Zohran Mamdani

[plague311]

I don't know, seems like there are a lot more negatives regarding rent control than positives. (As I said, it doesn't even totally control prices for renters.)

The alternative is people literally not having a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ place to live. So...now what?

 

[plague311]

From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020

Lets touch on a few other things that this study examines as well. Like what happens when the rent burden gets too high, things like:

a too high rental burden can have devastating effects. When the rental burden is excessive, it prevents households from buying other goods and services, thus negatively affecting the quality of life. In extreme cases, it can lead to poverty and malnutrition. Therefore, it is important to guarantee the affordability of housing.

So rent being too high effects the economy around it and can actually shutter businesses because people can't afford to shop at their local stores because every cent they have goes to rent. Your source goes on at one point to say:

Secondly, diminished residential mobility could be attributed to heightened tenure stability. Through rent regulation, this policy alleviates the financial strain of tenant households, consequently reducing the likelihood of eviction. Additionally, rent control legislation is often adopted simultaneously with rules protecting tenants from arbitrary removals. As a result, tenants remain in their residences for longer time, thereby boosting their satisfaction.

It appears there's some positivity here. Also, this study says that mobility would only be a problem if the person wouldn't\couldn't travel more. If they do travel more, and make more money at a new job they are more prone to move into that neighborhood after working in that neighborhood and seeing more opportunities.

The gist of the overall paper, after reading through the bulk of it, is that the author repeatedly says more\different types of studies need to be done to get an actual firm understanding of how rent control affects neighborhoods. It's stated that, depending on the policy, the negatives can be minimized as well.

At no point has my question been answered. Are the side effects of the policy better or worse than what is currently in place?

 

[Lithrael]

I don't think anyone here is actually trying to canonise the guy. Acting like people are being unskeptical blind partisans just for being interested in seeing how various things he's gonna try to do might work is getting up people's noses.

 

[plague311]

Giving people hope? Great idea. Giving people false hope using promises that cannot be fulfilled? That ultimately will cause more harm than good? That's not a good idea. It will turn all that "hope" into cynicism, unhappiness and despare.

This is just you forcing Mamdani to be held to a standard that you don't hold any other politician to and it's becoming pretty clear that your overall disdain for Mamdani is rather blatant. I'm not sure what Mamdani did to hurt you but throwing out campaign promises, and pushing for things that might not happen, but that the politician still wants to happen is political campaigning 101. This might shock you but every single politician since the beginning of politics has promised things they can't do. What I see in Mamdani is a man trying to do everything in his power to fulfill his promises and those promises are focused on the well-being of New Yorkers. New Yorkers, mind you, feel the same way as Mamdani does.

I don't know why you require Mamdani to be perfect, or why it bothers you so much that people are rooting for him, and enthusiastically support him, but it's apparent you definitely don't like it, and it gets under your skin.

 

[Segnosaur]

(mistake post please ignore)

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't know, seems like there are a lot more negatives regarding rent control than positives. (As I said, it doesn't even totally control prices for renters.)

The alternative is people literally not having a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ place to live. So...now what?

Ummm... you realize the study pointed out that rent control REDUCES the number of units available. So even fewer people have a place to live.

Lets touch on a few other things that this study examines as well. Like what happens when the rent burden gets too high, things like:
a too high rental burden can have devastating effects. When the rental burden is excessive, it prevents households from buying other goods and services, thus negatively affecting the quality of life. In extreme cases, it can lead to poverty and malnutrition. Therefore, it is important to guarantee the affordability of housing.

First of all, I never claimed that housing affordability was not a problem. The question is whether rent controls are the best way to handle the problem.

Things like zoning changes (that allow the construction of more multi-unit dwellings over single family homes, increasing housing supply), improved public transit (making it easier for low income people to commute from places that might be cheaper), direct subsidies for low income tenants, etc. would all benefit low income tenants, without causing housing supply to shrink.

Secondly, as I pointed out before (and which the study showed), rent control drives up prices of non-rent controlled units (some of which will see a sharper increases in rent prices as a result of the controls.) So you aren't necessarily "fixing" the issue of poverty/malnutrition, you are just shifting it from one group of people (those lucky enough to find a rent controlled unit) to people who don't have a rent controlled units (and who might be just as poor).

Your source goes on at one point to say:
Secondly, diminished residential mobility could be attributed to heightened tenure stability. Through rent regulation, this policy alleviates the financial strain of tenant households, consequently reducing the likelihood of eviction. Additionally, rent control legislation is often adopted simultaneously with rules protecting tenants from arbitrary removals. As a result, tenants remain in their residences for longer time, thereby boosting their satisfaction.

Well yeah, people are happy in their rent controlled unites. The problem is those who WANT to move into the area but cannot because there is no place to rent. Assuming they have stable employment and do not need to move at all.

The gist of the overall paper, after reading through the bulk of it, is that the author repeatedly says more\different types of studies need to be done to get an actual firm understanding of how rent control affects neighborhoods.

Ummm, so?

Yes, more studies are needed to understand the complete impact. But that doesn't mean we don't have enough evidence to have a broad idea of what happens under rent controls. Its like climate change... we obviously should study it to build the best models for the impact of global warming, but that shouldn't mean we dismiss it as "not a problem" just because people are looking into some of the specifics

It's stated that, depending on the policy, the negatives can be minimized as well.

Minimized but not eliminated.

At no point has my question been answered. Are the side effects of the policy better or worse than what is currently in place?

If the ONLY thing you want to focus on are the few people that manage to get a slot in rent controlled housing, and you do not care about anything else (including the quality of the housing)? I am sure you will think its "great".

If you care about people who AREN'T in rent controlled housing (those who might need to move to the area, those living in the area who aren't in rent controlled units who see their rental prices go up more than they would have otherwise), or if you care about the quality of the apartments people are renting? Then you will see that rent controls are a bad idea. Especially when you consider that the problems that rent control is supposed to fix can be addressed in other ways.

 

[Segnosaur]

Giving people hope? Great idea. Giving people false hope using promises that cannot be fulfilled? That ultimately will cause more harm than good? That's not a good idea. It will turn all that "hope" into cynicism, unhappiness and despare.

This is just you forcing Mamdani to be held to a standard that you don't hold any other politician to...

Except of course I am not. I would say the same thing about ANY politician who appointed unqualified people to his office. I would say the same thing about any politician who implements policies that evidence shows are suboptimal.

The only reason I am talking specifically about Mamdani is because a cult member decided to start this thread with the idea that everyone would gush about Mamdmani and that everything said about them would be praise. Create a thread about some other mayor or congress critter that does the same thing and if I have anything unique to add, I will join with criticism.

and it's becoming pretty clear that your overall disdain for Mamdani is rather blatant.

At no point did I ever claim Mamdani is a bad mayor. In fact, I have even praised him over certain things. And I do not doubt that he probably has the best interests of New York Citizens in mind.

But that does not mean he should be immune from criticism, or that we should attribute "success" when it is still too early to judge the results.
Its amazing how "Perhaps we should wait for a few more details to be released before we praise Mamdami for his child care plan" becomes "disdain".

My "disdain" is not for Mamdani, it is for the cult members who claim "he did no wrong and if he did wrong you should ignore it because he gives people hope". If people had agreed that "him promising to arrest the PM of israel was a dumb publicity stunt that he shouldn't have done, and some his staffing picks were questionable, but I like his ideas for doing X, Y and Z" I would have had no problem. If people had said "I like the idea of universal childcare, but Its too early to see if his ideas will pan out", I would have respected that.

Hey, I have no problem saying Obama was probably the best US president in my life time, but that doesn't mean I am not going to say he didn't mess up over his 'ATF gunwalking/fast and furious' program.

This might shock you but every single politician since the beginning of politics has promised things they can't do.

Yes I am sure plenty of politicians promise things that are difficult if not impossible to achieve. But there is a difference between "I hope to do X, if I can convince congress/council to go along" and "I intend to do this thing which is not only impossible but completely illegal and unethical".

I don't know why you require Mamdani to be perfect, or why it bothers you so much that people are rooting for him, and enthusiastically support him, but it's apparent you definitely don't like it, and it gets under your skin.

I do not require Mamdani to be "perfect". I just hope that people here will be able to judge him critically, accepting both his successes AND his failures when appropriate, and admitting "we don't know yet" when considering plans of his that are as yet unfulfilled.

 

[Donal]

Secondly, as I pointed out before (and which the study showed), rent control drives up prices of non-rent controlled units (some of which will see a sharper increases in rent prices as a result of the controls.) So you aren't necessarily "fixing" the issue of poverty/malnutrition, you are just shifting it from one group of people (those lucky enough to find a rent controlled unit) to people who don't have a rent controlled units (and who might be just as poor).

None of those by themselves are 100% effective at solving the problem. I can pick apart flaws in each one.

 

[Segnosaur]

Secondly, as I pointed out before (and which the study showed), rent control drives up prices of non-rent controlled units (some of which will see a sharper increases in rent prices as a result of the controls.) So you aren't necessarily "fixing" the issue of poverty/malnutrition, you are just shifting it from one group of people (those lucky enough to find a rent controlled unit) to people who don't have a rent controlled units (and who might be just as poor).

None of those by themselves are 100% effective at solving the problem. I can pick apart flaws in each one.

Ummm, first of all, I think you probably meant to quote a different segment of my post. In particular:
First of all, I never claimed that housing affordability was not a problem. The question is whether rent controls are the best way to handle the problem. Things like zoning changes (that allow the construction of more multi-unit dwellings over single family homes, increasing housing supply), improved public transit (making it easier for low income people to commute from places that might be cheaper), direct subsidies for low income tenants, etc. would all benefit low income tenants, without causing housing supply to shrink.

Assuming that is what you were referring to, I never assumed they would be "100% effective". What I said is that those ideas would benefit low income tenants, improving affordability, "without causing housing supplies to shrink" (which is one of the major problems with rent control). None of them completely fix the problem, but they can alleviate it.

And as I pointed out , rent controls are not "100% effective" at providing affordable housing either. Not all units are rent controlled, and rent control on some units but not others makes it much more worse for the non-controlled units.

 

[plague311]

None of those by themselves are 100% effective at solving the problem. I can pick apart flaws in each one.

I was going to say the same thing but honestly just reading through all of it and trying to reply is just obnoxious. A 3 page novel just to repeat the same thing as the other posts.

I can tell you this, if you read through the paper he linked (I made it through most of it) that author certainly doesn't speak with the absolute tone that segnasaur does, and that's making me dip out. Comparing this loose collection of studies to climate change is asinine at best.

 

[The Atheist]

The alternative is people literally not having a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ place to live. So...now what?

Then they shouldn't choose to be poor.

Duh.

 

[Brainster]

Meanwhile Mamdani is forging ahead with his plan for city-owned grocery stores, albeit slowly. He plans to offer meat, produce and other staples at a whopping 30% discount.

The mayor offered a different vision for the city-owned shops on Monday, announcing that they would instead provide a 30% discount on produce, meat and a host of other kitchen staples as a way to offset the rising food prices in one of America’s most expensive cities.

The five stores are expected to be placed in each of the city’s five boroughs, with the first set to open toward the end of 2027 in the Bronx. He plans to have all five operational by the end of his four-year term.

Given that major grocers like Kroger typically operate on 2-3% profit margin, it is hard to see how Mamdani can offer 30% off without operating at a loss. Oh, wait, they don't have to pay taxes or rent. There is some conflict on whether the Bronx store is still on for a late 2027 opening, but the proposed Manhattan location won't be open until 2029, which coincidentally, I'm sure, is when Mamdani's up for re-election. I do love that the picture illustrating the initial article is obviously taken at some for-profit grocer.

My guess is that if they ever actually get a market opened, it will offer the kinds of choices that Soviet-era supermarkets afforded.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Moynihan: Mamdani wants to get rid of prisons. He wants to abolish private property.

Martin: When did he ever say that?

Moynihan: I don’t answer to you.

Phillip: Has he actually said that?

Video in link

 

[Susheel]

...

My guess is that if they ever actually get a market opened, it will offer the kinds of choices that Soviet-era supermarkets afforded.

Are you aware of what choices Soviet era supermarkets provided? Maybe the idea is to help citizens buy the bare necessities to keep mind, body and household going. If they want more they can always go to the much lauded private enterprises that will continue to exist.

 

[Susheel]

Given that major grocers like Kroger typically operate on 2-3% profit margin, it is hard to see how Mamdani can offer 30% off without operating at a loss.

There are no shareholders they need to pay dividends to. They don't need to take out advertisements. So that kind of relieves some of the overheads.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Mamdani: Today, I am proud to announce a collection of essential staples that will be predictably 30% cheaper at all five of our city-run grocery stores. This core set of goods will include all fresh produce, meat, and seafood, along with 20 other essential items like cheese, milk, and bread.

Here's how it will work. Once a month, our five city-run grocery stores will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks. The savings will last for the entire month. That means no weekly fluctuations or sticker shock at the checkout line—not for our seniors living on fixed incomes, nor for the parents who rely on a regular supply of apple slices to keep toddler tantrums at bay.

Video in link

 

[PitPat]

Mamdani: Today, I am proud to announce a collection of essential staples that will be predictably 30% cheaper at all five of our city-run grocery stores. This core set of goods will include all fresh produce, meat, and seafood, along with 20 other essential items like cheese, milk, and bread.

Here's how it will work. Once a month, our five city-run grocery stores will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks. The savings will last for the entire month. That means no weekly fluctuations or sticker shock at the checkout line—not for our seniors living on fixed incomes, nor for the parents who rely on a regular supply of apple slices to keep toddler tantrums at bay.

Video in link

If this is successful it's going make the right, and some Dems, furious. Seems like a high bar to sustain.

 

[theprestige]

There are no shareholders they need to pay dividends to.

That's a bug, not a feature. The bar is set far lower, when you arrange it so you can just waste money indefinitely.

They don't need to take out advertisements. So that kind of relieves some of the overheads.

I guarantee you there will be a significant marketing expenditure associated with this program.

 

[Donal]

That's a bug, not a feature. The bar is set far lower, when you arrange it so you can just waste money indefinitely.

riiight, because pandering to the quarterly whims of shareholders is always great for the employees and customers of a business.

I guarantee you there will be a significant marketing expenditure associated with this program.

Na, they'll just FOX News and the NY Post rant about it. Free marketing right there.

 

[theprestige]

riiight, because pandering to the quarterly whims of shareholders is always great for the employees and customers of a business.

Also stock dividends aren't overhead at all, so I don't know what Susheel was thinking there.

Na, they'll just FOX News and the NY Post rant about it. Free marketing right there.

That might seem like an obvious money saving solution to you and me, but I guarantee you there's going to be a marketing push anyway.

There would pretty much have to be, simply because you can't trust those outlets (or even the NYT) to accurately represent what's going on, both to the intended customers and to the taxpayers who are funding the new program.

Only an idiot would let Fox News control the narrative, just because it's cheaper.

ETA: There's no way this goes forward without a half million dollar contract with a major marketing firm. Not that there's anything wrong with that, other than it will burst Susheel's bubble.