I once had a colleague (who is a nice guy, and we got along) who said during lunch that there are some things that we all can agree on, like how rent control is a good thing. I offered one objection off the top of my head (that prices serve as a mechanism for aggregating data, and any price controls serve to throw out data, and we should use as much data as possible when making decisions about how to allocate scarce resources). Before I spoke up, this colleague couldn't imagine that there would be any counter arguments to his position. Another colleague later thanked me for speaking up and sharing that different take.
Maybe that's not a good reason to not have rent control, or maybe it is a good reason, but on balance it's not good enough. The problem isn't the debate, the push back, it's Graham's point "privilege makes you blind." The problem is when there are limits to your imagination that an issue you see as simple might be more complex or that the person you're sharing a meal with might have a different, but still legitimate, way of seeing the world.
This is a very good example of blindness. It is possible to advocate that rent control is desirable, and in some quarters it easily forms a supermajority majority political opinion — but anyone advocating rent control should at least be aware of a strong consensus that it is harmful, to the tune of 80-90% of surveyed economists. (I don't have JSTOR at the moment or I'd drag one up — ideally one more recent than Whaples' surveys from the 1990s, though those are an okay starting point too.)
I am reasonably confident that I suffer blindness on some important issue. You should be confident that you suffer it, too.
This example doesn't seem to illustrate blindness as much as difference in priorities.
X% of surveyed economists probably don't disagree that rent controls will have the effect that rent control proponents claim. They likely believe it will have other effects in addition, and that these other effects are, in aggregate, worse than what benefits might also be offered.
By contrast, advocates for rent control probably don't believe that the economists are just making stuff up - they just believe that the downsides of the stuff the economists are talking about are less than the upsides of rent control.
Neither side is blind: they just don't agree on how to weight difference aspects of the results of a policy decision.
X% of surveyed economists probably don't disagree that rent controls will have the effect that rent control proponents claim. They likely believe it will have other effects in addition, and that these other effects are, in aggregate, worse than what benefits might also be offered.
Rent control proponents believe that imposing rent control will lower rents. With the goal of making housing more affordable. Economists know that it will benefit a few but in the process reduce supply and therefore increase average rents. Creating the very problem that you're trying to solve.
By contrast, advocates for rent control probably don't believe that the economists are just making stuff up - they just believe that the downsides of the stuff the economists are talking about are less than the upsides of rent control.
That doesn't match my experience. It is not that advocates for rent control believe that rent control is a net positive despite what economists say. They actively do not believe that rent control reduces supply and increases average prices.
That has held true in both position papers and personal conversations that I've had with people.
Tangentially related. In research, learning positive facts about something makes negative facts harder to remember. And vice versa. This cognitive quirk helps explain why it is hard for people in general to believe that there really are downsides to the things that they support.
I'm not entirely sure that rent control proponents believe it will lower rents. In my experience, most of them acknowledge that it will reduce supply and may increase prices in some areas.
My experience with rent control proponents (being one myself despite the pure economics problems with it) is that most of them believe that there needs to be a "reserve" of properties that are available for lower income people...service workers, teachers, etc...to rent in or near the place where they work.
The basic reason for that is, until recently, the number of people who want to live in a city like SF, NYC, etc. greatly outstrips the supply of housing. Basically, no matter how much housing you build, there is an endless supply of people willing to pay $X to live here, but $X is way over what is reasonable for a cashier, barista, bartender, teacher, etc. to afford.
Now, there might be better ways to solve that problem, but one of the "easier" and more politically possible ones in cities like SF is rent control. The reality is that SF basically can't build enough housing to satiate demand in any realistic timeframe. So what do you do? Bitch about zoning laws and NIMBY's all day and make more and more workers move to Stockton and Tracy? Or do you actually try to do something that is possible to accomplish about that problem (recognizing it isn't perfect)?
Anyway...rent control is interesting in many ways. Just felt like the number of people I've spoken to about it who believes it lowers rents generally rounds to basically zero.
Poster I replied to cited colleague believing "there are some things that we all can agree on, like how rent control is a good thing." This remains substantially different than fact: there is broad disagreement. Stating otherwise is the problem.
I further disupte your characterization of the relation of economists to policy priorities, as I believe there are substantial conflict in the forecasted outcomes of rent control, not broad factual agreement between politicians and the cited American economists. However, this is not particularly relevant to the point of this thread, and we will likely not effectively resolve the matter in this forum.
That's an interesting example, but I think to some extent it contradicts the idea of orthodox privilege. When you offered that alternative, it doesn't seem like you were chastised or marginalized; instead, you were thanked for offering a useful perspective (one I agree with!).
There are definitely going to be examples of people going too far, and making wedge issues out of things that shouldn't be wedge issues. But I think it's worth noting that in general, the opinions that are heavily stigmatized are ones that are insulting or hurtful toward specific people or groups.
In this case, it's true, I was not chastised or marginalized.
With a different group of people, I could have been though. I've seen articles written to the effect of "if you are against rent control, you must hate the hard working people who benefit from it."
I picked a somewhat less controversial example, where I did speak up. As a mostly conservative, Catholic person in tech, there are plenty of other times where I understand my perspective is not welcomed, and have not bothered to speak up For a just a few examples: people claiming Catholic nuns are slave labor; people printing random quotes from the Bible and making fun of it without actually studying it; people making derogatory comments about religious people. In all of these cases, the people in question made the comments assuming that everyone around them saw the world a certain way (i.e., was not religious).
I think the anti-religious bias in a lot of technology and leftist spaces is a real problem, and I absolutely take your point on that.
> I've seen articles written to the effect of "if you are against rent control, you must hate the hard working people who benefit from it."
I have too. But I have hardly met anyone who will really be offended at me expressing that rent control can backfire (and I have, among extremely left-wing people). I think the people who are trying to make that a wedge issue are themselves extremists. They exist, but they don't represent a big enough group of people to matter most of the time.
I once had a colleague (who is a nice guy, and we got along) who said during lunch that there are some things that we all can agree on, like how rent control is a good thing. I offered one objection off the top of my head (that prices serve as a mechanism for aggregating data, and any price controls serve to throw out data, and we should use as much data as possible when making decisions about how to allocate scarce resources). Before I spoke up, this colleague couldn't imagine that there would be any counter arguments to his position. Another colleague later thanked me for speaking up and sharing that different take.
Maybe that's not a good reason to not have rent control, or maybe it is a good reason, but on balance it's not good enough. The problem isn't the debate, the push back, it's Graham's point "privilege makes you blind." The problem is when there are limits to your imagination that an issue you see as simple might be more complex or that the person you're sharing a meal with might have a different, but still legitimate, way of seeing the world.