Housing affordability and rent control: The case of elderly renters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elderly renters face mounting housing affordability challenges due to rising rents. While many see rent control as a way to assist families in need of affordable housing, evidence of its effectiveness is sparse. We fill this gap by examining the effects of New York City’s rent stabilization policy on elderly renters. We find that elderly renters experience greater rent burdens than younger renters and, on average, benefit more from rent control. Specifically, elderly renters are more likely to live in rent-stabilized units and to receive greater rent discounts. However, this “elderly advantage” is mostly explained by elderly renters’ greater housing stability and disappears (in some cases, even reverses) after tenancy duration is accounted for. Our findings suggest that while New York City’s rent stabilization offers more support to older renters overall, it also, by favoring longer tenancy, leads to uneven allocation of policy subsidies among elderly renters. The “elderly advantage” accrues mostly to stable long-term renters, but less so to unstable ones, who are more often racial minorities, immigrants, or those with low levels of education and income.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".