October 21, 2004
Welcome To My World
The Recap
Back in August a debate was raging regarding laws that force landlords to provide today's basic necessities such as heating and hot water. Alex Tabarrok started the fury when he posted:
...I ask my students who is made better off and who is made worse off by a legal doctrine that says tenants must have hot water? Invariably, the students answer that the doctrine makes tenants better off and landlords worse off. But is this so? Think about it and then read the extension for more.
If tenants benefit from a law that says apartments must have hot water then surely a law that says tenants must have hot water and a dishwasher benefits them even more, right? What about a law that says tenants must have hot water, a dishwasher and cable tv? By now the students have cottoned on to the idea that the rent will increase. Once you realize that the law causes the rent to increase it's no longer obvious if tenants benefit or if landlords are harmed.
Not surprisingly Matt Yglesias & Co. blew a fuse. Who on earth could be against a law requiring hot water? Well... libertarians of course. Tabarrok fought back as did some of his colleagues. Brad DeLong (with the help Atrios) chimed in pointing out that that there are benefits to the laws. Landlords have a degree of monopoly power and it also makes the process of looking for an apartment more convenient for tenants:
When I go and look for an apartment, I don't have to spend the time to determine whether every apartment I visit has a working toilet, has hot water, has a working and safe electrical and heating system, and a whole set of charateristics which are roughly what we consider to be the basic necessities for modern life.
Don Boudreaux then entered the fray and pulled out the trump card in my opinion. He brought up the fact that DeLong had not mention a key premise of contract law. He wrote:
Contract law is beautiful in its subtlety. This law typically examines questions from the point of view of the “reasonable person” – that is, when a contract dispute finds its way into court, the law asks about the question before it: “what would the reasonable person have expected (or said, or done) in the circumstances at issue?” In modern America, the reasonable person reasonably expects that the rental unit has running water 24/7, that the ceiling doesn't leak, and that other basic features of the apartment are in order.
Why Do I Care?
Why did I take such an interest in a debate that seems so detached from reality? Well it just so happened that I had returned from my honeymoon with my wife in mid-August to find that, in fact, we ourselves had no hot water.
The landlady had forgotten to pay the electric bill for the room in the complex where the water heater is located. Sadly, this was not a rare occurrence. Multiple times she has also forgotten to pay the water bill that has left us without any water at all for a day or two.
So why do we put up with this? Well, we live about a half block from Mission Bay, in a good size one bedroom apartment that is well below the market price. Putting up with a flaky landlord is the price we pay. Ironically, while the debate over hot water was going on over the internet, the price I was paying was a few days of freezing cold showers.
I hadn't thought much about the discussion above until yesterday when I walked home to this:
It hadn't rained in San Diego in the last half year believe it or not. Sunday night that all changed and through Monday we had a pretty good rainfall. Monday night we noticed that a wet spot was slowly forming on the ceiling of our living room. I called my landlady at her house (no pick-up) and cell phone (left a message). Tuesday I get home to see that there is water dripping from the light fixture in the kitchen and in the hallway. I call again, leave a message on the cell phone and there is no pick-up at her house. I get on the roof and use a broom to clear off some of the huge puddles of water that had formed above our apartment. Yesterday morning it looks clear but during the day it begins to rain again. Getting back from work I open front door to see the nice little surprise above. A half-hour later I finally get a hold of the landlady and she and a few roofers were there within a few hours fixing the problem. They are hopefully finishing up today and this evening we'll be back to normal.
While I'm sure there are various laws on the books she is violating I know that these conditions are not what a "reasonable person" would expect in an apartment. As Don Boudreaux writes above: "In modern America, the reasonable person reasonably expects that the rental unit has running water 24/7, that the ceiling doesn't leak, and that other basic features of the apartment are in order." Yep, I'm pretty sure this would cover us if we had to go to court. To me this is a much clearer standard than endless regulations on the books.
I also know that we're at our apartment by choice, and believe me we are pretty close to choosing to move. But the one thing that holds us back is the fact that a better apartment means a higher price. There is a two bedroom directly next door for rent that is approximately the same square footage as our place. When I called to inquire about it I found out the price is almost double what we pay.
I guess the debate over hot water isn't as detached from reality as one may think.
Posted by Peter Mork at 11:55 AM | Comments | TrackBack
October 19, 2004
The One-Day Window
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
How times have changed. While the standard to come and live in this country used to be simply a desire to "breathe free" the bar is a tad bit higher nowadays. Hence the story of the H-1B visas.
The San Diego Union Tribune carried an article earlier this month that showed just how high that bar has become:
Last Friday – at the beginning of the federal fiscal year – the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stopped taking applications for H-1B worker visas, which are intended for foreign workers in such specialized professions as engineering, medicine and computer programming.
The government is allowed to issue up to 65,000 such visas each year. By the end of the day Friday, the immigration service had received enough applications to meet that quota. It will not accept any more applications, although it will consider those filed before Friday.
It was the first time in the history of the H-1B program that the annual quota had been depleted in just one day.
A few months back I received a large manila envelope in the mail which I thought was junk mail. But to my surprise, as I opened it up, I realized it contained a photocopy of a letter to the editor I wrote to the WSJ that had been published a month before. My closing paragraph was highlighted and on the side margin was a note telling me that I should learn about "the real costs of immigration". The letter was from The Programers Guild and they implored me to read their newsletter, which was also enclosed, to learn about the true costs.
Unfortunately, it seems they ignored the true point I was trying to make. How is it that if I was born only 30 miles south of where I am currently sitting that this would deny me the right to enter into a voluntary agreement with a U.S. employer? This question has never been answered to my satisfaction.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:39 AM | Comments | TrackBack
October 13, 2004
Moore in San Diego
Michael Moore spoke at the Del Mar Fairgrounds last night. It was an alternative venue after the president of Cal State San Marcos disinvited him from speaking at their campus. This decision was made as the school was supposedly prohibited from spending funds on partisan political activity.
Another school, George Mason University, also disinvited Moore for similar reasons. Prof. Don Boudreaux, who teaches at GMU, had this post on the subject at Cafe Hayek:
But I cringed whenever I heard or read the objections to his appearance at GMU. A Republican member of Virginia’s House of Delegates, Rep. Dick Black, wrote to GMU President Alan Merten that “Profligate spending for liberal speakers sets a tone for slipshod financial practices permeating the university system. Tax money is being spent poorly, and for partisan purposes." See this news story.
What a narrow-minded objection! Is “profligate spending” for conservative or libertarian speakers okay? If GMU agreed to pay, say, Thomas Sowell or Rush Limbaugh $35,000 to speak on campus, would such an agreement set “a tone for slipshod financial practices” at the University?
Hat Tip: Patrick Finucane (for the Union Tribune article)
Posted by Peter Mork at 6:44 PM | Comments | TrackBack
October 6, 2004
Donate That Car
There was another interesting article on the front page of The Wall Street Journal this past Monday entitled: "How Donated Cars Wind Up Helping Mexican Smugglers". The article touches on various topics from immigration to taxes to NAFTA... and of course how donated cars are involved in the whole process.
Listening to the radio here in San Diego you are bombarded with ads from various charities asking you to donate an old car to their organizations. I had always thought the same ads were being played across the country. After reading the article I have my doubts:
Nearly 50,000 former charity cars are sold at the border each year, and the majority end up in Mexico, local auction operators say. Thousands more come to Mexico from charity auctions elsewhere in Southern California.
and...
This scenario has come about largely because one border state -- Baja California -- enjoys Mexico's most liberal rules on importing used U.S. cars. Virtually any car made before 1999 can enter Baja duty-free, a regulation that dates to the 1930s. Under rules governing the North American Free Trade Agreement, in 2008 the entire U.S.-Mexico border will be open to traffic in used, duty-free cars.
and one more quote...
Ms. Garcia buys five or six cars a week at the Otay Mesa auctions and considers Father Joe's lot a boon to poor Mexican consumers who can't afford to buy a car from a regular dealer in Tijuana or the U.S. She pays about $500 per vehicle and usually turns it over the same day to customers who request specific models. She deals only in cash, occasionally "financing" a sale by holding a car for up to six months while a buyer makes weekly payments.
It looks like charities are exploiting a pretty unique market in order to fund their organizations. It's interesting stuff and you should read the whole thing if you get a chance.
On a side note of the article, it's shocking to think about the fact that some immigrants are paying around $2000 to ride in the trunk of a car whose total value is $500.
Update: In response to an email I received regarding this post, I wanted to make clear when I say above: "It looks like charities are exploiting a pretty unique market..." I don't mean it in a negative sense. The charities are doing a good thing raising money for their organizations and doing nothing wrong in the process. Probably should have said "utilizing" instead of "exploiting" to clear up any confusion.