raised while people (the lower middle class or poorer) don't see increases in wages. They have to spend more and more towards rent. Which in turns leaves them with little to nothing left

[@hamnchee]

The solution is you give her money.

[@visearms5774]

if the government wants to be charitable - let them be charitable. But legislation to force a landlord to be charitable? No thanks.

[@soreal091987]

Something has to give. In some parts the cost of rent is crazy and good paying jobs even with an college degree are hard to find. This video made a point about renters not being able to afford repairs but in my personal experience most of them don't repair shit anyway. Recently my friend that lives on the other side of town rent increase an extra $120 out of nowhere. Also, when people can't afford rent it becomes subsidized which means your taxes are paying for their housing.. My overall point is something has to change, the cost of housing keep increasing but wages don't which means more more people will get subsidized rent which means we will be paying more taxes. Right?

[@CearaIvory]

All government programs come with a price. That price is rarely worth paying. Get the government out of areas they don't need to be in. Let the market take care of itself.

[@joniquecousins6192]

That's nice to show the effects ... but what is the solution then to high rent?

[@hamnchee]

What is the problem with high rent?

[@JohnJacobGarza]

The solution would be lower demand and greater supply

[@TrouwTV1]

She doesn't tell you what happens if you lift rent control in area's with high market pressure. It will lead to the explusion of the less well payed. Her message is one of libertarisme and leaves out a good sketch of the alternative. I'm not saying rent-control leads to a heavenly state of well being, but it helps keeping rents affordable. I live in a highly rentcontrolled country (The Netherlands) and here to there are issues. But at least but live in decent conditions. So don't believe here hype.

[@alexandrosdesbrgus7499]

Rent control isn't working here either. The demand is so high people are leaving their houses anyway to live in suburbs. Just take a look at Amsterdam: The poor people all put their apartments on AirBnB! I think it's good if all the poor aid claimers (uitkeringstrekkers) move out of the big cities to live in suburbs and smaller towns. The government is paying for them so I think they can have some demands too for the common good. A sort of "move control" instead of rent control. This will increase the local economies and the MKB/middle class. Poor people can live in bigger houses (thus they'll relatively become less poor) in safer neighbourhoods, these smaller communities keep the poor people more in check and local businesses - the engine of the economy - have more customers. Students are in bad luck, but they're so anyway. I think only this group should be granted to have rent control at the time they're students. So if they're done with their studies then they have to move like it's done now at campuses. Here in the Netherlands the government can demand for large scale student campuses to be built or reuse abandoned office flats for it. I don't know the situation in the USA, but there got to be some space to accomodate the students there too.

[@alexandrosdesbrgus7499]

Rent control isn't working here either. The demand is so high people are leaving their houses anyway to live in suburbs. Just take a look at Amsterdam: The poor people all put their apartments on AirBnB! I think it's good if all the poor aid claimers (uitkeringstrekkers) move out of the big cities to live in suburbs and smaller towns. The government is paying for them so I think they can have some demands too for the common good. A sort of "move control" instead of rent control. This will increase the local economies and the MKB/middle class. Poor people can live in bigger houses (thus they'll relatively become less poor) in safer neighbourhoods, these smaller communities keep the poor people more in check and local businesses - the engine of the economy - have more customers. Students are in bad luck, but they're so anyway. I think only this group should be granted to have rent control at the time they're students. So if they're done with their studies then they have to move like it's done now at campuses. Here in the Netherlands the government can demand for large scale student campuses to be built or reuse abandoned office flats for it. I don't know the situation in the USA, but there got to be some space to accomodate the students there too.

[@Octovisuals]

I don't like the government messing with anything and I love the free markets. That said, I think the cost of having some shelter is way too expensive lately, at least in my country (Spain) for the salaries we usually have. I think the problem is people will still buy just about anything at any price because they don't have any finance knowledge at all, and they just take a loan for 30 years without even making some numbers themselves... And that we build way less than we should while the population keeps growing.

[@raulsalome7038]

landlords should get a real job

[@dougg4633]

So you don't feel that taking care of a house/property is work?

[@RADIUMGLASS]

What do you consider a real job?

[@etchedinstone7562]

The NYC economy is a great example of what is wrong with the free market economy and this video does nothing to refute that. You can't have a city of any size where people are paid stagnant wages and at the same time rents are soaring. Most people just won't survive. Landlords are charging the kind of rents that ordinary people can't afford anymore. Lots of people in this city don't even live off of one job, they work two jobs. That's why we need stronger regulation of both the housing market and the job market. Employees need to be paid more and tenants need to be charged less. It's going to happen sooner or later. What's taking place right now is unsustainable.

[@briant1319]

Yes, more regulation. Because that always works. Apparently you didn't get the whole point of the video. Wages and rents have a market rate. Any attempt to deny that reality or manipulate it artificially will always backfire. Always.

[@ThisVideoAnnoyedMe]

It doesn't even mention what actually happens without rent controls, just presumes that this is what would happen.

[@gorilladisco9108]

What will happens without rent controls? The opposite of what happens with rent controls. Don't think too hard, with your brain capacity, that kind of exertion may be fatal.

[@qb4428]

South Korea works well.

[@mayo.r.857]

Read basic economics by Thomas sowell, it gives real world examples of when this has happened, like in nyc, it’s not hypothetical

[@bradcapello6875]

ThisVideoAnnoyedMe 777u67bij

[@myfakename5582]

this kinda feels like its missing the major point where people cannot afford current rent/housing costs. If nor mal rents are to high for average people and no one does anyhting about it why wouldn't they vote for rent control? I really doubt that rent control is actually the secret true reason rent and housing is so insanely high

[@Linarel]

I doubt that those renters would do the repairs even with more paid. That would leave Them with even more money.

[@LawlessNate]

Linarel Then renters who actually do repairs would have a more desired product then renters who don't repair. Free market competition would improve the product.

[@Linarel]

LawlessNate True, but since there is so much demand, in New York at least, so it would not matter that much. There would always takers even more badly maintained apartment so would I believe.

[@LawlessNate]

Linarel If there was no rent control, then investors would have more incentive to create new apartments, which would help deal with the demand issue. With rent control, there is little incentive for investors to make condos.

[@Linarel]

LawlessNate Perhaps, but I tend to never underestimate peoples greed.

[@LawlessNate]

Linarel If a renter put their prices too high out of "greed" then no one will rent from them. Another renter will under cut the "greedy" renter's prices to make profit. When businesses compete against each other, the consumer wins. All of that is to say that the free market would equalize the prices out until it's something reasonable.

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

And now everyone's on rent control and your rent is $0!

In answer to the question, yes rent control works.

[@bradleyjohnson6107]

Interesting, But doesn't this completely ignore the fact that housing is becoming more and more unaffordable for most Americans though?

[@bertlee3470]

That's definitely happening in Los Angeles. I hear there's a housing shortage but It's all high to luxury end housing.

[@liberalfarid]

What do you mean by 'hurting' renters? I think from what i got from this clip, the only 'hurt' is 'generally maintained' apartments. So you mean, with rent control I can have a roof over my head and it is maintained, and I do not have to pay thousands of dollars? Hurray, sign me up. I guess these people are so much accustomed to luxury lives that they conceive 'generally maintained' as unacceptable and 'hurting.' they do not understand people rather live in a fairly good apartment than struggling to eat. Very sad.

[@liberalfarid]

Also, do you really want ordinary people have whatever the rich have? So should we think about expensive hotels and cars. They are "beyond the reach" of ordinary people. Should we do anything about them?

[@MetalBum]

Thanks 🙏 updates? Can you do a series on rent control? They’re spreading rent control statewide in California. Massachusetts Oregon. Washington and soon Florida and New York State.

[@ArthurCSchaperMR]

Javier Milei just repealed rent control. 🎉🎉🎉 It can be done.

[@richardgillette5759]

Ty Prager for showing us that keeping rent high is good for the rich

[@bonsai108]

So what is supposed to happen to the old lady if you had drained her finances for inflated rent? Is she supposed to keep moving so the rich can move in next and get their coffers drained too? Old lady moves, has to get a new job, new commute, loses everything. Don't expect a government program to step in as anti rent control is against government programs that help citizen's as it goes against their foreign oligarchy which is the main reason their country's citizens moved in the first place.

[@Koushi82]

its actually zoning laws hurting renters and property buyers. reason is because it limits supply. rent control? doesn't matter that much. the real problem is builders wont build small homes cheap. reason is simple. china already can make 3d printed cement houses for 5k or less the real cost would then be other costs besides building. cost to build is very small. so in USA it would be probably 10k or so. including moving/towing costs 30k trucking the house costs a whole lot in the USA. utilities, plumbing etc would be the reason for cost- lets add another 10k and main cost would be foundation,tax regulation etc.- another 20k total cost for cement houses 60k tiny houses can also be built by yourself for less than 5k and 10k for those that ask others to help make it. so because zoning laws hurt buyers and renters container houses wouldn't cost much either 20-30k for moving and fabricating one. again the problem is the foundation + the tax regulations. RV homes as well. but then many complain about them because the residents want to keep prices high for some reason. IMO the residents do not even know common sense. higher prices = higher taxes. higher prices = only benefits sellers, banks and government. lower prices = benefit owner/buyer, because of lower taxes and fees. the utilities are just standard if you don't want them you dont need them. the zoning laws are the true problem though. you cannot build cheap housing on them else you will be fined in most states. they would mostly only allow 100k+ housing for taxation reasons else you will be denied. commercial real estate is also increasingly a problem as so many are vacant but they would not rent them out cheaper. a result they remain empty to keep prices high. the empty buildings make it a shady area and dangerous for everyone involved. criminals and fire hazards ensue in empty buildings increasing the cost. either way government and speculators/banks benefits from high property values for taxation/rents not buyers or dwellers. that's why they tried so hard to keep values up. if people were allowed to build tiny, 3d printed housing, container houses, in any area they so choose then increasing supply tremendously. afterwards repealing the housing rent control wouldn't be such an issue. I already thought of a few blueprints that may work for these ideas but of course no money/connections = cant do much, thus I'll have to pass it on to those with better connections posting the ideas for others to hopefully use for the better because it probably wont make much money if it serves the people. but it just so happens most do not want to make cheap housing the, main reason for higher costs intentionally is to drive poor people out such that the more wealthy can move in and then more taxes and less crime so the thinking goes. because there is a prejudice/notion that higher income = less crime. somewhat true many times but sometimes false as well. anyway good day

[@dankadybong7948]

Koushi . saw a clip about owners choosing to keep a new york business rental property empty. it was bcuz they had a loan on it with an expected monthly payment that came from a renter. when the rentee applicants made price suggestions on what they could pay from their profit and expenses, the price they could pay was lower than the sum the landlord was expecting for his loan. if the landlord accepted the lower sum, they would have to renegotiate their loan which apparently they couldnt do. Im guessing the loan was maxed in length and monthly sum. so the end result was that u had expensive business places that no real entrepreneus could rent and make a profit on and the landlord couldnt rent it out. so the place was empty. sometimes bcuz reasons the prices just dont match and a deal isnt made.

[@leroytyson4289]

Another point that was not mentioned is that rent control encourages people to move to and stay in the big city, thus slowly desolates rural America. Everybody speaks about over population and congestion but no one does anything to spread the population equally across the country.

[@steveohara7707]

Well done! it would be even more interesting if there was a comparison of investment in cities without controls for middle class rent stock versus that of investment in housing renovations and new building in rent controlled markets

[@bruceliu1657]

rent control give people the chance to build up wealth to be owners themselfs

[@sithersproductions]

+Bruce Liu Learn how to spell...the chinese shouldnt be talking with millions of your empty houses yo.

[@aaronleev]

Soooooo rent control in its current state is flawed,it doesn't mean its bad outright.

[@chrisellison8460]

Fair enough, then reform it

[@mentaltminefelt6469]

aaronleev Did you see the same video I saw?

[@garysanders6091]

aaronleev It is fundamentally inefficient. Its like saying totalitarianism is bad in its current state, but if you improve it a little bit its good!

[@aaronleev]

Don't bring it to an extreme, and logically totalitarianism is the pinnacle of government. But the way humans act right now, makes it look evil. A dictator doesn't actually have to do everything that he or she wants, he/she can consider and way the opinions of all individuals in the country and it still be consider a totalitarian dictatorship, Democracy is fundamentally flawed in the fact that it is EXTREMELY slow and convoluted, the planet is fucking dying and these greedy politicians want to pass a bill to build a colossal pipeline(Keystone) to further entrench the importance of oil and satisfy there corporate constituents. Instead of throwing 8 billion dollars at the pipeline, throw it at alternative fuels. Why totalitarianism is the best kind of government? Because if you can find a perfect leader that can make the right choices, well whats the need for all that bureaucracy that makes everything slow, we dont need to be worried about things that make quick deaths like nukes and asteroids because in the end resolutions will be made to combat them quickly with any type of government, we need to be worried about the slow deaths like famine, loss in animal diversity, global warming those issues are never solved because they get lost in all the bullshit that bureaucracy brings up. But like i said totalitarianism is the best government but it can't work with the way humans fundamentally act. So technically totalitarianism is great if you can get it right, because in this form of government issues can be solved immediately, instead of politicians tip-toeing around issues that could ruin re-election for themselves if they tried to solve them, like entitlements.

[@garysanders6091]

aaronleev if your goal is total security: locking everyone in a cage and allowing a sing ruler to hold the key is ideal.. If your goal is liberty for each individual then totalitarianism is by definition the worst system.