Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Tag: Oregon

California Rent Control Law Won’t Solve Its Housing Problems

California’s recent passage of rent control bill AB 1482 makes it the third state to pass statewide rent control in 2019. States like Oregon and New York got the ball rolling earlier this year. Colorado and Illinois are also considering statewide rent control. Policies like rent control, which cap the amount that rent is raised, have traditionally been handled at the local level. Now, such policies are starting to attract the attention of state capitols across the nation. California’s proposal would limit annual rent increases to 5 percent after inflation and make it harder to evict tenants. Landlords would need “just cause” when they evict tenants, like failing to pay rent or damaging property. These policies are most popular in places with high housing prices and growing homeless populations. After all, who doesn’t want affordable housing? However, rent control is the wrong way to go about it. As the Swedish economist, Assar Lindbeck once said, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city–except for bombing.” Affordable housing starts and ends with doing away with land-use regulations that restrict housing supply. But to politicians eager to seek re-election, this does not occur to them. Hence, their desire to come up with a quick fix. Rent control acts as a price ceiling where the legislated prices create an artificial demand for housing units that exceeds supply. Simply put, rent control legislation leads to shortages in the long-term if the government imposed price is well below market rates. Further, the degradation of housing stocks and the conversion of traditional housing to more commercial or high-end rental housing are also common results of rent control. What we see here is another case of bad economics mixing with short-sighted politics. When election season approaches, economic demagoguery is almost a given. Unintended consequences are the last thing on a politician’s radar. The renewed interest in rent control is clearly a case of politicians confusing a symptom—high prices—with the actual problem of housing shortages, which were caused by the government in the first place. This same lack of foresight is witnessed in many other economic sectors in which the government tries to interfere. Interestingly enough, this is a matter of respecting basic economics. Maybe elected officials should step back for once and think through their decisions before jumping in to save the day. Nothing positive comes from policy-making based on electoral impulses. When in doubt, respecting basic freedoms at the individual level should be the default answer.

Statewide Rent Control Comes to Oregon

Last week, Oregon became the first state to implement statewide rent control when Democratic Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 608 into law. Rent control has traditionally been conducted at the local level, but now Oregon is changing the conversation. Under SB 608, increases in rent will be capped at 7 percent a year plus inflation. No-cause evictions have been eliminated and landlords are now required to document the reasons for evicting someone. In certain eviction cases, the landowners must provide tenants 90-days notice before evicting them and then pay tenants one month’s worth of rent. Although this will be hailed as a victory for tenants, the economic implications are bleak. For a start, rent control violates basics tenets of economics such as supply and demand. From constructing rental housing to building condos, prices communicate to landowners how to use their land and buildings. However, when interventions like rent control come into the mix, these prices are distorted and result in shortages as artificial demand for housing units outstrips supply. The laws of economics are basic and universal. The most extreme example of price control failure is modern-day Venezuela and its myriad of price control regulations that have caused widespread shortages throughout its economy. Housing units are no exception to this trend.   Rent control takes a large portion of the value of residential properties from landlords. The value landlords lose is then effectively redistributed to current tenants, who take advantage of this by staying in their current housing units. It is not uncommon to see tenants in cities with rent control stay in the same place for prolonged periods of time. Not only do price ceilings like rent controls cause shortages in terms of housing units, but they also come with an adverse set of social consequences. Because of the government imposed rent controls, apartment owners have no incentive to invest in their property, i.e renovate it or upgrade the infrastructure such as cooling systems. As a result, these housing units will deteriorate. Within a decade or so, otherwise good housing complexes could turn into ghettos. Similar to other government regulations, strict rent control causes those affected by it to circumvent the regulations through under-the-table payments to secure housing or even conduct routine maintenance operations. Discrimination among rental applicants also becomes the norm. These are the unintended consequences of governments trying to play god. Additionally, rent control causes new housing construction to come to a grinding halt. In some cases, rent-controlled housing is converted to condos or repurposed for non-housing related ends in order to escape burdensome rent control regulations. In sum, these schemes reduce overall housing availability, which only exacerbates the previous housing problems. Oregon currently restricts housing through urban growth boundaries, which designate developable land near cities for natural or agricultural uses, or through zoning restrictions, which limit the number of units that can be built on residential land within cities. In essence, the best way to tackle the question of housing affordability is through less government, meaning that zoning restrictions and other land use regulations should be reduced as much as possible. This will allow for increases in the overall housing supply. The city of Houston is arguably the best example of a large metro area that has tackled the housing affordability problem through its relatively hands-off approach to zoning.  By allowing urban land to move alongside changing market demands and not having top-down plans for urban development or destructive policies like rent control on the books, Houston has avoided the many housing pitfalls that major urban centers face these days in the U.S. More cities should follow in Houston’s footsteps. All in all, rent control and other interventionist schemes in the housing market make it more difficult for would-be tenants to acquire quality housing at reasonable prices. However, sound economic policy is not always politically popular, and politicians will do what it takes to get it elected regardless of the unintended consequences of their policies. Housing markets nationwide are in dire need of some market-based urbanism.

In the City of Roses, Fight Against Inequality Might Turn into Nightmare

In the City of Roses, Fight Against Inequality Might Turn into Nightmare

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. When the federal government comes down hard on companies, all states suffer. But when state lawmakers pass laws that hurt businesses, these very companies are often forced to move elsewhere, leaving consumers and workers in that state in a bad shape. Who gains is the worker whose state has a more business-friendly set of rules. Sometimes, those policies are enacted on the local level. Forcing companies to move between cities, taking their jobs with them. City of RosesIn Portland, Oregon, workers are about to lose. Big time. Unless changes recently enacted are brought down promptly. According to Fortune magazine, the city has begun fighting a war against income inequality, whether locals like it or not. Recently, Portland’s City Council voted to create a new tax that would hurt businesses whose chief executives earn more than 100 times what the company’s average employee earns. Breaking a record, Portland has essentially made it a crime for a company to set its own rules regarding what they consider to be fair compensation. If a company whose CEO makes 100 times more than his or her average employee and it decides to remain in Portland, it will be forced to pay an extra 10 percent surcharge on the 2.2 percent business income tax imposed in the City of Roses. According to Fortune, “[c]ompanies with CEOs who make 250 times will pay an additional 25” percent. By using the coercion of the state to pursue a Quixotic goal such as absolute equality, city officials will undoubtedly see their radical move backfire. As assistant professor of entrepreneurship Per Bylund explained on Mises.org, the only possible outcome is far from what Portland residents imagine. Instead of helping to reduce inequality, the city is effectively making individuals less equal by imposing extra burdens on companies that will push job creators away. And while companies will have some “wiggle room” when calculating the median employee pay — giving the city the illusion that the new rules are working — Bylund explains that in the long run, “many businesses who were considering [moving to Portland] will not,” while established Portland businesses will end up moving out sooner, “and in greater numbers than otherwise would be the case.” Bylund also adds that, as business begin to move out and few, or perhaps no companies decide to move in, larger local firms will find it hard to hire a CEO. As a result, management efficiency hurts, causing the firm to become less efficient, and adding an extra burden on the consumer. Over time, these companies will tend to stop hiring, which will also lead to more unemployment. Instead of allowing individual companies to set their own rules, officials are simply making the inequality issue worse by ruining locals’ chances at obtaining a job or launching new companies. Is that what Portland officials really want?

ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: Not Good for Your Health

ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: Not Good for Your Health

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. In 2010, just a few weeks before Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama said that taxpayers “end up subsidizing the uninsured when they’re forced to go to the emergency room for care…. You can’t get … savings if those people are still going to the emergency room.” healthcarePart of what the current administration’s signature health law was supposed to do was to increase cost savings so visits to the ER weren’t as common. After helping to pass the law, then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi claimed that “the uninsured will get coverage [so they are] no longer [being] left to the emergency room for medical care.” Six years have passed since those who supported ACA and its main provisions promised to bring the number of ER visits down and yet, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that assuming ACA would lower the number of ER visits was a mistake. With the expansion of Medicaid in states like Oregon, ER visits increased. But the increase is not the only consequence of Medicaid expansion. When compared to 2015, this year’s Medicaid expansion spending is 49 percent higher per enrollee than what government had expected. In order to expand Medicaid in Oregon, officials used lottery to expand Medicaid benefits to a limited number of lower income, non-disabled adults. According to the study’s authors, “Medicaid’s value to recipients is lower than the government’s costs of the program, and usually substantially below,” perhaps because, researchers found, expanded Medicaid coverage “resulted in significantly more outpatient visits, hospitalizations, prescription medications, and emergency department visits.” When it comes to how Medicaid expansion pushed individuals to the ER, researchers explain that, during the past 15 months, Medicaid increased ER visits by 40 percent. Researchers found that even if patients have Medicaid, there’s “no evidence that Medicaid coverage makes use of the physician’s office and use of ERs substitutes for one another.” What many choose to forget is that Medicaid expansion was made possible because of ACA. And according to the government’s own projections, each Medicaid enrollee cost the taxpayer roughly $6.366 in 2015, 49 percent higher than past predictions. This cost spike is mostly due to the fact the federal government reimburses 100 percent of state spending on enrollees who were added after the expansion was launched. When ACA became law, states were given enough incentives to pay insurance companies high payment rates so new enrollees were cared for, but the high payment rates could only be covered by the federal taxpayer. Since many physicians are leaving the system altogether, preferring to not accept new Medicaid enrollees due to lower rates, patients continued to use ER at a high rate, even higher than years past. So coverage, in this case specifically, did nothing to help patients in need. The result is higher cost to the taxpayer. Instead of making people healthier and helping individuals who are unable to afford medical care, researchers found that the result has been the exact opposite, invalidating ACA apologists. Will they continue to ignore these results?

What is a Libertarian Win? Part 2

What is a Libertarian Win? Part 2

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. **Note: This is the second part of an article focused on wins for libertarians. You can find the first part, focused on electoral politics, here.** Outside of winning your election as a candidate or some of the other wins we shared in Part 1, libertarians can win in other ways as well.
  • winWinning a voter referendum. Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon re-legalized the possession and use of marijuana recreationally. About half of the states that legalized marijuana for medical use did so through ballot measures. These popular votes increased freedom for everyone in their respective states and pressured nearby states to “keep up with the Joneses.” These referendums gave libertarians an opportunity to share a message about the freedom to choose what goes into your body. Statewide ballot measures are not the only opportunities to share a freedom-oriented position on an issue. Local tax referendums take place across the country, and are a great opportunity for a win for libertarians. We can highlight wasteful spending, cronyism, and the proper role of government in opposition to the proposed tax. Who votes to tax themselves? 
  • Lobbying for legislative action. Referendums are not the only avenue for libertarian legislative wins. Strong working relationships with legislators and their staff can yield positive results for liberty if you work with them to pass freedom-oriented bills. This can be a difficult route, even if you have legislators friendly to the issue you’re working on. This will also require some coalescing with other groups with a similar interest and potentially compromising to get some of what you seek. This is easier with the more populist beliefs we hold.
  • Disruptive innovation. Almost entirely outside of politics, free market innovations that revolutionize industries and change the way we do things disrupt the status quo and offer another win for libertarians. Innovations like Uber, Airbnb, and Amazon transformed transportation, travel lodging, and retail sales. Until your innovation affects Big Government and their cronies, this won’t become a political issue. As Uber, Airbnb, and Amazon can tell you, the politicization of innovation will get you interested in politics, no matter the level of interest you held before.
Can you think of any other ways a libertarian can win?

Gun Control Fear Mongering Rings Hollow

Gun Control Fear Mongering Rings Hollow

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. It didn’t take long for President Barack Obama to politicize the tragic shooting Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon on Thursday, October 1. Just hours after the news of the shooting broke, he appeared before reporters and demanded more gun control laws. gun control “[W]hat’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws,” Obama said. “Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country — they know that’s not true.” “There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence,” he added. No one denies that what happened at Umpqua Community College is a terrible tragedy. But it doesn’t appear that the gun control laws that President Obama and like-minded members of Congress have tried to advance could’ve prevented this incident. The shooter didn’t have a record of mental health problems or past legal problems, unlike the Charleston, South Carolina church shooter, who slipped between bureaucratic cracks. Bad things can and do happen. Some of them are preventable and some of them aren’t. But no legislative proposal that has been discussed or actually introduced will stop tragedies like these from happening. In addition to the anti-gun bias of our President, part of the problem, of course, is a media that isn’t honest about the ineffectiveness of gun control proposals or how they wouldn’t stop shootings like the one at Umpqua Community College from happening. Let’s be clear, we know that gun violence has declined significantly over the last 20 years. What we know is that the Centers for Disease Control, in 2013, recognized the private ownership of firearms as a deterrent to crime. And we know that states with concealed carry laws, known as “shall issue” states, have fewer murders than those that severely restrict these permits. There is no cure-all to stop shootings, and President Obama and the media should be honest about that, rather than trying to push outrage and raise emotion to pass policies that promote their long-standing views against guns.