Two year wait for Stockholm flat

[10023]

Originally Posted by Marcu

Whatever happened to prices rising to levels where the quantity demanded is in line with the quanity supplied? Is there some mechanism keeping prices artifically low?

Rent control, and a ridiculous form at that.

This is a great example of when socialist "ideals" do not work at all in practice.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

Rent control, and a ridiculous form at that.

This is a great example of when socialist "ideals" do not work at all in practice.

You're absolutely right...That's why there are so many homeless people in Stockholm vs US cities...

[10023]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You're absolutely right...That's why there are so many homeless people in Stockholm vs US cities...

Completely separate issue.

I doubt many homeless in Manhattan would be able to rent an apartment if rent were, say, $500 a month instead of $1500 a month for a studio. Anybody that can afford a rent controlled apartment here can afford a market rate apartment in the vast majority of U.S. cities, if it came down to that or being homeless. The homeless don't tend to have jobs that require them to live in a particular, expensive community.

Because it comes up so often, and we're all friends here, let me make a couple of points with respect to my views on "socialism" (obviously not complete). I do consider myself a progressive at least on the U.S. spectrum, but I'm constantly arguing against the more left-wing version.


1. Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

- Everyone should have the opportunity to be successful, earn a good living, etc. This doesn't mean that everyone should get the same thing in the end, because some people work harder, and some have more innate or developed talents and skills. Granted the latter isn't necessarily a person's own fault, but that's life. The quote we all learn as children (at least here in America), that "all men are created equal" is of course patently false when taken literally; what they were trying to convey is that all men have value and should be treated equally under the law.

2. Everyone deserves the basic necessities of life, not exactly what they want.

- "Basic necessities of life" is, of course, a constantly evolving concept. But while everyone should have food, shelter, and other such things (including, I would argue, access to health care), there is no right to an apartment in a highly desirable area like central Stockholm or Manhattan. It's not a right to own a home, or a car, or a huge high definition TV.

3. Society, via government, has a shared burden.

- A good quote to remember: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." I pay well into the six-figures in taxes each year. I don't like it, but it's necessary, because a society needs the things that this money is used for to function.

4. Companies or corporations are not evil, nor are capitalists.

- It is grossly inaccurate to say that workers are the only ones that deserve to benefit from labor, because labor is but a single input in production. Ideas and "intellectual capital" are far more important and valuable. And among others, without the organizing force of the capital markets, workers would produce nothing. Companies are in competition for capital, and without providing an adequate return to their investors they will fail, and the worker will get nothing. Also, people need to realize that fiat money and incomes only have any meaning in relative terms. In a free market people are paid relative to the value they contribute to the economy; increase wages too much at the lower end, and costs will increase, prices will increase, and these wages will be worth less in real terms. There might be a moderate flattening of the disparity, but outside of a delicate balance any benefit will be negated. You will never have a successful system in which people with different talents and abilities, doing different work, are compensated equally (nor should it be so).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You're absolutely right...That's why there are so many homeless people in Stockholm vs US cities...

I've never been to Stockholm, but are you implying that European cities have fewer homeless than in the U.S.?

If anything, there appear to be more visible homeless in major European cities.

And what does rent regulation have to do with homelessness? Homelessness rarely has anything to do with the housing market or relative affordability.

[Fusey]

Originally Posted by Swede

My guesstimates are that at least a third already have their own place but want a better one, a third live with a second, third or even fourth hand lease (all of which are usually banned by the owners, so not a good situation) and the rest still live with family or move around from friend to friend.

A friend of mine in Gothenburg ended up renting out the kitchen of a flat while he waited for a house to become available.

It is interesting to compare the rental markets of Stockholm versus Gothenburg. Obviously there's much more demand to live in Stockholm, but the wait for housing in Gothenburg isn't nearly as bad. I think the longest I heard it took someone to find a place to rent was about 3 months -- and even that was extreme (mostly in high-demand areas, like the city center). How's it in Malmö? With Copenhagen next door I imagine there are a few Danes who look there for cheaper housing.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

Completely separate issue.

You claimed, and I quote:


This is a great example of when socialist "ideals" do not work at all in practice

This is nothing of the sort. Availability of housing would probably be a lot lower for most people except for the ones with money (who can rent in the private sector anyway without waiting times), without the government controlling the rent and subsidizing the very lowest incomes. So if the aim is to provide housing for everyone, this "socialist" (lol) "ideal" (lol again) does work in practise. The alternative is a lot of homeless people and tent cities (sound familiar?)
Anyway, the situation is people waiting for 2 years or whatever to get the house they want, left solely to the market they'de probably have to wait a lot longer before they were in the financial situation to be able to affort it. In European inner cities (while space there is often in demand), you'll find all sorts of people with all sorts of incomes. The notion that "the market" should make it so that the in demand areas should only be obtainable to high incomes, will probably result in less residency, less vibrancy, less urbanity (again sound familiar?).

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I've never been to Stockholm, but are you implying that European cities have fewer homeless than in the U.S.?

I'm not implying, I'm stating as fact...

If anything, there appear to be more visible homeless in major European cities.

You gotta be kidding me...

And what does rent regulation have to do with homelessness? Homelessness rarely has anything to do with the housing market or relative affordability.

That was kinda my point...

If the "socialist ideal" to provide affordable housing to everyone is failed, then where are the masses of homeless?

[Nowhereman1280]

So you are saying that since every unit in Stockholm is rent-control, and the socialist ideal of rent control prevents homeless, that there are subsequently no homeless in Stockholm. For some reason I don't think that jives with reality in any way.

Also don't you think its just a little weird that all these flats are sub-let out 3 or 4 times over and over again? Don't you think thats a massive abuse of the system when someone gets a rent-control apt and then just sublets it out to someone at a huge profit? Also don't you think its just a little funky that people have to do things like rent out a kitchen to live in while they wait for a flat to become available?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You claimed, and I quote:


This is a great example of when socialist "ideals" do not work at all in practice

This is nothing of the sort. Availability of housing would probably be a lot lower for most people except for the ones with money (who can rent in the private sector anyway without waiting times), without the government controlling the rent and subsidizing the very lowest incomes. So if the aim is to provide housing for everyone, this "socialist" (lol) "ideal" (lol again) does work in practise. The alternative is a lot of homeless people and tent cities (sound familiar?)
Anyway, the situation is people waiting for 2 years or whatever to get the house they want, left solely to the market they'de probably have to wait a lot longer before they were in the financial situation to be able to affort it. In European inner cities (while space there is often in demand), you'll find all sorts of people with all sorts of incomes. The notion that "the market" should make it so that the in demand areas should only be obtainable to high incomes, will probably result in less residency, less vibrancy, less urbanity (again sound familiar?).

San Francisco has some of the only strict rent control policies in the US. San Francisco also has significantly more homeless than just about any city in the US.

Rent control does not equal fewer homeless. Rent control also does not equal more homeless. The two are completely unrelated to one another. There are certainly pros and cons to rent control (a lot of the pros and cons depend on other policies also in place, which tend to have more impact on things than rent control does), but preventing homelessness is really a totally different issue.

[SHiRO]

Rent control in Stockholm's case does provide for affordable housing for everyone. This unfortunate side effect of subletting that doesn't exist in other European cities where there's also rent control, notwithstanding...
That's all I'm saying.

I objected to the totally ludicrous notion that this is somehow "a socialist ideal that does not work". So yeah, a knee jerk reaction on my part for the oh so predictable reply on this forum that something is "socialist" when in fact the goal it strives to obtain is perfectely reasonable.

The fact that there is rent control does not create this problem, the fact that there are not enough housing units does. This is hardly a "socialist" problem.

[new.slang]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You gotta be kidding me...

ever seen gypsies?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by new.slang

ever seen gypsies?

As a matter of fact I have. And you should call them Roma or Sinti, etc. They primary live in Eastern Europe and most are not homeless.

Nice attempt at comparing a developed nation like the USA to developing/transitional nations instead of the developed nations of western Europe which clearly are meant in this context. Very typical...
(btw US cities probably have more homeless than even Eastern European cities too nevertheless, but I guess you then want to include the likes of Moscow to create an ever increasing uneven playing ground).

To put things in context...I just read the Bay Area alone has 35,000 homeless. That's about 10x the amount my entire country has. The city of Rotterdam has 200. San Fransisco must be at 40x that number at minimum!!

[village person]

Tone it down, Shiro. As already stated, rent control and homelessness are two different and almost entirely unrelated topics.

[glowrock]

To paraphrase SHiRO:

Europe = Good. USA = Bad.



Aaron (Glowrock)

[10023]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You claimed, and I quote:


This is a great example of when socialist "ideals" do not work at all in practice

This is nothing of the sort. Availability of housing would probably be a lot lower for most people except for the ones with money (who can rent in the private sector anyway without waiting times), without the government controlling the rent and subsidizing the very lowest incomes. So if the aim is to provide housing for everyone, this "socialist" (lol) "ideal" (lol again) does work in practise. The alternative is a lot of homeless people and tent cities (sound familiar?)

Anyway, the situation is people waiting for 2 years or whatever to get the house they want, left solely to the market they'de probably have to wait a lot longer before they were in the financial situation to be able to affort it. In European inner cities (while space there is often in demand), you'll find all sorts of people with all sorts of incomes. The notion that "the market" should make it so that the in demand areas should only be obtainable to high incomes, will probably result in less residency, less vibrancy, less urbanity (again sound familiar?).

Homeless people are not people with very low incomes, they're usually people with no incomes at all, so it doesn't matter how low you make the rent.

Separately, and more importantly, it's been shown on numerous occasions here that rent controls reduce the available supply of housing because it reduces the incentive for developers to build housing.

Just look at San Francisco (where admittedly rent control is combined with the most insidious NIMBYism in the U.S.) for an example.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by glowrock

To paraphrase SHiRO:

Europe = Good. USA = Bad.



Aaron (Glowrock)

Yeah that's exactely what I'm saying...

[Gava]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

As a matter of fact I have. And you should call them Roma or Sinti, etc. They primary live in Eastern Europe and most are not homeless.

Nice attempt at comparing a developed nation like the USA to developing/transitional nations instead of the developed nations of western Europe which clearly are meant in this context. Very typical...
(btw US cities probably have more homeless than even Eastern European cities too nevertheless, but I guess you then want to include the likes of Moscow to create an ever increasing uneven playing ground).

To put things in context...I just read the Bay Area alone has 35,000 homeless. That's about 10x the amount my entire country has. The city of Rotterdam has 200. San Fransisco must be at 40x that number at minimum!!

Acording to a survey done in 2006, Stockholm had 3 863 homless people. There are estimates done by organizations working with homeless people that claim over 5000 homeless.

[johnnypd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If anything, there appear to be more visible homeless in major European cities.

the homeless situation in the us cities ive been to is incredible. nothing remotely like it exists in europe. the worst place ive seen in europe would be round the canals in Paris where tents are set up, though it's actually a decent neighbourhood and the homeless dont pose a problem. you also see a fair amount of gypsies/eastern europeans begging, not huge amounts but here and there in key locations, but id say the majority of these are not actually homeless, its just how they earn a living.

what is also interesting about the US is that there are super dense pockets of homelessness, like skid row in LA, a scale of homelessness that most europeans could barely image. but the homelessness is also spread out throughout entire metro areas, at least on the west coast, whereas in europe homeless congregate in the centres. you can go out to secondary centres like berkeley and see huge amounts of them, or suburbs like costa mesa and still see lots of homeless. there are also a lot of central american homeless families staying at shelters, which i have a bit of experience with in orange county. it seems like newly arrived migrants seem to get housing quicker in the EU.

of course you may have just meant that since americans lead more autocentric, suburban lives, they are less likely to actually walk and be on sidewalks, so in that case, yes, the homeless may become "less visible".

mind you, basic point i dont think homelessness has much to do with housing shortages, but i would say that it is linked to capitalism - lack of healthcare for mentally ill being one reason, and lack of subsidised state apartments for other vulnerable sections like immigrants or the poor.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Gava

Acording to a survey done in 2006, Stockholm had 3 863 homless people. There are estimates done by organizations working with homeless people that claim over 5000 homeless.

That's still only 1/3 of San Fransisco, which is a similar sized city.
Plus I don't believe it anyway. Amsterdam had 2600 in 2006 now drastically reduced to 1200 or so, with only 80 or so that actually sleep outside.
Rotterdam has had an even more drastic reduction virtually eleminating homelessness. Latest reports say only 100 homeless and 20 who sleep outside. This is as far down as you can go probably. Stockholm is a lot colder than Amsterdam or Rotterdam, has less immigrants and a similar social situation so I'd expect less homeless in Stockholm than in Amsterdam, but it's possible there are factors that cause them to have more. It still is a far cry from American cities though.
3863 is probaly the amount of people who at one point were homeless during the year, not total amount of homeless at any given time.

[Gordo]

^Where are you getting the count of 11,000+ homeless in SF? It may be true, but I've never seen any count that high (it's usually estimated in the 6,000 range).

I wouldn't put much stock in that non-profit group that you linked to earlier. They've had some significant corruption issues over the years and have every reason to inflate numbers.

And last - I'm certainly not one to dispute there being significant homeless problems in some US cities, including SF (and far worse problems than I've ever seen in western European countries), but it's a totally separate issue from rent control.