patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

Per-capita health care is $8000, twice what the "socialized" countries pay.

Stop paying it! You(America Collectively) are only encouraging the behavior of our Bizzaro world Capitalist based health care system when you sign that line, or take a job because they tell you are getting "Benefits" yet you're paying a Luxury Car payment with insurance every month for that "Benifit" it makes no damn since at all. Considering before Clinton tried to "Fix" healthcare THEN, when an employee talked about insurance from his work place, they always said...
"and Free Medical".

Just saw a piece on the news last night, where people in dire need of cancer drugs, can't get them because drug companies have stopped making them. Not because they weren't needed, but due to the profit margin is greater on creating and pursuing new pattens on totally unrelated drugs.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/latest-videos/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6393991

Meanwhile these drugs were considered the only available option for what they treated. So now there's not only a shortage or deficit, but a greater demand than ever. Generic drug makers are now going to make this drug and sell it for 1000% more than the original company. Remember Trout's rant on generic drug and patent shenanigans?
Due to all of the mergers fewer companies actually manufacture pharmaceuticals. That means even for these thousands of generic companies, it's one of these few pharmaceuticals companies that create their product at the end of the day.
They choose what they make and when. They create the profits, and you make it happen by enabling these greedy Insurance companies to screw the old, sick and infirm, and charge the Healthy out the Ass to pay for it.

It's Monetized to the max, I don't see how any Insurance scheme based health care system can work in this country.
In fact, we should outlaw Employer Health insurance, where an employee has to pay one dime of it.

What deal you have with your practitioner is your business.

We need education and health in this country. We should have Federal medical schools, and federal doctors in a federal health care system.

We're all far better off saving our money under the mattress and buying a liver on the African black market, than participating in this insanity. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper too.

Buster says

So what are your thoughts? More rent increases? More social unrest due to what I describe above? I am just a little freaked out at the moment I guess. I do well financially and can only feel compassion for those who make far less. Not even sure how folks are making it. I know, I know, some will say that they are renting someplace an hour or two from the city for 400/month and they don't know what I am talking about....Love to hear what you are all seeing/hearing/and experiencing out there....thanks.

Two words: Oak Land.

For $1500/mo you can basically have your pick of one and two bedroom apartments in the best neighborhoods. You could rent a place five minutes walk from Rockridge BART.

Jimbo in SF says

Using a 30yr mortgage @ 4.25%

The $3,200 rent is the same as a payment on a $650k mortgage

The $5,200 rent is the same as a payment on a $1,050k mortgage

I think this helps explain why buying is not as crazy as it seems in SF, when the only other option is to rent at these prices.

gotta factor in the 20% down payment

Jon137 says

For $1500/mo you can basically have your pick of one and two bedroom apartments in the best neighborhoods. You could rent a place five minutes walk from Rockridge BART.

b-b-b-but that would mean that they would have to ( gasp) move to the east bay! ( scary music)

rowemoore says

gotta factor in the 20% down payment

No doubt, but if you can afford $3k-$5k in monthly rent, I would assume you have a higher than average income and probably have significant savings.

Tenants should have some security against unreasonable rent increases though, no? Would a land value tax help renters?

If anyone is going to be for Prop 13, they must also necessarily be for that same protection for renters, or they're not being consistent. Tax control and rent control are very similar.

Hey, SF does actually does have rent control. So how can this guy's landlord raise his rent so much?

Oakland has rent control. The amount rents can go up is determined annually.

I think it has the effect of letting rents rise with inflation and economic conditions but not erratically, which can force people to move and unsettle their lives/jobs. I think that should be the only purpose of rent control. NOT this BS about "once you move in you have a right to live here forever."

SF and NYC are examples of broken rent control. It encourages people to never move, which in turn creates a supply shortage, which in turn drives prices up for newcomers. Basically, new renters are subsidizing the old renters.

For example, my brother took a job as a caretaker for a woman who lived on the upper west side, about a block from Central Park. It was a shabby, worn 4-bdrm apartment, probably 2000 sqft. She had been renting it since the late 70s. Her rent?

$470/month. If it went back on the market it would go for 6k/month. I don't know about you, but that just sounds like a mafia hit waiting to happen!

She couldn't sublet, but she could let my bro live there rent free in exchange for helping out with her kid. She herself was a semi-failed therapist probably making $40k per year, yet she's living a block away from Yoko Ono.

That's what rent control does there. You could make twice what that woman does and she would still be living better than you for the sole reason she just sat her fat ass down in one place long enough.

Jon137 says

Basically, new renters are subsidizing the old renters.

well, no. Aggressive rent-control ordnances just give the same price protection to leasehold tenants that fee simple tenants enjoy.

You could make twice what that woman does and she would still be living better than you for the sole reason she just sat her fat ass down in one place long enough.

All owners have this same fat ass then.

Funny thing is I checked the place I was renting in LA in 90025 in 1991.

The rent was $700 then and if I had stayed it'd be $1300/mo now thanks to rent control.

Market rate is $1600 or so I guess.

Jon137 says

Her rent?

$470/month. If it went back on the market it would go for 6k/month.

OK, that's definitely broken. But OTOH, giving landlords the power of unlimited rent increases is a broken system too. Very disruptive to renters' lives.

What would happen under a Georgist system? Georgism means that the portion of rent due to mere land ownership is taxed at 100%, but the rent due to capital improvements is taxed at 0%.

I suppose if the market value of the thread author's place is really $5,200/month, then the land value tax would be most of that, but the tenant would not get a break. The rent would really be that high, and the tenant would have to pay it. The landlord would also not be terribly thrilled, because his profits from non-productive rent-seeking would be gone.

What is so seriously wrong with a person charging as much as they want for the use of something they own and are responsible for?

Laws that impose rent prices are the moral equivalent of bailing out landlords and banks in the even that market value falls below their holding costs.

For folks who don't want to get ripped off there's something called a lease agreement. If either party doesn't like the terms, then they are free to negotiate or walk on the deal.

"What is so seriously wrong with a person charging as much as they want for the use of something they own and are responsible for?"

"To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it" -- Lloyd George.

Landlords did not labor to create or otherwise cause to create the site value of their property, yet they profit from this site value.

This is a central wealth suck from workers to parasites in the current system.

"Laws that impose rent prices are the moral equivalent of bailing out landlords and banks in the even that market value falls below their holding costs."

No they're not. You're just talking out of your ass your book here.

"For folks who don't want to get ripped off there's something called a lease agreement. If either party doesn't like the terms, then they are free to negotiate or walk on the deal."

Walk where? LOL. As Churchill said over 100 years ago, land is the mother of all monopolies.

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

for more on the moral failing of our current arrangement.

I think rent control is a decidedly mixed bag. While it can protect lower income working class tenants it can have unintended consequences. One of the things rent control does is to not give landlords any incentives to keep their properties in good condition. Yes the tenant can complain and even go to court and win in court but only regarding health and sanitation type issues. I know a woman, not rich but comfortable who has lived in a very inexpensive rent controlled apartment in SF for maybe 20 years. Her landlords do the bare minimum. For example if tiles in the bathroom need fixed they go in with any old tile and "slap" it on. Her bathroom looks ridiculous. There is no consideration given her other than the basics. You cant really blame the landlords as they are not making much money off her and she won't move so why make it comfortable for her. It is also, from what I have heard really difficult to evict a tenant in SF even with cause.

"What's needed is just the opposite: a Prop 13 for tenants. Germany has laws like that: where once you're renting, you have a certain security in your rental. The landlord can raise the rent only so much each year, and must offer you a lease renewal."

We already have such a system in place in New York City called rent control. The wind up is that the rent control system increases rent on non rent controlled apartments and limiting rent increases discourages landlords from making improvements to the rental units. The result are tons of buildings with hundreds upon hundreds of building code violations. And the city or the tenants can't get these violations fixed since the slumlords lawyer up and drag out the process.

Rent control in NYC dates back to what...world war two? You figure they would have got rid of it by now.

The other scary part is how many sub apartments get rigged up.

I heard supposedly Cindy Lauper was only paying $850 a month for rent (it was actually in a textbook about rent control!). I'd imagine that rent control is to NYC what prop 13 is to CA..a 3rd rail.

Illegal apartments are pretty nasty and can be deadly. Here's a bit from where I am.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/25/landlord_jailed_after_deadly_quincy_apartment_fire/

170 of them found in a three year span
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x759739127/Nearly-170-illegal-apartments-found-in-Quincy-since-2006

They will never get rid of rent control. The politicans support it 100%. It buys them votes.

tapu I was aware of San Diego, but it's not really a city which San Francisco or NYC both are.

Jimbo in SF says

I don't disagree with you, but there is a constant turnover of new people to any city and SF especially with the Tech industry nearby.

With higher rents comes moving jobs elsewhere... Employers dont just sit there and dole our bigger paychecks...nothing sits in bubble forever.

clambo says

tapu I was aware of San Diego, but it's not really a city which San Francisco or NYC both are.

lol--so there are what, about 5 cities in the US then?

clambo says

Your post was incredulous about a rent increase. Why? San Francisco is still the most scenic, most liveable city in the USA. Manhattan is exciting but the place is stressful unless you are a zillionaire, and no city has the climate to compare with San Francisco.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it actually get a tad cold sometimes in SF? California isn't automatically warm and sunny all the time. Elevation plays a huge factor. I wouldn't say that the climate is better in some areas but it just takes a bit to get used to. A friend of mine had some family in Rochester NY..after around mid october you know you can get snowed in so it just blocks time you can visit. I can deal with cold..but snow gets me after awhile.

Most people in the country cannot afford the bay area so I wouldn't call it livable by that standard. Scenic sure...

Hi Patrick, I believe that any building built prior to June 13,1979 is under the rent control law, after, not. http://www.sfaa.org/0306legalqa.html

I have to comment about those who say that because I do better than most that I should not be a part of the OWS or 99%. Obviously, the point of OWS is going over your head. Look, even though I do well, if the same standard of living from the 1960s were applied to me, I would be making twice what I am making, and so would everyone else. The top 1% have been able to convince the masses for the last 30 years to vote against their own self interests in hopes that they too would some day be a part of this club. Yea, some will always point to Steve Jobs types who made it there, but literally these are 300 Million to 1 odds. To help illustrate, a one income family in the 60s had the relative equivalent lifestyle and standard of living or better than today's duel income families. Where did the money go? Basically skimmed right off the top by the 1% via many means. The tax laws, SCOTUS laws, rights of workers, laws that regulate the financial industry have all been changed or eliminated in favor of big business that the mega wealthy or the laws remaining simply ignored because they know that no Democrat or Republican will actually enforce them and risk losing millions in financial support to get elected or re-elected. So again, even though I make a more than decent salary, I am totally for getting the system back to where it should be. For that matter, so should even the 1%, before their house of cards come tumbling down.

Bellingham Bill says

Jon137 says

Basically, new renters are subsidizing the old renters.

well, no. Aggressive rent-control ordnances just give the same price protection to leasehold tenants that fee simple tenants enjoy.

This isn't true. The effect of rent control can last decades. A typical lease is for a year, after which it can be re-negotiated.

Jon137 says

The effect of rent control can last decades.

But as long as the existing housing stock's operating costs aren't rising, rent control isn't forcing landlords to have new tenants "subsidize" those enjoying lower rents.

Removing the rent-seeking in land would be a very damn good first step towards a sustainable economy, but skimmers are gonna skim.

Buster says

Yea, some will always point to Steve Jobs types who made it there

Rent-seekers hiding behind the skirts of true capitalists is an age-old dodge.

Steve Jobs started with the capital from selling his VW van, a new computer design created by his genius friend, a burgeoning market, and the early joining of an angel investor who understood computers and how to market them better than Steve even.

Steve Jobs' capitalist efforts added TREMENDOUS new wealth to the world. The IBM PC's business plan was written on an Apple II. The Mac was the first computer with its act together, good enough to bring us the desktop publishing revolution. The NexT was the first computer good enough to host the invention of the www. iMacs made computers fun again. The iPod revolutionized portable music. The iOS stuff brought phones into the 21st century finailly.

As a left-libertarian/Georgist/geolibertarian/whatever, I wholly believe true capitalists should not face confiscatory tax regimes, not before we tax the shit out of those who do operate skimming / rent-seeking businesses. This is the part of the plot I feel the eurosocialists are missing, especially Denmark.

To identify the skimmers, all you have to do is remove them from the picture and see if anything changes.

Remove Steve Jobs from the picture and there would be immense changes in our world.

Remove the rent-seekers in real estate (and medicine, law, and other "professions" for that matter) and nothing would change, other than we'd be a lot wealthier by not having to pay their tolls.

Bellingham Bill says

Steve Jobs' capitalist efforts added TREMENDOUS new wealth to the world. The IBM PC's business plan was written on an Apple II. The Mac was the first computer with its act together, good enough to bring us the desktop publishing revolution. The NexT was the first computer good enough to host the invention of the www. iMacs made computers fun again. The iPod revolutionized portable music. The iOS stuff brought phones into the 21st century finailly.

Computers would still be rich Nerd toy, if not for Microsoft.

And the internet would be something only large corporations and governments used to communicate only running on Novel and Unix, if not for Microsoft.

Microsoft, LOL.

The best thing they ever did was publish Microsoft Decathlon. It's been all downhill for them since then.

Apple never made an affordable computer, that could be delivered to such a wide user base as MS. Their iPods were the start, but even they started out as something only rich were willing to be first adapters.

No Microsoft, and Apple would have never been the company they are today. They would have had no reason to put power of the industry Graphics "wizard" behind the curtains, in the hands of every day consumers.

It would have remained a industry tool, that rich could afford to buy and play with. There probably would have been grants to buy college students Macs. Like they were trying to do before Microsoft came along and made Personal computers cheaper than a small car.

"Apple never made an affordable computer, that could be delivered to such a wide user base as MS"

LOL, Microsoft produced the bottom-feeder least-common denominator OS that the industry settled on in the 1980s.

It wasn't any good, and the economy was probably harmed by its adoption given how user-hostile it really was.

I could run rings around PC users in the late 80s and early 90s on my Mac IIcx and Excel, Nisus Writer, CricketDraw, SuperPaint, Studio/8, ClarisWorks, ACIUS 4D, Think C, KanjiTalk. Macs had the hands-down best software in the 1988-1996 period.

When I bought my IIcx in 1989 I essentially had what Windows became ca. 1997 with OSR 2 w/ USB supplement in late 1997.

Like they were trying to do before Microsoft came along and made Personal computers cheaper than a small car.

I agree that Apple lost the plot in the 1980s. Apple would have done a lot better had they shipped the Mac LC as the Mac II and the Mac LC III as the Mac IIci.

As it was, the LC came out 3 years after the II and the LC III came out 4 years after the IIcx.

That was a strategic mistake, trying to wring windfall profits out of Apple's 5+ year GUI & API lead on Micros~1 in the late 1980s.

Finally in 1990 Apple started shipping lower-cost Macs, and sales rose 85%, but it was too late once Windows 3 came out and people finally had something closer to what all the cool things Macs could do since 1987.

Windows 3 still sucked, but there's no accounting for taste in this world.

As for capitalism, Microsoft is not a very good example of creating new wealth. They're good at copying and acquiring, I'll give you that.

Bellingham Bill says

The Mac was the first computer with its act together, good enough to bring us the desktop publishing revolution. The NexT was the first computer good enough to host the invention of the www. iMacs made computers fun again. The iPod revolutionized portable music. The iOS stuff brought phones into the 21st century finailly.

I wouldn't really go that far. Commodore 64 sold 30 million. You can make the argument that was the first computer that had a real GUI..GEOS came after Mac there's no argument there. www might have been on the next but aol started with commodore 64. If it wasn't for aol the public probably wouldn't have been online to start with. Compuserve was much more professional but sadly it was bought out (The Well still lives :-D)
aol was basically the training wheels for people as they learned to use the internet..

Apple products have a nice design and that's good to accommodate new users but sometimes that reminds me of the USA vs Japanese design.

In Japan people actually study user manuals so that they can master new devices. In the USA we seem to want them simplified to make them idiot proof. Jokes about "Where's the any key?" are abound.

mdovell says

Commodore 64 sold 30 million. You can make the argument that was the first computer that had a real GUI

C64 was a toy computer with a toy GUI. As was the Apple II in its history.

And so was the Mac, until the OS and hardware matured in the Mac Plus timeframe (1986).

The problem with Commodore and Atari systems of the 1980s was their system engineering sucked. Worse than Microsoft's, and that's saying something, though of course Microsoft was hobbled by that horrid x86 mis-architecture.

The success of the web came from the ability for anyone to establish a peer node and post content on it. What an amazing invention, and it was invented on a NeXT in 1990-91.

Apple had developed the pieces of the puzzle already -- HyperCard, which came out in 1987, and MacTCP, which was available in the late 1980s AFAIK, but it took a while to percolate the idea that the two could work together, given the sheer logistical difficulties of getting a Mac with TCP onto the internet.

Every NeXT cube shipped out of the factory with all these puzzle pieces already in place -- very advanced object-oriented application frameworks, GUI designer IDE, megapixel display, built-in ethernet networking with a full BSD TCP/IP stack. In retrospect, NeXT should have named their system the "World Wide Web Invention Kit".

Microsoft as of late has been a failure and their current CEO should be fired tomorrow. They failed to take on Google. They failed to take on Facebook. They failed to take on YouTube. They failed to take on Apple's tablet and ipod market.

Microsoft doesn't have to "take on" things any more than Ford has to "take on" Nissan.

Microsoft's scorched-earth winner take-all way of competing 1980-2000 harmed users -- those stuck on x86 at least -- greatly.

Microsoft just needs to start finding its own vision, not just copy everyone else all the time. if it's a smaller company for that, so be it.

They should just focus on the xbox 360. DirectX and that is the only thing they're at all competent in.

Why the F are we exempting landlords from fair property taxes? Prop 13 is truly insane.

property tax on a house that I have bought and live in does not make sense to me at all. Its a completely ridiculous concept. In fact, all different forms of taxation should be consolidated and condensed into a SINGLE tax and property tax be eliminated all together. It is completely ridiculous that I have to pay the government to live in my own house.

What's needed is just the opposite: a Prop 13 for tenants. Germany has laws like that: where once you're renting, you have a certain security in your rental. The landlord can raise the rent only so much each year, and must offer you a lease renewal.

Germany is doing just fine with laws that protect renters.

Seems like an open invitation for creating a black market in rentals. No incentive for improving the property for getting a better rental rate.

The single tax should be the land value tax.

You didn't make the land.

You didn't buy the land from anyone who made it.

It harms the economy to tax work, or sales, or any other productive form of behavior.

Mere ownership of land is not at all productive. It does nothing for anyone else. Only you.

That's why the single tax on land makes sense.

That is brilliant about the land tax. I hate taxes.

I am single and rent a one bedroom apt. in Michigan for $470/month right now. There are homes for sale in my area that run from 10K to 30K that do not need major work that I could not handle. It was enticing a year ago, now it is super enticing. If it keeps up I might have to buy.

But the reason I keep renting for now is due to property taxes. The school districts that these homes are in seem to extract quite a bit of money in "rent." I will have to call the township and see what my actual property taxes on some of these places would be. Some of the online estimators say as low as like $300/year in prop. tax. That would get me buying in a heartbeat.

I am an entrepreneur so my goal is always to get my monthly expenses lower. If I can buy a house outright and live in it for less than what I rent for I would do it, just for the cash flow advantage.

I know the alternative is to keep renting but invest my 20 grand elsewhere, but honestly I don't see any investment options that make this enticing to me.

Houses are so cheap around here that you don't need a mortgage, which is awesome. On the other hand, they have not raised my rent for a few years either.

Property taxes infuriate me and that is sort of why I keep renting. It just seems like a wash most ways I figure it.

Should it really be a single tax though? As much as dislike a income tax wouldn't it make a bit more sense to charge more in a property tax based on the value of the property?

If someone has a very large house wouldn't that become more taxing if a fire breaks out vs one that is smaller?

If you make significant expansions I'd assume a larger tax. If a house is shrunk by eliminating rooms or a floor I'd assume a lower tax. Besides what if someone kept adding more floors to a house and simply rented them out..that adds to value and can take away demand from housing in general (in aggregate).

Not all land is of the same quality. If soil is fertile a farmer would value it more than one that is of poor quality (crops have to rotate to put nutrients back in the soil)

In NH they have no sales or income tax but they have statewide property..they are starting to have taxes based on views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_tax
It is a interesting concept since it makes an assumption of preservation.

mdovell says

it make a bit more sense to charge more in a property tax based on the value of the property?

? I don't see any reason to annually tax people on the value of their capital improvements to the land. Why we do this now is a total mystery to me, penalizing people for remodelling their house! Totally retarded.

.they are starting to have taxes based on views

This is LVT, yes. California has a inhabited coastline of hundreds of miles -- call it 800 miles. The first ~2 miles from the shore line is primo land, that's roughly 1600 sq miles of primo land, x 640 acres is a million acres. 10 lots per acre, that's 10 million lots. $10,000/yr lot tax, that's $100B/yr dollars of land value revenue theoretically available.

This would gore some very powerful oxes though so we'll never see this enacted.

The GOP says

Apple never made an affordable computer, that could be delivered to such a wide user base as MS. Their iPods were the start, but even they started out as something only rich were willing to be first adapters.

They did a few smart moves back in the 80s, though. When both PCs and the new Macs (IIe at the time) were prohibitively expensive for anyone, they donated tons of computers to schools. This is one reason why teachers still love them to this day. And now the money buying school computers is government money, or locally issued bond money.

The real "people's" computer back in the 80s was the C64. It could be hooked up to a television and cost in the hundreds. Most of my computer friends who are now silicon valley code jockeys got their start with the C64.

One more thing on rent control and SF. SF uses a similar formula as Oakland with a rent board controling increases. However, if you look at their % increases it's totally not in line with what's going on in SF. It's 1%, or 0.5% per year, not even in line with annual inflation.

Either that, or there are a lot of 1%'ers in SF, which is possible.

Jon137 says

not even in line with annual inflation.

Why does rent have to go up with "inflation"?

The bulk of the cost of rent is mere site value, and that isn't a line item in the landlord's budget.

LL's mortgage payment sure as hell doesn't go up with inflation.

Buster says

We rented a place DT on the Embarcadero as we are new to the city and didn't really know where we wanted to live and didn't have time to visit the city to shop around for rentals. What we rented is nice, but nothing great. It does have a stupendous view of the Ferry Building and overlooks a huge chunk of DT and the SF Bay. Stunning. 600sf, an equally large balcony on the 18th floor and a block to Bart/Muni and the Transbay Terminal. Rent $3200. Rather steep but manageable and I get it for the convenience and view. Tonight I find out that if we choose to stay, our rent is going up to.....drum roll....$5200/month. No lie.

This is partly because of corporate rentals. They are distorting the market a bit in certain locations that are close to jobs.

clambo says

Rents in San Francisco reflect that it is one of the few places where there are jobs, and there is pressure from foreigners to buy/rent there. San Francisco is one of the preferred places to buy for rich Communist Chinese officials who have gotten rich by corruption.

Thanks for repeating talking points, but this is all nonsense. There are far more jobs in the East Bay than San Francisco. The foreigners thing is way overblown, and the "rich by corruption" Communist party stuff is absolute nonsense -- what is your source that this is common?

Hey, SF does actually does have rent control. So how can this guy's landlord raise his rent so much?

New building. Rent control only applies for 1978 or 1979 and older typically, although there are ways to have newer buildings be part of it.

clambo says

no city has the climate to compare with San Francisco.

You really don't spend enough time in San Francisco. San Francisco's climate is not that great compared to other parts of the Bay Area that have shorter commutes to SF than certain parts of SF. SF is usually cold and windy, and large parts of the city are ridiculously foggy.

Jon137 says

SF and NYC are examples of broken rent control. It encourages people to never move, which in turn creates a supply shortage, which in turn drives prices up for newcomers. Basically, new renters are subsidizing the old renters.

Yeah, this is how rent control in SF works. Sometimes you even see people who have lived in an apartment since the 1960s, while they were in college, and now they have grandkids and still live in the same place. This drives up rents artificially because it makes the market illiquid.

There are also many geezer millionaires (stereotypically female heirs) who live in rent controlled places in SF who are abusing the system.

Jon137 says

Either that, or there are a lot of 1%'ers in SF, which is possible.

There are, but there are also tons of relatively poor people (compared to the 1%) in SF too. Median income is something like $70K. There are also plenty of 20- and 30-somethings who are out of college but live in college-like housing situations -- e.g. everyone pays $1000/mo for their room in this house. That drives up rents too.