rents

SF rents are going up, but Houston rents are going down.

Which really means this is just a map of where median rents are close to the line between rent controlled and not rent controlled.

In this case, the problem of high rents in relation to income usually results from building restrictions.

A friend of mine rents one in Luzern, and my wife went to see some in the one in Zurich.

It is also worth noting that San Francisco is quite expensive with apartment rents running over $4,000/month in the city.

That cost is far less than the monopoly rents that beneficiaries of network effects collect.

NYC rents are pretty nutty, but it is still a market, and pricing pressure is still very aggressive in this market.

So is it the venue owner's responsibility to make sure that everyone that he rents a table to is getting minimum wage?

No, high rents do not result from a group of greedy, fat rich guys, who wear monocles and enjoy preying upon the poor.

Has anyone done the analysis at which point the higher rents and labor costs outweigh the benefits of access to low cost capital?

If you have a monopoly, you charge excess rents and stop innovating.

In areas with room for development, speculative price increases on housing will make it profitable to build more housing, which will lower rents (i.e.

Such a policy allows them to indefinitely extract rents from the "assets" of "intellectual property" that their earlier works represent.

Presumably if no one was willing to pay the rents they would have to come down -- but some "predatory" renters are willing to pay to get what they want.

Furthermore, looking at that link suggests that the "luxury exclusions" are working as intended: all of the requests for deregulation due to income were approved and the rents returned to market rate.

That is distinct from "rent control" in NYC, which caps rents and is a much stronger measure, but only applies to tenants living in the same place since July 1st 1971, or March 31 1953 if it's an apartment in a 1 or 2 family home.