121–130 of 347 posts
Transpose the problem into a Taylor Swift concert and the problem becomes clearer: Everyone* wants to go see Taylor Swift. She comes to a stadium and the sell out is instant, the aftermarket is bloody and ruthless. The stadium has 90,000 seats, 2,000 floor spots, and they are gone before you can reload the ticket page. Taylor Swift is the embodiment of "good jobs". The stadium is the local housing market. Those VIP b…
There’s no such thing as “demand” in housing. Only supply. Housing has its own economics in which supply is the only solution ever put forward. Not a single politician or economist ever says that most dreaded and awful word “demand”. Property developers, politicians, economists, demographers, real estate agents, landlords all agree that supply supply supply will …….. errrr it will…… ummmmmm more supply will definitel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where have we seen anything close to 'build more'? It's considerably easier to build in Canadian cities than most American cities. Not easy, but easier. Over the past ten years Canadian cities have seen incredible growth, due to high immigration levels. Toronto is the fastest growing city in North America. Vancouver isn't far behind. Yet Vancouver has seen flat housing prices over the last 10 years. [1] (Though fla…
Median houses in Vancouver are $2-4m ?? Wow.
I think this is putting the cart before the horse. The entire reason that building/lending/etc should exist, it's raison d'être, is to make housing more affordable. If that is achieved - mission accomplished? I don't care about these parties otherwise.
Where i live, NIMBYs just killed an ADU ordinance and were screaming just as loudly and about all the same things they would have if you were replacing their grandma's cottage with a high rise. They can't be rationed with. Social housing is the only thing that will really work.
It’s amazing how little history people seem to remember or know. I think people might be open to trying again if you could address what went wrong last time (extreme crime and poverty traps)
> The theory says we should be celebrating and accelerating home production even more to get prices to levels that would actually be affordable. The reality demonstrates otherwise. Reality demonstrates the well known - the people who celebrate house prices going down don't have a loud voice in political circles and are ignored. Almost by definition they're going to be representatives of the world which doesn't have v…
> the people who celebrate house prices going down don't have a loud voice in political circles and are ignored It's changing though. I'm seeing more people, even homeowners joining this chorus. Insane housing prices make everything expensive, and people are sick of everything being expensive. Even homeowners. I agree that builders leaving is good. It means the prices have come down and demand / supply is getting bet…
Not really, it just means that the builders can make more profit elsewhere.
Ultimately, there is no solution in which the core groups will all be appeased: * If prices keep going up, then home ownership remains a luxury of the wealthy and an exploitation of the poor. Asset holders will be thrilled with returns, but the majority struggling to get or stay on the proverbial property ladder will grow increasingly angry at sky-high rents and prices with stagnant wages * On the other hand, if pric…
> Price Drops Don’t Lead to Supply. They Kill It. Is anyone arguing that price drops "lead to" (i.e. happen before) increases in supply? It seems to me that it's the other way around: supply increases "lead to" price drops. This is what supply advocates hope to see in HCOL cities with expensive housing. The author is concerned that builders will stop building when prices fall, but that's rational. Suppliers should re…
Exactly this. Once you've built enough new housing and so the price has dropped to the point where it's not economical to build anymore, you're done. It's mission accomplished. The goal was achieved.
But the whole point is that you have to actually build all that housing to get there. Which is what we want. The author seems to be deeply confused about basic economic principles.
Transpose the problem into a Taylor Swift concert and the problem becomes clearer: Everyone* wants to go see Taylor Swift. She comes to a stadium and the sell out is instant, the aftermarket is bloody and ruthless. The stadium has 90,000 seats, 2,000 floor spots, and they are gone before you can reload the ticket page. Taylor Swift is the embodiment of "good jobs". The stadium is the local housing market. Those VIP b…
> the experience for everyone becomes worse in a multitude of ways. your analogy requires the assumption that the stadium is already "at capacity" for the maximum comfortable number of seats 99% of American municipalities are nowhere even close to this capacity.
Companies want top talent for their workforce. They naturally will set up shop where they have easiest access to this talent (hence why you get industry hubs in different locales). The companies move to the spots for workers, and the works move to those spots for the jobs.