The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#21

Post by supertrope » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #2

The bigger problem, at least in my neck of the woods, is they're not building affordable housing. By-and-large they are building luxury apartments and luxury homes. We've torn down half the city to build luxury apartments that sit at 20-30% occupancy. Building luxury housing won't help the housing crisis until the sellers are on the brink of bankruptcy and forced to sell their properties at a reasonable price.

If US car sales were capped at 10 million cars per year manufacturers would immediately focus on their luxury brands and leave their regular brands out of stock. When you keep strict zoning, give NIMBYs veto power, let environmental review be weaponized as a delay tactic, you are capping new construction.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#22

Post by jeffbee » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:39 PM UTC

evil-olive wrote: post #14

> The sharpest criticisms of the book Abundance have sometimes come from the antitrust movement. This group, mostly on the left, insists that the biggest problems in America typically come from monopolies and the corruption of big business. ctrl-F "RealPage" - nothing. hmm. ctrl-F "rent" - also nothing. really? from about a year ago: Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions…

Can you cite some evidence of a place where RealPage's supposed power has led to a consumer harm like higher rents? I may be biased because my research has been cited by RealPage in their suit against the city of Berkeley, but to me RealPage just finds the market clearing price, and that's not particularly evil in my book.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#23

Post by bullfightonmars » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:39 PM UTC

tiahura wrote: post #8

Ericson2314 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking why they don't build affordable housing is like asking why don't they build used cars

Why don't they build $10,000 Ford Rangers anymore?

The same reason housing isn't being built, it was regulated out of existence.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#24

Post by nradov » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:39 PM UTC

evil-olive wrote: post #14

> The sharpest criticisms of the book Abundance have sometimes come from the antitrust movement. This group, mostly on the left, insists that the biggest problems in America typically come from monopolies and the corruption of big business. ctrl-F "RealPage" - nothing. hmm. ctrl-F "rent" - also nothing. really? from about a year ago: Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions…

Collusion among landlords can only work in a housing shortage. With an abundance of rental units, individual landlords would "defect" (in a game theory sense) and lower rents in order to fill their vacant units at the market price.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#25

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:40 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #20

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affordable housing is NIMBY whitewashing of reducing supply through rationining. (Note the supporters of affordable housing programmes count the largest landowning families in San Francisco and New York among their ranks.) There is an article on the front page, right now, about Denver moderating its rents through construction [1]. We've also seen this in Montana [2]. [1] https://denverite.com/2025/07/25/denver-rent-p…

100% "Supply and Demand" is a law of nature. If you build infinite luxury apartments, in the limit their value is zero. Build more luxury housing and the inventory increases. If you've met the city's housing demands (which you probably won't since nearly every city is behind on meeting demand), then it follows that typically less desirable inventory experiences less demand and will subsequently experience a price dro…

> "Supply and Demand" is a law of nature

It's a law of human nature. Value is inherently subjective, which makes deriving it from natural laws conditional upon a physical explanation for humanity.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#26

Post by radixdiaboli » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:40 PM UTC

evil-olive wrote: post #14

> The sharpest criticisms of the book Abundance have sometimes come from the antitrust movement. This group, mostly on the left, insists that the biggest problems in America typically come from monopolies and the corruption of big business. ctrl-F "RealPage" - nothing. hmm. ctrl-F "rent" - also nothing. really? from about a year ago: Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions…

> it seems like Thompson is being awfully selective about which antitrust-related criticisms he's responding to here

He was responding to a specific critique of his book. So... yes. That's how that works.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#27

Post by freddie_mercury » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:41 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #11

Ericson2314 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking why they don't build affordable housing is like asking why don't they build used cars

Except that outside of Japan, it is unusual for detached homes to depreciate in value. Apartments though you do have a point. Unless the location adds the value they will depreciate over time.

It's not unusual at all. Here's a bunch in America just over the past 12 months and during a huge economic expansion with low unemployment.

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/zip-codes-cities-home-pr...

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#28

Post by smcg » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:41 PM UTC

freddie_mercury wrote: post #17

evil-olive wrote: post #14

> The sharpest criticisms of the book Abundance have sometimes come from the antitrust movement. This group, mostly on the left, insists that the biggest problems in America typically come from monopolies and the corruption of big business. ctrl-F "RealPage" - nothing. hmm. ctrl-F "rent" - also nothing. really? from about a year ago: Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions…

Thompson is responding to a specific paper. 'One of the most detailed articles in this space is an analysis of the Dallas, Texas, housing market by the lawyer and writer Basel Musharbash. In “Messing With Texas: How Big Homebuilders and Private Equity Made American Cities Unaffordable”' Musharbash doesn't mention RealPage either, so go blame him, since he doesn't think RealPage contributes to Dallas's problems.

Thompson writes these articles to deflect valid criticism.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#29

Post by nradov » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:42 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #11

Ericson2314 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking why they don't build affordable housing is like asking why don't they build used cars

Except that outside of Japan, it is unusual for detached homes to depreciate in value. Apartments though you do have a point. Unless the location adds the value they will depreciate over time.

Detached houses almost always depreciate in value everywhere and require constant maintenance expenses just to keep from falling apart. It's the land under the house that appreciates in value. People often mix those two numbers up.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#30

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:42 PM UTC

lambda wrote: post #19

Ericson2314 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking why they don't build affordable housing is like asking why don't they build used cars

This is a perfectly succinct way to put it. New housing is simply more expensive; so it's marketed as "luxury", and it's sold at a premium to the higher end of the housing market. This reduces demand for the older, more affordable existing housing stock, and with depreciation and wear and tear, the new housing will become more affordable as time goes on. If you're in a market with a shortage of housing, those with mo…

> New housing is simply more expensive

There is no natural reason for this to be the case. If anything, learning curves and economies of scale should result in new units costing less, not more, than ones built by artisans.