[strictfp]

I live in Sweden and I can tell you that it's not so clear-cut. Rent control means that people have to queue for many years for decent rental apartments.

We also have a lot of black market labour. The unions have historically had a strong grip, but are under attack by political forces that want to undermine that market with unskilled workers.

And on top of all this I think that people simply always prioritize living expenses above all else. As long as there is less supply than demand, prices are going to rise until some are out-competed.

People will have to pay, either with their time or with their money.

[skohan]

Imo some level degree of rent control is needed to prevent forces like housing speculation from causing housing prices to spike wildly in certain market conditions. Otherwise you end up with SF where it's impossible for anyone but the highest income earners to even exist.

I think the vienna model seems to have been fairly successful: if you build lots of high-quality public housing, the incentive structure is good for putting roofs over people's heads in an affordable way.

[strictfp]

Speculation is a problem for sure. I think USA is experiencing the burn for not being the number one financial power anymore. If the global market is hurting you, you'll need to protect yourselves by regulation. It's easy to be pro-globalization when you're king of the hill, but not always so great when you're getting the short end of the stick.

Oh, and I didn't know about the Vienna model, but Stockholm tried to massively expand housing in the 60s in something called the Million Program, as so many others did. Although that solved the immediate problem, it has been a catastrophy for the cityscape.

Isn't lack of housing sort of a side-effect of the very concept of a city?