This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So if current landlords are so bad, what's to keep anyone from undercutting them? If you're seriously suggesting co-ordination among all the landlords all the way from Blackrock to your middle-class salaryman, I'm not going to believe you.
Well, no, if you're poor enough, the pillaging might well be worse than the raping. Pretty much nobody in modern America is that poor, fortunately.
Idiotic building and planning regulations. At least here in the UK.
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think Blackrock keeps buying every open lot with somewhat permissive zoning and converting it into apartment buildings. This is them trying to undercut the SFH mafia. However, it is in their interest for zoning laws to not get tooo permissive. Because they would suddenly have to be competitive, instead of just being marginally better than a SFH landlord.
As of now, it is illegal to build in most parts of the US. The US has only 1 dense city and that's Manhattan. Include the 5 boroughs, and NYC is remarkably underbuilt for its demand. Who controls if building is legal ? -> the landlords for that locale. (It is not that simple, but I'm skipping over a lot of nuance to make my tl;dr point). That's why I call it a colonial extraction racket.
Yep.
More options
Context Copy link
You can't just build a house you need approval from the local government to construct housing. Planning departments aren't approving housing construction or density increases that would allow rent to be undercut. There's market power in offering housing for rent, and the planning department enforces it.
More options
Context Copy link
Natural monopoly. If everyone around them lowered their prices, they increase their market share. If you're one landlord out of 100 in the middle of a city and there are 100 families in need of housing, it doesn't matter if 99 of them cut their prices... that 100th family is still going to pay you.
No, the 100th family is just going to move somewhere else.
You are using terms originating from economic theory, but you have an apparent lack of understanding what these terms mean, given that you describe reality which simply does not exist.
More options
Context Copy link
Natural monopoly.... in a market that includes everyone from Blackrock to middle-class salarymen? There's at least hundreds of thousands of landlords in NYC alone. There's no monopoly at all, let alone a natural one.
Sure, I'm off on my terminology. Here's what I mean by the problem, maybe you can help me put it into economic terms:
If you and I share the market of soda evenly, and I price mine too high, you can double your production and take all my business. You can't really do that with land.
ETA: just want to acknowledge that yes, it was dumb to use an obviously technical term in a made-up way. My use of the terms I think is like this: It is a "monopoly" in that others are prevented from entering the market, and it is "natural" in that the barrier to entry is the fixed supply/location of land.
I think your just trying to talk about the idea of land "rent" in the formal theoretical sense of rent. Monopolists also have rents similar theoretically to land rents.
More options
Context Copy link
There's no special economic term for this situation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link