Unless they start taking decisive actions to ditch coal, oil and gas – as many of Europe’s largest insurers and reinsurers have done – U.S. insurers risk being flooded by increasing claims, litigation and public indignation.
... as rising housing prices continue to send an increasing number of families into instability, poverty, and homelessness, and as nearly half of all renters in the U.S. meet the government's standard of cost-burdened according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, states and cities are once again looking to the policy as the most effective short-term solution to the crisis.
The report systematically combats industry groups' arsenal of anti-rent control talking points. To the claim that rent control stunts housing development, it offers longitudinal studies of rent control in New Jersey where the policy had no impact on construction rates, and, in Boston, where construction rates decreased for multifamily buildings after rent control was repealed. The argument that rent control causes rents to increase in non-regulated units has also been proven false: in Massachusetts (before the repeal), California, and New Jersey, rent control had no effect on non-regulated units prices, or even slightly increased affordability.
[In Oregon] Even so, industry pushback did constrain the scope of the bill: The legislation establishes a rent-increase cap of 7 percent plus inflation, which could still allow for unaffordable rent increases. And, the law only applies to buildings at least 15 years old and kicks in after tenants have lived in their home for a year.
More on Stephen Moore:
I posted about this person, Stephen Moore, before. Here was my latest until this very post: Trump chooses a bozo for the board, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that is.
Lest anyone think I'm alone in my views about this "choice," here are a couple of links to others who've chimed in:
Trump Nominates Famous Idiot Stephen Moore to Federal Reserve Board. And you thought I was harsh.
We almost all know that home ownership versus renting isn't always what it's cracked up to be, but I'm posting this because the article discusses something that will keep more people renting if and when they do move out of their parents' home at a later age. Living Longer with Parents Might Hurt Young Adults' Long-Term Financial Success
"Final approval sits with the full City Council.": Committee backs Chinatown’s College Station development without any affordable housing
We know there are slum landlords who take unfair advantage of trapped tenants with no cheaper places to rent, some even if they have excellent payment histories. However, we also know that generally, the rent rates and operating expenses are factored into the capitalization rate, which is no secret. Cap rates are always higher in poorer areas. However, we further know that it can be very difficult for a landlord providing quality housing at low rent rates in such areas to even be sure of breaking even. Therefore, what variables were left out of the study? What accounts for these differences? If the study is truly reflective of reality, why have so many landlords tried low-income, non-subsidized housing only to swear off it forever and stick to middle and higher class areas? Is it crime? Are there just more slum landlords than we realize? Are there illegal tenants?
When Wilmers and Desmond control for regular expenses in the form of mortgage payments, property taxes, property insurance, utilities, and property management fees, they find the actual profits that landlords make to be significantly higher in poor neighborhoods.
And the same basic pattern holds when expenses including maintenance and repairs are factored in. [How Poor Americans Get Exploited by Their Landlords]
I told you Neel Kashkari is the best at the Fed and that Narayana Kocherlakota before him was the best during his time. The facts are proving why.
If you are a Fed president, you want to outdo the board and its research, and they have. The Fed has benefited from a diversity of opinion and a willingness to give everyone a voice.’’
What separated the two from the rest of the Federal Open Market Committee was a contrarian view, now validated, that low unemployment alone would not lead to higher inflation.