[mrkickling]

I feel a bit confused about what you mean with that it is not about wealth. If two people wants to live in a place as much and they both are ready to give 30% of their net income, the richer one would get the apartment in a system with no rent control, right? Your point only makes sense if everyone had the same net income.

Secondly, why is the merit of high income more valuable than waiting in the line for longest time? None of them is a lottery in my opinion.

[imtringued]

>Secondly, why is the merit of high income more valuable than waiting in the line for longest time? None of them is a lottery in my opinion.

People invest internationally. This gives a strong bias for money to chase large metropolis because of agglomeration effects. So now "everyone" has to move to the city to work for the investor money. There are people who just want to get their fair share of the money. If you let someone live there that can't find a job that gets him investor money then he basically displaced a productive worker bee and made the entire economy worse off. Social mobility takes a massive hit as a result.

That worker bee could have earned enough to live in a newly constructed apartment. If he actually managed to get a rent controlled apartment then congratulation, you just subsidized one of the richer individuals.

Think about it this way, you want vulnerable people to afford their apartments. Why are you subsidizing every single apartment instead of subsidizing people in need? In fact, the subsidy is greater the more expensive the apartment is. You're subsidizing the rich.

[luckylion]

I said it's not just about wealth. Yes, if both a millionaire and an average salaried employee spend 30% of their income, the millionaire will always get the house. But they don't compete for the same real estate. Instead, the average person competes with others grouped around the average, and 30% vs 15% of income is a significant difference. If you really, really want to live in the prime location, you can, you just have to spend more.

> Secondly, why is the merit of high income more valuable than waiting in the line for longest time?

Because it correlates with useful stuff being done for society. Not perfectly, of course, but somewhat. Waiting doesn't at all. And it's usually not about "waiting", it's often about being part of some group, having the luck of the draw, knowing someone in the office that assigns priorities, or "inheriting" the right to live in some (publicly owned) flat from your parents.

What happens then? Person A lives in a very desirable place, person B does not, and person B has to subsidize A's flat.