Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

minneapolisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#111

Post by workingon »

TedShiller wrote: post #108
workingon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cognitive disconnect is pretty insane here. Affordability issues are a widespread phenomen. You may be able to remote work in a low cost of living area, but the type of people who have housing instability can't. They have to be supported by the shit-tier wages in the low cost of living area, which is why it's a low cost of living area. Except now the "low cost" housing there takes up more than half someone's inco…

Housing in the most desirable areas of the world is unaffordable (i.e. very expensive), that's true. But then so are Gucci bags and Ferraris.

Did you even read what I wrote? People are experiencing lack of housing even in not typically expensive areas. I’m from the middle of nowhere west virginia, and the rents have doubled and the only local jobs are fast food tier. These people have nowhere to go and no hope to find a place to live. Get your head out of your ass.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#112

Post by adam_arthur »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #92
adam_arthur wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing units per working age person is at an all time high and increasing quickly. https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2022/3/29/50377332-1... On mobile now, but you can confirm the stats on FRED

Housing markets are regional. In my overpriced, overpopulated corner of Western MA construction simply isn't happening. The relevant metric isn't units per person, it's units per workplace. No one is interested if housing is plentiful in any deindustrialized rust belt city when people are moving to either coast. The person posting that graph has a bridge to sell

Housing is fungible and substitutable. Especially in a WFH world.

Ergo building in FL or TX can reduce prices in CA. Why do you think the northeast and CA are losing population?

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#113

Post by frankfrankfrank »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #40
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what is being referred to here in typical mush mouth obtuse language is the "monopolization" that corporations are engaging in buying up massive amounts of real assets with essentially free money the fed it printing at the rate that even the "printing press goes brrrrrr" meme does not do justice. I don't know that people are really aware of the scale of what is going on here. The big finance houses have essen…

The monopolization the paper refers to is how industry and government prevent the adoption of factory methods in construction, increasing construction costs.

I get that especially here people would love to think that "factory methods in construction" are wonderful, but the reality is that it is way more "human soul crushing communist block building" and far less utopian wonderland.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#114

Post by dionidium »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #33
oldgradstudent wrote: post #5

Is there even a shred of evidence that the housing crisis is a result of higher construction costs? Or is the Fed trying to draw attention away from the catastrophic impact of its zero interest and other policies on the massive increase in asset prices?

I think what is being referred to here in typical mush mouth obtuse language is the "monopolization" that corporations are engaging in buying up massive amounts of real assets with essentially free money the fed it printing at the rate that even the "printing press goes brrrrrr" meme does not do justice. I don't know that people are really aware of the scale of what is going on here. The big finance houses have essen…

> The big finance houses have essentially been handed over ownership and control to corner the whole housing market ... by the captured and corrupt government.

A couple things to try to contextualize this claim:

1. Institutional investors are purchasing single-family homes at a greater rate than they used to, but they account for a minority of all purchases: "During the first three months of this [2021], investors bought nearly 15% of U.S. homes, up from about 10% during the previous three quarters."

2. Their overall share of the market remains small: "Yet of the roughly 15 million single-family rental homes in the U.S., institutional investors own only about 2%, according to real estate consulting firm RCLCO."

Source: https://www.realtrends.com/articles/institutional-ownership-...

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#115

Post by TedShiller »

workingon wrote: post #111
TedShiller wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing in the most desirable areas of the world is unaffordable (i.e. very expensive), that's true. But then so are Gucci bags and Ferraris.

Did you even read what I wrote? People are experiencing lack of housing even in not typically expensive areas. I’m from the middle of nowhere west virginia, and the rents have doubled and the only local jobs are fast food tier. These people have nowhere to go and no hope to find a place to live. Get your head out of your ass.

I think that's a good case for government needing to provide housing assistance.

What you see on this forum is people complaining that housing in SF/LA/NYC is not cheap. However, in your case, I think you have a point.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#116

Post by davidgay »

SoftTalker wrote: post #110
mumblemumble wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Past a certain level of density, the only thing you can realistically own is a condominium. The key differences between renting an apartment and buying a condo that I was able to identify seem to be that condos are more expensive, harder to get out of if you want to move, and not covered by the city's tenant bill of rights ordinance.

Rentals must on average cover the debt, taxes, and profit for the owner. The tennant pays monthly rent including all of the above and has nothing to show for it when the lease ends. Condos at least build some equity that you can recover when you sell. Sure there are some risks and maintenance costs that renters don't "pay" but it's all included in the rent, over time.

> Condos at least build some equity

That equity is only monthly payment - debt, taxes. So the real difference is that you can invest X in your property or X-owner's profit in the investment of your choice.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#117

Post by whimsicalism »

lazide wrote: post #47
oldgradstudent wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monopolization the paper refers to is how industry and government prevent the adoption of factory methods in construction, increasing construction costs.

Eh, it’s a lot more than that. But the paper is specifically pointing out that cost of land seems to be the driving factor, not cost of construction which is relatively flat. A cheaper manufactured home would of course be nice if looking at costs, but dropping it on a $1.5m acre lot isn’t going to change the math that much.

Sure, if you are only building SFH.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#118

Post by whimsicalism »

teakettle42 wrote: post #71
schaefer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a shred of evidence: Las Vegas is a city mostly surrounded by public lands. New private parcels are no longer made available as lots appropriate for single family homes. They are carved onto neighborhood sized chunks, sold to developers directly, and locked into HOA's for all eternity. Only the big boys that can tackle multi-million dollar bids can enrich themselves by the sale of our public lands.

Similar to upzoning land. Only the big-boys that can tackle multi-million dollar bids and rental building development projects can enrich themselves by the upzoning of our existing neighborhoods, locking residents into a permanent rental class for all eternity.

I think developing an entire neighborhood of SFH is more expensive than developing a duplex or quad, which is what most upzoning would legalize.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#119

Post by riku_iki »

davidgay wrote: post #116
SoftTalker wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rentals must on average cover the debt, taxes, and profit for the owner. The tennant pays monthly rent including all of the above and has nothing to show for it when the lease ends. Condos at least build some equity that you can recover when you sell. Sure there are some risks and maintenance costs that renters don't "pay" but it's all included in the rent, over time.

> Condos at least build some equity That equity is only monthly payment - debt, taxes. So the real difference is that you can invest X in your property or X-owner's profit in the investment of your choice.

If you take loan, it is also leveraged investment with some tax benefits, and lower risk: you can file for foreclosure if underwater without need to pay out of debts.

Re: Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in construction (2020)

#120

Post by davidgay »

lazide wrote: post #88
vostok wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Density still has huge benefits unrelated to work. I don't know much about SF as I haven't lived there as an adult, but New York is an incredible place to live for lifestyle reasons too. It has great food, a very high concentration of smart and highly educated people, great museums, great performance arts, etc. It's also an incredibly walkable city, which is rare in the US. Hands down it would be my choice of city if…

SF only has one thing going for it really - weather. Everything else pales compared to NYC.

> SF only has one thing going for it really - weather.

This is far from an universal view - I live there (well, East Bay) and I think the weather isn't that great: too cold in summer, no nice evenings, never nice to hang out by the water. And I like cold winters as a contrast.

October to December are nicer though.

Post reply on HN