I get that it's Bloomberg's duty to root for the landlords, but to me the data in the article shows a very clear win for renters.
If I'm reading the graphs right, price controls in Berlin have slashed rent price growth by nearly 60% for almost all of the city's apartment stock.
Meanwhile, rent for the remainder, those apartments built since 2014, is only growing 10% faster than the baseline.
So if we're gonna do the math: [lots of apartments * -60% inflation], against [fewer apartments * +10% inflation], equals a presumed windfall for renters, versus the alternative history where this rent control policy doesn't get enacted.
The issue is that supply fell, so while there was a windfall for existing renters, anyone trying to join the renter class (by moving into the city, growing up and moving out of their parent's place, etc) is unable to find an apartment.
If you project this trend forward 10 or 20 years, you end up with a situation where most affordable rentals are being used by an aging population and the young have nowhere to live.
This also explains why these policies become entrenched: before, the world was divided into rich vs poor; now it's divided into (rich + old and poor) vs young and poor.
If I'm reading the graphs right, price controls in Berlin have slashed rent price growth by nearly 60% for almost all of the city's apartment stock.
Meanwhile, rent for the remainder, those apartments built since 2014, is only growing 10% faster than the baseline.
So if we're gonna do the math: [lots of apartments * -60% inflation], against [fewer apartments * +10% inflation], equals a presumed windfall for renters, versus the alternative history where this rent control policy doesn't get enacted.