[setpatchaddress]

is this sarcasm? If not, do you have a reference?

The usual argument is that sf needs more housing supply to meet demand, period, let alone affordable housing.

Edit: see zkms, below.

[losteric]

I think they're referring to rent controlled apartment... not sure why they think landlords "make up the difference", the landlord simply charges other renters more.

I'm not aware of any studies, but it does seem logical from a system perspective...

The relatively fixed supply of rent-controlled apartments is a random cost-of-living subsidy for low-income workers. Those that "win" can accept lower wages, while the "losers" are forced to compete despite higher cost-of-living (commute or rent). The latter group will get a little more, but not as much as if there was no rent-control. On the employment side, employers may hold jobs open longer hoping for a rent-controlled applicant that will accept lower wages.

Ideally we would have no rent-controlled apartments or enough for everyone that needs it, but anywhere in between is a distorted market that hurts consumers and employees. Eliminating rent control would be my preference, it seems more efficient than subsidizing everyone that needs it (as individuals can choose how to spend their higher wages, whereas rent subsidies always go to rent).

[DrScump]

  The relatively fixed supply of rent-controlled apartments is a random cost-of-living subsidy for low-income workers

Rent-controlled units are generally not preferentially occupied by low-income workers. They are generally first-come-first-served or are obtained via "connections".