| richardhutnik said:
Here is an economic reality: If people have only so much to spend, then if you charge above what they make, they can't afford it. One can argue that rent controls prevents the quality of buildings to improve. But, if there is a market available, which can be serviced at a certain price, then people will service it. Other things can impact rental property being available, like limitations on land available, and zoning, which is there to try to manage the environment of a city, keeping elements away from other elements. Natural limitations can cause it impossible to effectively service. Same can happen if you have building codes, and landlords can't afford to meet their requirements. One could possible end up making shelter totally available, if you allow people to occupy parks, but apparently cities don't like that. Seems people feel there is a need for a minimum standard of health people can live in. Like, you could have people rent a closet real cheap in NY, that doesn't even provide a bed, or a toilet.
|
Here is a different situation which will clearly make my point ...
If you eliminated telephone carrier subsidies do you think Apple would continue to focus on producing an $800 phone, or do you think they would primarily focus on making a $200 to $300 phone? With the iPod touch being very similar to an iPhone and selling at a massive mark-up at $300 do you think that people would have substantially worse phones due to the lack of subsidies?
In the absence of rent control, real estate investors would build rental properties to meet the demands of the middle and high end markets resulting in a lot of bigger and nicer units being built in a city; and the previous middle and high end apartment buildings would be able to rent for less money resulting in more affordable units. Over time, the average quality of housing unit for everyone (including the poor) would become better.
In the absence of subsidies at the low end of the market, people who rent to low income individuals would have to price their units according to market conditions and the net result is rental prices would fall to levels that low income people could pay.
When it comes to food, if the government wasn't paying for food to be converted into fuel or paying farmers not to grow crops on their land it is likely that the supply of food would increase and the price of food would fall.
