The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

Post by tiahura » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:12 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #32

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…

I wish everyone who cares about the price of housing could go to a hearing like this one. Sadly, they happen in every community so if you're curious, you ought to go: https://bendyimby.com/2024/04/16/the-hearing-and-the-housing... That is your housing shortage right there. Now, Real page probably jacks up prices a bit. A bit multiplied by a lot of renters means real harm and it was probably worth taking them to court…

Post by pydry » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #45

pydry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With cars you can build a high margin luxury and a low margin affordable model if there are two buyers and collect profit from both. With an apartment if there's one plot available, you build the high margin apartment. Land constraints matter. A 100% land value tax would help solve this problem and would make buying apartments more like buying a car.

When you build the high-margin apartment, people vacate other housing units to move into it, reducing demand on the older units, which reduces prices in the area. This is just the law of supply and demand, but you don't have to derive it axiomatically: it's empirically what happens when we increase supply at market rates. I'd like a land value tax too, but it's not going to happen, and an LVT would guarantee market-r…

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:16 PM UTC

simpaticoder wrote: post #56

What about wealth inequality as the root cause of housing shortage? Even if supply is eased, the wealthy (those who have enough capital to earn passive income) will buy the extra supply and rent to the poor. The Piketty effect takes over, they invest their profit in more housing, wealth inequality continues to get worse, and while more housing exists, it owned by an increasingly small cohort. Personally I'd like to s…

Post by burnt-resistor » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:20 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #62

burnt-resistor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"Trickle-down" economics is a direct subsidy for high-income earners meant to spur demand . That's the opposite of what increasing the housing supply does.

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:21 PM UTC

burnt-resistor wrote: post #67

tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trickle-down" economics is a direct subsidy for high-income earners meant to spur demand . That's the opposite of what increasing the housing supply does.

Totally wrong strawman missing the bigger point. It's still a vague, misguided utopian ideology focused on helping the rich supposedly "overproduce" while doing nothing for everyone else. That's trickle-down economics 101.