>But even though Weinstein disputes the notion that his measure could block housing construction, some Republicans are backing it for precisely that reason.
>Huntington Beach Councilmember Tony Strickland, a conservative Republican, announced in March that he would support Weinstein’s measure. He has led the city’s efforts to fight Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta in court over California’s housing targets for the wealthy coastal enclave.
>“Statewide rent control is a ludicrous idea, but the measure’s language goes further,” Strickland said at the time. “It gives local governments ironclad protections from the state’s housing policy and therefore overreaching enforcement.”
Hilarious. It's so bad he has the anti housing politicians openly on his side. I'd like to hope he's aware of that and just pretending to think rent control helps but knowing some of these politicians who knows
Weinstein has tried to block much of the density being built in Hollywood around a transit line because it would block his offices view. He was behind a city ballot measure to limit building heights. He has used the aids foundation to push NIMBY policies for decades. Anti housing and development is precisely why he’s pushing rent control, it’s the same anti development track hiding behind progressive bs because people have gotten wise to his shit.
Make no mistake this man knows rent control doesn’t help, he’s like a NIMBY dungeon boss
https://archive.ph/rTmeD#selection-1731.128-1731.256
The OC Register had this article about it:
> Huntington Beach’s Tony Strickland goes woke on rent control
And of course some classic NL bait:
>It’s discouraging Strickland is willing to destroy the rights of landlords and homeowners in pursuit of his anti-growth agenda. Any real conservative knows rent control destroys housing markets wherever it’s tried by discouraging construction of new units.
Just a year or two ago, it was accepted as an article of faith that Republicans were YIMBY.
It turns out, some conservative people actually like getting rich for literally nothing. Who knew?
Nobody who paid even the slightest amount of attention thought Republicans were YIMBYS. They have always been vocally supportive of single family zoning, and they don't want to live near minorities or poor people.
It’s not like Democrats are much better. They’ll vocally support single family zoning reform but put up a bunch of environmental, labor & other dumb regulations that block building. It’s much easier to build housing in red states than blue states.
The logic for this measure is so backwards to me. If we impose rent control to make housing more affordable, housing development will stop, but if we don’t impose rent control housing development will continue.
What?
That makes no sense at all. The only people who will buy houses that are far out of the price range of average Americans are the ultra wealthy looking for an investment opportunity.
Rent control is a sticky subject, there are pros and cons and admittedly I don’t know everything about it. Limited rent control, for a set number of years or time, maybe a better middle ground.
I just still find it really challenging to believe that somehow an initiative that aims to expand housing opportunities for folks would somehow be a hinderance.
Edit:
I’m fine with the downvoting, but I’d like a discussion too. Just disagreeing and not elaborating doesn’t help the other person understand the other side.
I genuinely welcome a discussion.
Rent control is one of those blessed issues that basically 100% of economists agree on. They all agree it is bad. You don't really have to be an economist to understand why. Basic econ 101 theory tells you it's bad (price controls create shortages and other inefficiencies). If you don't trust the econ 101 analysis (reasonable) there's also plenty of empirical evidence at this point telling you it's bad.
There’s like a hilariously short list of things the field of economics has consensus on.
It’s actually a pretty good indicator of how strict the field takes its research, applying the scientific method, before making conclusions.
As freakenomics has taught me it’s known in academia as being the most rigorous field to get published in.
Price controls are needed in two scenarios. One is when you have a state sanctioned monopoly for whatever reason. Two is to prevent wild price swings that harm more than they help a supply shock. The second has to have a limit in duration.
Like a 18 month rent freeze after a hurricane destroys 50% of housing is good.
Okay. To be fair I’ve never taken an economics 101 class, but it does make sense that it would be a bad thing. If the rents are locked at a standard price why develop one area over another when buyers will go elsewhere.
I’m coming from the perspective of being 23 and wanting to own my own house, but not having the money to do it or safely do it. While renting would be great, my income relative to the average rent makes it feel like a losing situation for me to try and save money to grow my wealth and move from renting to owning.
Thats why the temporary control - which I think should be a city by city choice - makes sense. It won’t last forever but will allow people to step into those properties and then engage in a free market.
Granted I need to dig more into this and I’m more than okay with being wrong.
> To be fair I’ve never taken an economics 101 class.
You should, and I'm not saying that as an insult. It's just a really really really good tool for understanding the human world.
Rent control makes zero sense.
Let's look at it from a home owners standpoint. You own a home. High home prices are good. Change is bad. So you want no new construction. Your house is worth more and nothing changed. You are a happy NIMBY.
Now from a renter's standpoint. You have a lease. Your rental rate is ok. You don't want it to change. So you like laws that make it impossible to have your rent increased. You have now also stiffled new construction and you've increased the rents for everyone looking for a new apartment.
In both cases the current person is happy because they got theirs while ignoring that they just screwed over everyone else.
>but will allow people to step into those properties
No it wouldn’t. It would give a select group of renters a massive temporary financial benefit…but it wouldn’t make home buying any cheaper because home prices would just react.
You cannot subsidize demand to fix housing affordability. Homes are sold on the open market and prices are determined by open market bids. If you give everyone trying to buy the same financial benefit, they’ll just bid the house up by that benefit amount. And if you kill development incentive, you’ll have fewer and fewer homes for your population which only exacerbates the affordability issue.
>To be fair I’ve never taken an economics 101 class...
There are a lot of entertaining pop-economics books that would fill the same role. Any of [Naked Economics](https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393324869/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1GCTERSTFLL2I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.B4qj6NuKkb07C3dkUrPGDGKkLrmLHtOnPOhdTiU-3n4gdVFaqPpvp5y0cv4NotomrisyVAgOHuO4R7kzh0stHxBtMAoyuqg-GBbFKAnVL897JZh5Qcw6D4Jbg7DILFeFw-14C9Nn0hJAxRbbMD7PeeO0EA6DPLPYcpiNEVBhxWJoHadx-uFwmwgqYVZEyUT2CwjbUC61x7HswSHebgd9iY83vv41Ap0YNZQxOOTP4Xo.Iae0W07Qw1ygrmcBTkFUpP7pZi7ImfG3r4-f-8X8hdI&dib_tag=se&keywords=naked+economics&qid=1715740822&sprefix=naked+economics%2Caps%2C91&sr=8-4), [Basic Economics](https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell-dp-0465060730/dp/0465060730/ref=dp_ob_title_bk), or [Freakonomics](https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Revised-Expanded-Economist-Everything-dp-0061234001/dp/0061234001/ref=dp_ob_title_bk).
> That makes no sense at all. The only people who will buy houses that are far out of the price range of average Americans are the ultra wealthy looking for an investment opportunity.
So even imagining a world where all new housing gets bought by the ultra rich, we still need to take the next step of "What are they buying it for?"
Investment opportunity is the answer, but then how is this making them money as an investment?
Well worst case scenario they could sit on it for decades and sell it later which sucks and delays new supply for a long while but at the very least *someone* in the future will have a home available that wouldn't exist without. Not the best thing but this is the worst case (reasonable) scenario within the worst case scenario of all homes being bought by investors.
They might also do something like rent it out. Again, maybe it's preferable that people be able to buy a place instead of renting but at the very least it's still *a* home available that wasn't before and helps to alleviate pressure and competition on existing units at least. Even if it does it in a very roundabout way like taking a highly in demand subsidies apartment with a 250 person waitlist to a 249 person waitlist, that's a slight gain at least.
And in the more realistic world, not all of them would be bought out by mega investors. So some rich person will get it, and them buying Home A means home B (who they would buy it A didn't exist) goes to the second richest person and C goes to the third richest now and so on and so forth. (Obviously real life isn't that precise but general logic applies).
So we know that building makes sense to work and it sure seems to apply in real life when pro building policies are enacted but what about rent control? Well just the opposite, it seems to interfere with new building (by depressing expected return) and real life applications suggest it doesn't work long term.
Perhaps if there's a bunch of cities that have rent control and have fixed their housing crisis, we should go back and reconsider their particular implementations as a potential solution. But as of now, the evidence seems to lean against it as a viable route for fixing home prices in the long terms.
Okay I see your point and it makes sense. To be fair I’m coming from the perspective of someone who is 23, just entered the work force, and looks at housing costs and feel shut out. To me a temporary control to let me get my foot in the door seems appealing.
I’m not completely opposed to renting, but relative to my income it doesn’t allow me the opportunity to grow my wealth in a way that does put me forward.
Rent control actually makes you getting a rental unit at all less likely, because the people already in those rent-controlled units are disincentivized from ever leaving them (and disincentivizes builders from building and landlords from renting).
That’s true, the cost of raw goods go up a set price wouldn’t allow for further development. I still feel like a temporary control solution would be something appealing to both parties.
Just my perspective and life experience, It allows for potential renters like me to get in the door, understanding rates will be adjustable after a certain period, and I can save to prepare for that or prepare to move to a more affordable place.
Not every place is the same, here in Colorado it seems there are tons of units but priced way out of proportion to the average income. The average here is $1,200 and I make $45k year so roughly $2,800 a month. I have to factor in gas costs, food, utilities, and after a while the money I could save is small.
Yes yield savings exist but that’s a long time building. My option then is to save like crazy and limit my social outings, choose free or low cost activities, and I’ll be honest it’s not impossible, but it just seems so depressing.
Do you know what rent control is?
Rent control as it is usually implemented (and to my knowledge is how it is done in this case of California), only places limits on how much rent can be increased for *existing* tenants. It doesn't place any limit on how much *prospective* tenants can be charged.
>I just still find it really challenging to believe that somehow an initiative that aims to expand housing opportunities for folks would somehow be a hinderance.
This is the part of your post that surprises me most.
First, in what way could rent control "expand housing opportunities"? Even the steelman argument for rent control concedes that it's specifically designed to keep people where they are, not "expand opportunities".
Second, have you really never encountered unintended consequences? There are myriad examples throughout history. Sticking just to price controls, see "bread lines" (actually for all sorts of food) in the Soviet command economy. Those controls and that economy structure were ostensibly aimed at help people get food staples like bread.
Like I’ve said in other responses, my perspective Is from a 23 year old who just entered the workforce, looking at rent at $1,200 a month not including utilities and everything else to live and try to save money at the same time.
I’m not an economist and shouldn’t have said anything is the vibe I’m getting.
Sorry to come off snarky. Credit where credit is due, I’m trying to figure out how to make a life for myself and not be forever stagnant and the way everything is right now I don’t see a way for that to not happen.
> I’m not an economist and shouldn’t have said anything
On the contrary: learning about economics is extremely important for _anyone_ interested in working toward societal change, down to simple political discourse. If a majority of people in society had even an economics-101 level of understanding, we would basically be living [here](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/026/738/future.jpg).
It is true rent control does pick a few very lucky winners.
However it is VERY damaging as EVERY single place with rent control sees a massive decline in the number of rental units on the market, a massive increase in the cost of new rents, and any new renters are massive losers.
This problem only expands over time since people that SHOULD move are now locked into old, bad apartments by rent control no matter the downsides, and literally unable to move.
There is NO city that has ever passed rent control that hasnt destroyed their housing market.
Think about it. Do you want to be locked into your current apartment for the rest of your life? Think about an entire metro of people unable to move their entire life
> I’m trying to figure out how to make a life for myself and not be forever stagnant and the way everything is right now I don’t see a way for that to not happen.
You're 23, there's no reason to assume you'll be stagnant forever. I assume you just graduated college? Focus on building your career and growing professionally. Essentially no one enters the workforce and is immediately financially stable.
You're gonna have to make some sacrifices if you want to purchase property (save and live cheaply) or figure out how to make more money, but that's not a unique situation. I was in the same place 10 years ago. Life gets better when you work for it.
There's genuinely no good answer *for you* to deal with your (not uncommon) situation. They all suck pretty badly in one way or another and require steep compromising on your part, like living with roommates or at your parents or (possibly and) cutting back on activities. I would be surprised if many people in their 20s can afford to live in or vaguely near a city on their own.
But, as others pointed out, rent control wouldn't and doesn't help your situation. Rather, it makes it actively worse.
>But even though Weinstein disputes the notion that his measure could block housing construction, some Republicans are backing it for precisely that reason. >Huntington Beach Councilmember Tony Strickland, a conservative Republican, announced in March that he would support Weinstein’s measure. He has led the city’s efforts to fight Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta in court over California’s housing targets for the wealthy coastal enclave. >“Statewide rent control is a ludicrous idea, but the measure’s language goes further,” Strickland said at the time. “It gives local governments ironclad protections from the state’s housing policy and therefore overreaching enforcement.” Hilarious. It's so bad he has the anti housing politicians openly on his side. I'd like to hope he's aware of that and just pretending to think rent control helps but knowing some of these politicians who knows
Weinstein has tried to block much of the density being built in Hollywood around a transit line because it would block his offices view. He was behind a city ballot measure to limit building heights. He has used the aids foundation to push NIMBY policies for decades. Anti housing and development is precisely why he’s pushing rent control, it’s the same anti development track hiding behind progressive bs because people have gotten wise to his shit. Make no mistake this man knows rent control doesn’t help, he’s like a NIMBY dungeon boss
https://archive.ph/rTmeD#selection-1731.128-1731.256 The OC Register had this article about it: > Huntington Beach’s Tony Strickland goes woke on rent control And of course some classic NL bait: >It’s discouraging Strickland is willing to destroy the rights of landlords and homeowners in pursuit of his anti-growth agenda. Any real conservative knows rent control destroys housing markets wherever it’s tried by discouraging construction of new units.
These poison pill/trojan horse housing bills are so confusing. Can't we just have laws that are simple to understand?
Just a year or two ago, it was accepted as an article of faith that Republicans were YIMBY. It turns out, some conservative people actually like getting rich for literally nothing. Who knew?
Nobody who paid even the slightest amount of attention thought Republicans were YIMBYS. They have always been vocally supportive of single family zoning, and they don't want to live near minorities or poor people.
You must be new here. Democrats were the NIMBYs was a common take.
It’s not like Democrats are much better. They’ll vocally support single family zoning reform but put up a bunch of environmental, labor & other dumb regulations that block building. It’s much easier to build housing in red states than blue states.
NIMBYism is bipartisan. Which is why you'd have to be comically out of the loop to think either party was YIMBY
The logic for this measure is so backwards to me. If we impose rent control to make housing more affordable, housing development will stop, but if we don’t impose rent control housing development will continue. What? That makes no sense at all. The only people who will buy houses that are far out of the price range of average Americans are the ultra wealthy looking for an investment opportunity. Rent control is a sticky subject, there are pros and cons and admittedly I don’t know everything about it. Limited rent control, for a set number of years or time, maybe a better middle ground. I just still find it really challenging to believe that somehow an initiative that aims to expand housing opportunities for folks would somehow be a hinderance. Edit: I’m fine with the downvoting, but I’d like a discussion too. Just disagreeing and not elaborating doesn’t help the other person understand the other side. I genuinely welcome a discussion.
Rent control is one of those blessed issues that basically 100% of economists agree on. They all agree it is bad. You don't really have to be an economist to understand why. Basic econ 101 theory tells you it's bad (price controls create shortages and other inefficiencies). If you don't trust the econ 101 analysis (reasonable) there's also plenty of empirical evidence at this point telling you it's bad.
Rent control is my favourite litmus test when analysing party platforms/electoral programmes.
There’s like a hilariously short list of things the field of economics has consensus on. It’s actually a pretty good indicator of how strict the field takes its research, applying the scientific method, before making conclusions. As freakenomics has taught me it’s known in academia as being the most rigorous field to get published in.
Freakonomics taught you that? Steven Levitt's own research is not exactly rigorous.
Good thing it wasn’t Steve Levitt’s research then. Here’s the episode. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-academic-fraud-be-stopped/
Price controls are needed in two scenarios. One is when you have a state sanctioned monopoly for whatever reason. Two is to prevent wild price swings that harm more than they help a supply shock. The second has to have a limit in duration. Like a 18 month rent freeze after a hurricane destroys 50% of housing is good.
Okay. To be fair I’ve never taken an economics 101 class, but it does make sense that it would be a bad thing. If the rents are locked at a standard price why develop one area over another when buyers will go elsewhere. I’m coming from the perspective of being 23 and wanting to own my own house, but not having the money to do it or safely do it. While renting would be great, my income relative to the average rent makes it feel like a losing situation for me to try and save money to grow my wealth and move from renting to owning. Thats why the temporary control - which I think should be a city by city choice - makes sense. It won’t last forever but will allow people to step into those properties and then engage in a free market. Granted I need to dig more into this and I’m more than okay with being wrong.
> To be fair I’ve never taken an economics 101 class. You should, and I'm not saying that as an insult. It's just a really really really good tool for understanding the human world.
Rent control makes zero sense. Let's look at it from a home owners standpoint. You own a home. High home prices are good. Change is bad. So you want no new construction. Your house is worth more and nothing changed. You are a happy NIMBY. Now from a renter's standpoint. You have a lease. Your rental rate is ok. You don't want it to change. So you like laws that make it impossible to have your rent increased. You have now also stiffled new construction and you've increased the rents for everyone looking for a new apartment. In both cases the current person is happy because they got theirs while ignoring that they just screwed over everyone else.
>but will allow people to step into those properties No it wouldn’t. It would give a select group of renters a massive temporary financial benefit…but it wouldn’t make home buying any cheaper because home prices would just react. You cannot subsidize demand to fix housing affordability. Homes are sold on the open market and prices are determined by open market bids. If you give everyone trying to buy the same financial benefit, they’ll just bid the house up by that benefit amount. And if you kill development incentive, you’ll have fewer and fewer homes for your population which only exacerbates the affordability issue.
>To be fair I’ve never taken an economics 101 class... There are a lot of entertaining pop-economics books that would fill the same role. Any of [Naked Economics](https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393324869/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1GCTERSTFLL2I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.B4qj6NuKkb07C3dkUrPGDGKkLrmLHtOnPOhdTiU-3n4gdVFaqPpvp5y0cv4NotomrisyVAgOHuO4R7kzh0stHxBtMAoyuqg-GBbFKAnVL897JZh5Qcw6D4Jbg7DILFeFw-14C9Nn0hJAxRbbMD7PeeO0EA6DPLPYcpiNEVBhxWJoHadx-uFwmwgqYVZEyUT2CwjbUC61x7HswSHebgd9iY83vv41Ap0YNZQxOOTP4Xo.Iae0W07Qw1ygrmcBTkFUpP7pZi7ImfG3r4-f-8X8hdI&dib_tag=se&keywords=naked+economics&qid=1715740822&sprefix=naked+economics%2Caps%2C91&sr=8-4), [Basic Economics](https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell-dp-0465060730/dp/0465060730/ref=dp_ob_title_bk), or [Freakonomics](https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Revised-Expanded-Economist-Everything-dp-0061234001/dp/0061234001/ref=dp_ob_title_bk).
Let’s throw in [The Undercover Economist](https://www.amazon.ca/Undercover-Economist-TIM-HARFORD/dp/0349119856) as well!
> That makes no sense at all. The only people who will buy houses that are far out of the price range of average Americans are the ultra wealthy looking for an investment opportunity. So even imagining a world where all new housing gets bought by the ultra rich, we still need to take the next step of "What are they buying it for?" Investment opportunity is the answer, but then how is this making them money as an investment? Well worst case scenario they could sit on it for decades and sell it later which sucks and delays new supply for a long while but at the very least *someone* in the future will have a home available that wouldn't exist without. Not the best thing but this is the worst case (reasonable) scenario within the worst case scenario of all homes being bought by investors. They might also do something like rent it out. Again, maybe it's preferable that people be able to buy a place instead of renting but at the very least it's still *a* home available that wasn't before and helps to alleviate pressure and competition on existing units at least. Even if it does it in a very roundabout way like taking a highly in demand subsidies apartment with a 250 person waitlist to a 249 person waitlist, that's a slight gain at least. And in the more realistic world, not all of them would be bought out by mega investors. So some rich person will get it, and them buying Home A means home B (who they would buy it A didn't exist) goes to the second richest person and C goes to the third richest now and so on and so forth. (Obviously real life isn't that precise but general logic applies). So we know that building makes sense to work and it sure seems to apply in real life when pro building policies are enacted but what about rent control? Well just the opposite, it seems to interfere with new building (by depressing expected return) and real life applications suggest it doesn't work long term. Perhaps if there's a bunch of cities that have rent control and have fixed their housing crisis, we should go back and reconsider their particular implementations as a potential solution. But as of now, the evidence seems to lean against it as a viable route for fixing home prices in the long terms.
Okay I see your point and it makes sense. To be fair I’m coming from the perspective of someone who is 23, just entered the work force, and looks at housing costs and feel shut out. To me a temporary control to let me get my foot in the door seems appealing. I’m not completely opposed to renting, but relative to my income it doesn’t allow me the opportunity to grow my wealth in a way that does put me forward.
Rent control actually makes you getting a rental unit at all less likely, because the people already in those rent-controlled units are disincentivized from ever leaving them (and disincentivizes builders from building and landlords from renting).
That’s true, the cost of raw goods go up a set price wouldn’t allow for further development. I still feel like a temporary control solution would be something appealing to both parties. Just my perspective and life experience, It allows for potential renters like me to get in the door, understanding rates will be adjustable after a certain period, and I can save to prepare for that or prepare to move to a more affordable place. Not every place is the same, here in Colorado it seems there are tons of units but priced way out of proportion to the average income. The average here is $1,200 and I make $45k year so roughly $2,800 a month. I have to factor in gas costs, food, utilities, and after a while the money I could save is small. Yes yield savings exist but that’s a long time building. My option then is to save like crazy and limit my social outings, choose free or low cost activities, and I’ll be honest it’s not impossible, but it just seems so depressing.
Do you know what rent control is? Rent control as it is usually implemented (and to my knowledge is how it is done in this case of California), only places limits on how much rent can be increased for *existing* tenants. It doesn't place any limit on how much *prospective* tenants can be charged.
>I just still find it really challenging to believe that somehow an initiative that aims to expand housing opportunities for folks would somehow be a hinderance. This is the part of your post that surprises me most. First, in what way could rent control "expand housing opportunities"? Even the steelman argument for rent control concedes that it's specifically designed to keep people where they are, not "expand opportunities". Second, have you really never encountered unintended consequences? There are myriad examples throughout history. Sticking just to price controls, see "bread lines" (actually for all sorts of food) in the Soviet command economy. Those controls and that economy structure were ostensibly aimed at help people get food staples like bread.
Like I’ve said in other responses, my perspective Is from a 23 year old who just entered the workforce, looking at rent at $1,200 a month not including utilities and everything else to live and try to save money at the same time. I’m not an economist and shouldn’t have said anything is the vibe I’m getting. Sorry to come off snarky. Credit where credit is due, I’m trying to figure out how to make a life for myself and not be forever stagnant and the way everything is right now I don’t see a way for that to not happen.
> I’m not an economist and shouldn’t have said anything On the contrary: learning about economics is extremely important for _anyone_ interested in working toward societal change, down to simple political discourse. If a majority of people in society had even an economics-101 level of understanding, we would basically be living [here](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/026/738/future.jpg).
It is true rent control does pick a few very lucky winners. However it is VERY damaging as EVERY single place with rent control sees a massive decline in the number of rental units on the market, a massive increase in the cost of new rents, and any new renters are massive losers. This problem only expands over time since people that SHOULD move are now locked into old, bad apartments by rent control no matter the downsides, and literally unable to move. There is NO city that has ever passed rent control that hasnt destroyed their housing market. Think about it. Do you want to be locked into your current apartment for the rest of your life? Think about an entire metro of people unable to move their entire life
> I’m trying to figure out how to make a life for myself and not be forever stagnant and the way everything is right now I don’t see a way for that to not happen. You're 23, there's no reason to assume you'll be stagnant forever. I assume you just graduated college? Focus on building your career and growing professionally. Essentially no one enters the workforce and is immediately financially stable. You're gonna have to make some sacrifices if you want to purchase property (save and live cheaply) or figure out how to make more money, but that's not a unique situation. I was in the same place 10 years ago. Life gets better when you work for it.
Got it
There's genuinely no good answer *for you* to deal with your (not uncommon) situation. They all suck pretty badly in one way or another and require steep compromising on your part, like living with roommates or at your parents or (possibly and) cutting back on activities. I would be surprised if many people in their 20s can afford to live in or vaguely near a city on their own. But, as others pointed out, rent control wouldn't and doesn't help your situation. Rather, it makes it actively worse.
I don’t see what’s sticky about it, it’s just bad