7 ms·
Cities: Skylines II Found a Solution for High Rents: Get Rid of Landlords
- its-summertime 2y agohttps://store.steampowered.com/news/app/949230/view/4145079671516384052 https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/949230/view/41450796... actual article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40674208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40674208 prior discussion of another generic write of the actual article
- GrigoriyMikh 2y agoYes, wanted to link it too. Actually, the changes are quite debatable. Since it simplifies economic model of the game, not adds flexibility as might be assumed at first. Even more, players already have been finding a way to deal with high rents, for example, by changing the zoning: https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17i5z33/comment/k6ssom2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17i5z33/com...
- perihelions 2y agoSee also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40674208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40674208 ("Rent in Cities Skylines 2 was too high, so the devs removed landlords (arstechnica.com)"; 3 days ago, 90 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40676408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40676408 ("Land value tax in online games and virtual worlds (2022) (progressandpoverty.substack.com)"; 3 days ago, 399 comments)
- antiquark 2y agoSadly, this solution never works in the real world.
- wiz21c 2y agowhy ?
- tiborsaas 2y agoFrom the steam post: > First of all, we removed the virtual landlord so a building’s upkeep is now paid equally by all renters In real life you can't just take away people's assets with a simple update. In post-communist countries we've seen that happening and it's not pretty.
- solumunus 2y agoTrust me bro.
- INTPenis 2y agoNo but a decent solution would be to regulate landlords. Of course any blue blooded american will cringe at the R-word.
- murat124 2y agoReally? Isn't it the republicans who are vehemently against regulation and not the democrats?
- INTPenis 2y agoDon't ask me, I'm just an outsider looking in on a complete garbage fire of a system. Judging by their social issues I'd say all two of their parties are equally ludicrous.
- WJW 2y agoLooking outside in (from the EU), even the democrats are quite a bit further to the right than even some of the parties we label as "radical right" over here. Even Bernie Saunders (the most left-wing democrat I can think of off the top of my head) had standpoints on things like gun control and universal healthcare that would never fly here.
- bee_rider 2y agoWhat does gun control have to do with left-right politics? For healthcare, he is site says he wants a single payer system with no deductibles, so, entirely government funded… what’s the more left wing option?
- WJW 2y agoWhat I was getting at with both points: - Gun control in almost any country is WAY stricter than in the US, and people in the EU are absolutely fine with the government interfering heavy-handedly in that subject. There would be riots in the street here if schools would need to have "active shooter policies" for example, we'd rather have a blanket ban on private firearm possession and have the police enforce that. In that sense, even Saunders seems quite fine to have a relatively hands-off gun policy and that lack of government regulation is typically more associated with the right than with the left. - For healthcare policy, I only briefly skimmed his site but I don't think I actually saw a plan to have the government nationalize the hospitals and take them out of private hands? AFAIK in most EU countries most doctors/nurses are government employees with only a small minority working in privately owned clinics.
- uyzstvqs 2y agoThe fact that there are a not insignificant number of people comparing this game to the real world suggests that basic economic education is severely lacking. There's actually this great book called Basic Economics, for those interested.
- mschuster91 2y ago> The fact that there are a not insignificant number of people comparing this game to the real world suggests that basic economic education is severely lacking. Landlords aren't needed for a society to work. A lot of Eastern European countries have home-ownership rates way beyond 90% [1] - that allows the economies of these countries to be able to undercut Western European countries on wages despite everyday cost of life (e.g. electricity, food, gas) being similar to Western Europe (or, like in Croatia, often enough even more expensive than that!), as there are almost no landlords extracting value off of society and into the hands of the very few very rich. The only place where landlords actually fill a valid gap are to serve those who have to move to a new place or who are in the country only for short/medium term. It's not surprising that the countries with high homeownership rates are formerly Communist or (like the Nordics) strongly Social Democrat in history. A population is way happier when they do not have to fear eviction every day in life. [1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/155734/umfrage/wohneigentumsquoten-in-europa/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/155734/umfrag...
- robertlagrant 2y agoThe reason for this could be a lack of people coming into the country that need a home. If the number of people entering a country is minimal, the demand won't go up, and almost everyone can afford a home. If there are far more people entering then homes get chopped up into apartments and each rented out for the same price the whole house would've been rented for a few years ago. Landlords in this situation are just adjusting the supply to meet the demand, and to be honest doing a better job than, say, the UK government, who just pay taxpayer money to hotels and stick people in them.
- 2y ago
- derelicta 2y agoTell this to the Citizens of Vienna and Singapore, where the landlord is the State, or not for profit orgs propped up by the State.
- zertrin 2y agoWhat. No. In Singapore the state-built apartments (HDB flats) are sold not lent to the Singaporeans/permanent residents. The state does not operate as a landlord. Most of the population owns their property here.
- ramesh31 2y ago>Most of the population owns their property here. ...as a direct result of government policy that discourages landlording.
- timbit42 2y agoHousing cooperatives. Anyone who prefers democracy would probably also prefer housing cooperatives and worker cooperatives.
- mrkramer 2y ago[flagged]
- WhereIsTheTruth 2y agoChina has higher home ownership than the US "Today China is a country of homeowners with more than 90% of households owning homes (87% in urban and 96% in rural China) (Clark, Huang, & Yi, 2019). At the same time, more than 20% Chinese households own multiple homes, higher than many developed nations (Huang et al., 2020)"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mrkramer 2y agoWho mentioned China? This article reminded me of Soviet Union of 100 years ago and Stalin's war against landlords/kulaks.
- thriftwy 2y agoRussia does not have landlords (as a medium business). Virtually all apartments available for rent belong to moms and pops who happen to have a surplus so they're renting out. They usually have just one property which they rent out. Add to that retirees who lend out their 2nd apartment to live off it. The prices aren't exactly low but the market is pretty durable as the result. Lots of offerings at any moment at competing prices. The regulation is also almost inexistent.
- jackvalentine 2y agoWhat definition of landlord excludes people renting out surplus apartments?
- thriftwy 2y agoAs I imagine it, the person who rents out a single apartment for subsistence cannot pull all kinds of tricks that a large landlord with multiple properties will. They don't make the market, merely participate in one. Moreover, a large landlord will often siphon the income into paying off more apartments for rent, taking them from market. Whereas for these single apartment landlords may consider selling their propertied instead of renting out so they don't hoard the stock as much. Their income from renting out is insufficient to buy more reliably.
- andybak 2y agoSo - two types of landlord. That's the key point here - your original wording confused everyone.
- nkrisc 2y agoNone. That’s the problem though because there is a meaningful distinction to be made between landlords renting out surplus space in their primary dwelling, and landlords who own dozens or more of properties which they rent out. Based on context I assume they were using the word landlord to exclusively refer to the latter, even though both groups would generally be called “landlords”.
- 2y ago
- yazantapuz 2y agoThe bit that "Even if they currently don’t have enough money in their balance to pay rent, [household's] won’t complain and will instead spend less money on resource consumption." seems to be important too...
- cassianoleal 2y agoTrue. A more realistic implementation would be for the tenants to complain and be ignored, then maybe start defaulting on the rent.
- rickydroll 2y agoDon't forget a backlog on maintenance leading to a decrease in quality of living space. On the other hand, that does happen today with some landlords.
- bArray 2y ago> Now, Colossal Order says, it will be based on a household’s income: “Even if they currently don’t have enough money in their balance to pay rent, they won’t complain and will instead spend less money on resource consumption.” Good idea, negative reward for increased income. Sounds like a socialist utopia. I believe a better option would be to remove mortgages. I have a few reasons for this: 1. Houses are priced based on what people are able to pay for them, they cannot hold more value than people can afford. Additionally, there is little incentive to purchase a home when you are old. A mortgage essentially allows a person to borrow significant amounts of money from their uncertain future. 2. Mortgages are becoming unreasonably long. There is nobody that can reasonably suggest that they can afford to repay a mortgage over a period of 50 years. You cannot predict that far into the future regarding your health or employability. We have people now getting mortgages that will last well into their retirement, there is no real hope of these being paid back. 3. In almost all economic turmoil, mortgage issues exasperate the problem. It very quickly becomes a negative feedback cycle. People fail to make payments, banks see increased mortgage risk exposure, mortgage rates are increased, people are less willing to get mortgages & more people fail to make payments, house prices drop significantly - suddenly multiple industries collapse. Of course in practice this will not be achievable. Foreign investors would still have access to borrowed money that is difficult to track. People would still be able to borrow money through non-official routes (family and friends). Annec data: We built several houses in the UK ourselves (paying contractors where required). Including the cost of land, our time and all other expenses, the houses were instantly worth 2x once built. In the 10 years or so they have existed, they are now worth 3-4x the original investment. It doesn't add up.
- robertlagrant 2y ago> It doesn't add up. It adds up when you realise that the number of people entering the country (by birth or net legal/illegal immigration or asylum) is far higher than the number of new homes being built.
- KptMarchewa 2y agoIt's not working even where this is not true.
- cosmolev 2y agoAnother solution would be to get rid of tenants.
- poulpy123 2y agoIt's always funny, but it's a game, not even a real simulation (which would be also wrong)
- derelicta 2y agoI'd have loved seeing a proper reflection of capitalist economics where rents get so high a large chunk of the population ends up homeless and fully destitute.
- timbit42 2y agoThen play Monopoly. The game was designed to teach people the flaws of capitalism. Imagine playing Monopoly without buying any properties and only collecting $200 every round. You wouldn't last long.
- EncomLab 2y ago"Pac Man found a Solution for the Perfect Game: Get Rid of Ghosts" The number of people across all platforms hosting this story who believe this is somehow proof of anything is staggering.
- GreatLdisisp88 2y agoFor rent control you need to imagine landlords like pest in nature. How you control pest? By introducing predator that prey on pest. Or you can control resources that let pest thrive. For Ametican landlords there are no true predator other than governments. And governments typically are slow while landlords can adapt faster. In this case government would be like sabretooth tiger or megalodon predators moving so slow unable to do much to catch preys. The 2nd thing is the resources. Landlords thrive because asymmetric information. Renters find hard to negotiate. Renters also become desperate when public transports become limited in a highly demand area with no alternatives. Once you start to see this problem predatory-prey relationship, landlords as pest can be put under control. I suggest you guys read up how Singapore government control landlords. They have very practical and innovative ways that span decades of planning into future. Even though land is incredibly limited and cost of living high, in terms of available and affordable rents to citizens and foreigners will put London, NY, Tokyo to shame.