[JohnMakin]

Because the author's argument is presenting this discussion in a profoundly dishonest and unrealistic way, and glossing over in a single sentence or two very real phenomena like gentrification (here's some cherrypicked studies most readers will never click on - there you go folks, gentrification isn't real!).

One example being - this isn't a zero sum game and rental markets don't behave like one. If someone builds an expensive condo, yes this increases supply of housing in the area, but in the event that prices increase all over the place due to cartel-like behavior (spoiler - this happens often), renters don't react by shopping around for a landlord that's beating out the price of his neighbors. For one, getting approved even to be a renter is difficult for many, so this level of flexibility/fluidity is unrealistic from the start, and two, people react to rental increases often by cutting costs in other areas or by doubling up the occupancy of the home (e.g., getting a roommate), because the choice of where one decides to pay rent is far from a perfect or efficient market at all.

This issue is far more complicated than "it's supply and demand dummy" and usually this argument is presented by faux YIMBY's who intentionally or not are acting as astroturfs for the developers, who win out big in the end no matter what.

[choilive]

Why shouldn't developers be economically rewarded for supplying housing in an area that demands a large amount of housing?

> renters don't react by shopping around for a landlord that's beating out the price of his neighbors

Renters certainly shop around. What makes you think they don't?

> approved even to be a renter is difficult for many, and two, people react often by cutting costs in other areas or by doubling up the occupancy of the home (e.g., getting a roommate).

Yes, and both of those issues can be solved by increasing the supply of housing. If demand greatly outstrips supply, landlords can be as picky as they want on renters. If theres an excess of supply, they will be a bit looser.

[JohnMakin]

> Renters certainly shop around. What makes you think they don't?

I never said they do not. I said that’s not the typical reaction, because moving is very difficult and has a ton of financial and logistical hurdles for most households. “supply and demand, dummy” arguments around the housing market tend to conveniently wave away these costs in the same manner the author waved away gentrification.

[anamax]

> I never said they do not. I said that’s not the typical reaction

It doesn't take many shoppers to make a huge difference.

> because moving is very difficult

There's always a fair number of people new to the area, not to mention people whose situation has changed significantly and there are a lot of people looking for new housing.

Note that rent-control takes the latter group off the market.

Note that someone taking a "new property" off the market (regardless of reason) is exactly the same as not adding said new property. (Ie, it can't make things worse.)

[JohnMakin]

> It doesn't take many shoppers to make a huge difference.

Ok, sure, but when a single landlord buying the new property to do airbnb destroys this entire silly argument right away, that’s a sign to me the argument is working with a flawed premise.

[astrange]

> very real phenomena like gentrification

He wrote a famous post years ago about gentrification prevention called "yuppie fishbowl theory".

Gentrification is caused by blocking infill development that adds new units. That's what causes existing units to get replaced.

> but in the event that prices increase all over the place due to cartel-like behavior (spoiler - this happens often)

That doesn't happen, landlords cannot enforce a cartel and are not motivated to.

Cartels are enforced in housing /by governments/ - they are what zoning laws are intended to do. And they're the only way it can happen because they have legal force. Upzoning an area is defeating a cartel.

[immibis]

Replacing units is what causes units to get replaced. We can look upstream of that to see why landlords choose to replace units (probably the reason you cited), but we shouldn't miss the trees for the forest either.

[anamax]

> If someone builds an expensive condo, yes this increases supply of housing in the area, but in the event that prices increase all over the place due to cartel-like behavior

Umm, no.

Adding a new expensive housing to a market does not increase the demand for existing inexpensive housing.

It can have the effect of reducing the demand for other expensive housing, as in "why should I pay a lot of money for old?"