How do you quantify "incentive"? Is a landlord really looking at 5% lower property value and deciding it's not worth investing? Is this even true in aggregate?
It is a major paradigm in economics that if you change this by X% it will change something else by Y% and to estimate that ratio. It may be that people don’t really think that way: economic growth seems to be continuous and exponential in character whereas economic dislocations are discontinuous in character.
I think of how I was absolutely shocked when a Big Mac meal was $10 during the pandemic (I think it cost about $2.50 the first time I bought it) and didn’t think I was going to buy 4% less of it but rather I skipped the fries.
Well, there's 2 ways to become a landlord: to buy a house or to build a house. I was focused only on the second way.
The cost of the wood and the labor needed to build the house is unaffected by the rent control, so if cost remains the same, but the reward (or "revenue") from building the house decrease from $100K to $95K, then fewer houses will get built.
So they're losing out on a few dozen new units, but it is made up for by renters across the board having to pay less rent and thus having more money to put into the economy? Seems like a good trade to me?
Generally reduced construction results in higher real estate prices not lower prices. Proof: look at the well studied example of California.
You can also accomplish lower prices by building more. People dont want that so one could argue it is good to make them pay for what they want.
How do you quantify "incentive"? Is a landlord really looking at 5% lower property value and deciding it's not worth investing? Is this even true in aggregate?
It is a major paradigm in economics that if you change this by X% it will change something else by Y% and to estimate that ratio. It may be that people don’t really think that way: economic growth seems to be continuous and exponential in character whereas economic dislocations are discontinuous in character.
I think of how I was absolutely shocked when a Big Mac meal was $10 during the pandemic (I think it cost about $2.50 the first time I bought it) and didn’t think I was going to buy 4% less of it but rather I skipped the fries.
[dead]
Well, there's 2 ways to become a landlord: to buy a house or to build a house. I was focused only on the second way.
The cost of the wood and the labor needed to build the house is unaffected by the rent control, so if cost remains the same, but the reward (or "revenue") from building the house decrease from $100K to $95K, then fewer houses will get built.
Yeah, sure, but only like, 10-100 fewer housing units per 100k people.
IFF there isn’t already excess demand for building in the market, and house-building is itself ‘liquid’, something that’s not necessarily true.
When supply is constrained by the availability of builders and materials, then some landlords dropping out won’t make a lot of difference there.
Yes. Since the source paper was written, St. Paul has realized that this is the case and rolled back rent control on new construction to hopefully solve the problem. (https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/05/08/st-paul-walks-back-...)
So they're losing out on a few dozen new units, but it is made up for by renters across the board having to pay less rent and thus having more money to put into the economy? Seems like a good trade to me?
3 replies →