Singapore solved this (and other issues) by creating a department that basically functions as the nation's largest property developer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board
Net result is about 80% of residents living in public housing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
This is pretty much the exact opposite of the nationalize-all-the-things public housing concept, which presumably is why it's not devolved into the usual electoral capture/tragedy of the commons sh show
If you're not married, you can't get public housing until you're 35.
If you do qualify, you have to enter a lottery for the opportunity to choose a unit. The chances of winning the first time are low.
Then once you've won, the wait time is 4-5 years before you actually get the place. But people do it because you can buy the unit subsidized, then after ~5 years, you can sell it at market rates. It's basically a free hand out by the governement.
For example, my Googling seems to suggest that you could buy a 4BR in a new neighbourhood for under 350k. A new estate in Melbourne would be double that, with no public transport or other amenities.
It's worth noting that Singapore's average household income is around 1/5th that of Australia.
A quick Google shows an average household income of $116k AUD for Aussies, and $114k SGD for (resident) Singaporeans. Current exchange rates peg 1 SGD to 0.997 AUD.
Historically in 18th century rents were 1/3 of farm product in England, 1/2 of product in Milan, up to 3/4 product in China. Citizens in countries with low rents developed wealth quicker and in countries with high rents were quite poor.
If you nationalize housing, wouldn't you also subsidize supply?
Hence the wait-lists even where it exists; people want to live where they can be near what they need (be that work, medical, family, etc), not literally anywhere. The "literally anywhere" tradeoff may be worse than homelessness, or at least perceived to be.
The short answer is: No, in a command economy, what happens is whatever the politicos demand.
I'm sure it's ultimately the Kochs' fault, or whoever. But at some point I really feel like there should be an element of personal responsibility to educate yourself about the forces that affect your economic wellbeing, and of those whose interests you nominally have at heart. If such a large share of renters can't do that . . . well, ideally we should still build more housing, but it's tough as a homeowner to feel too bad about it.
There's even a snappy quote: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard
But it is not, as my example shows. There's a lot more to it. That's the entire point.
> that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning
I don't think anyone is arguing it is in any way shadowy, it's done very openly. There is sufficient discussion in the media about the practice of voting in the US, so I will not repeat that.
Also, take the Bay Area as an example - how large would you guess is the fraction of immigrants working in Tech? And mind you, even a green card does not allow you to vote. All of these people are excluded from the process.
Ironic, if you think about how this whole country started on 'no taxation without representation'.
PS: I am sure that's not what you intended, but I'd appreciate it if you avoided that condescending tone. My argument doesn't rely on your sympathy, and reframing an argument as narrative doesn't help either. It puts into doubt all good faith you may have in a discussion.
Also, my tone was not intended to be condescending. I wanted to be let know if I was wrong, genuinely. I am eager to update if there are other places where the renters are identifiably and largely YIMBY, because that would break some of my personal beliefs about the housing market. Any my lack of sympathy is for the narrative -- which I've heard many times before -- not you personally. I'm positive that you are great.
Whether it's because increased density would spoil their views, or make parking harder to find, or the social housing would bring in "undesirable elements" or lower their property value, the incumbents have a lot of reasons to oppose housing changes that would benefit society as a whole.
Allow me to introduce you to the acronym NIMBY[0]. Often found in newspapers with their arms crossed looking stern in front of a building site. And you'd be amazed at what they can oppose - kindergartens, schools, even playgrounds (as they increase noise, and there's a risk of balls coming over the fence!)
And planning laws that require authorities to consider submissions from residents are one of their best weapons - after all, it's typically the wealthier who can afford to own property, and so it's often the wealthier who can form groups that hire top tier lawyers to fight developments they're opposed to.
Toronto.
[1] only half serious
Generally home owners are pro regulation to avoid building larger stuff in their neighborhoods though. Zoning and Nimbyism are home owner driven.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028342
Furthermore, most policies of this nature are stupid because they assume that everything except the target of the policy (in this case rent) stays the same, and this is obviously not true. A lot of policies meant to help tenants involve moving additional costs onto the landlord... Who then increases the rent to cover them, and yet remains competitive because every landlord has the same costs imposed on them, and so makes the same decision.
The article does point out some problems (like the high cost of moving as a renter causing an imbalance) and then instead of directly addressing those issues, leaps to a completely unrelated "solution". From personal experience with agents, there's a hell of a lot that could be done to make that process smoother and cheaper...
>I'm not aware of anyone who claims that the housing market is uncompetitive in the economic sense.
You guys aren't even talking about the same thing. The parent post is claiming that "there's no such thing as price gouging", period.
What's the ratio like?
> Even if the bids are rejected it still has a large effect on pricing
If they put in a bunch of bids that end up being rejected, doesn't that work in the opposite direction? If you're selling something on craigslist and you get spammed with a bunch of lowball offers, you're not going to think your widget is more valuable. If anything it's going to make you have second thoughts about your original price and make you want to lower it.
Landlords and owners will be able to command high fractions of average incomes as long as there is no slack in the housing market. If you nationalize housing and hold prices low, then there will be supply shortages where some folks will not be able to get housing who would happily pay your price. (This is a fact, not conjecture, and is easily observed in any affordable housing lottery in the United States.)
The only way to have low prices and also to satisfy the demand for housing (i.e. have each person who is willing to pay be allocated a unit) is to have slack in the market. No other solution will do it.