alleviates the pressure caused by collusion between landholders, reinforcing their position
I don’t think that logically follows. It alleviates pressure because it undercuts the collusion. But permitting unfettered collusion doesn’t improve any renter’s position.
What we should want is a broader and more strict rent control policy that ultimately encourages landlords to divest, not a monopoly renter that experiences marginally more enmity.
The problem with concessions is not that you get them, the problem with concessions is you are now negotiating to get back what was effortlessly snatched away from you that older generations got.
Older generations didn’t get it. They were under the same boot we see today.
The big difference is the changes in bureaucratic practice and the profit margin over time. But the idea that we don’t want rent control because Boomers used to have it? Totally revisionist.
I don’t think that logically follows. It alleviates pressure because it undercuts the collusion. But permitting unfettered collusion doesn’t improve any renter’s position.
What we should want is a broader and more strict rent control policy that ultimately encourages landlords to divest, not a monopoly renter that experiences marginally more enmity.
Older generations didn’t get it. They were under the same boot we see today.
The big difference is the changes in bureaucratic practice and the profit margin over time. But the idea that we don’t want rent control because Boomers used to have it? Totally revisionist.