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

The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#71

Post by tptacek »

chubot wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fridman is on the other end of the spectrum I'm describing.

You said heavily processed and barely-reported If you want to say Fridman's content is "barely-reported", i.e. he barely does journalism, then I won't really argue. But the interviews are NOT heavily processed, and that's precisely why some on the left won't sit with him. (But not Thompson and Klein, because they actually have something to say.) So ironically, it kinda balances out. Being credulous attracts guests wh…

I'm not making a value judgement. There are analysts and opinion writers I enjoy reading and get a lot of value from. But hosting a podcast interview with someone is basically the opposite of shoe-leather reporting. I guess if you did "stitch incoming" every couple minutes and cut to Fridman calling someone else to have conversations with other sources about whatever claim his primary guest just made, you'd be getting closer.

My point is: some of the prevailing take on HN about journalism probably comes from the fact that we tend to pay much more attention to the Fridmans and much less to shoe-leather reporters.

That's all!

Much later: a funny thing I could point out here is that the same thing I'm saying about Fridman also applies to Ezra Klein, Thompson's "Abundance" co-author --- I like Klein a lot!

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#72

Post by chubot »

tptacek wrote: post #71
chubot wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said heavily processed and barely-reported If you want to say Fridman's content is "barely-reported", i.e. he barely does journalism, then I won't really argue. But the interviews are NOT heavily processed, and that's precisely why some on the left won't sit with him. (But not Thompson and Klein, because they actually have something to say.) So ironically, it kinda balances out. Being credulous attracts guests wh…

I'm not making a value judgement. There are analysts and opinion writers I enjoy reading and get a lot of value from. But hosting a podcast interview with someone is basically the opposite of shoe-leather reporting. I guess if you did "stitch incoming" every couple minutes and cut to Fridman calling someone else to have conversations with other sources about whatever claim his primary guest just made, you'd be gettin…

I think there's journalistic value to showing a raw conversation on a podcast. It's closer to the primary source than calling them on the phone and writing down parts of the conversation.

If the interviewer is a bit credulous, then we can take that into account.

I don't need other opinions to be inserted in the same show, because it's not the only show I watch. I get different viewpoints from others. (And Klein's show happens to be a primary example of that)

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#73

Post by tptacek »

chubot wrote: post #72
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a value judgement. There are analysts and opinion writers I enjoy reading and get a lot of value from. But hosting a podcast interview with someone is basically the opposite of shoe-leather reporting. I guess if you did "stitch incoming" every couple minutes and cut to Fridman calling someone else to have conversations with other sources about whatever claim his primary guest just made, you'd be gettin…

I think there's journalistic value to showing a raw conversation on a podcast. It's closer to the primary source than calling them on the phone and writing down parts of the conversation. If the interviewer is a bit credulous, then we can take that into account. I don't need other opinions to be inserted in the same show, because it's not the only show I watch. I get different viewpoints from others. (And Klein's sho…

I never said there was "no journalistic value" to anything.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#74

Post by esseph »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #59
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…

[flagged]

Trickle down was a Reagan thing.

I'm very confused by your statements.

I mean it was the Big Beautiful Bill that just added 3-5 trillion in debt and reduced taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think those impotent Dems had any sway in this.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#75

Post by nielsbot »

tptacek wrote: post #65
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…

You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?

Depends on how many tenants there are: is is a buyers' or sellers' market?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#76

Post by nielsbot »

esseph wrote: post #74
burnt-resistor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Trickle down was a Reagan thing. I'm very confused by your statements. I mean it was the Big Beautiful Bill that just added 3-5 trillion in debt and reduced taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think those impotent Dems had any sway in this.

Dems are also beholden to the wealthy--not sure they tried that hard, overall.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#77

Post by Gigachad »

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.

Luxury is just a realestate buzzword that means newly built and has stone countertops. Nothing that actually meaningfully impacts the pricing.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#78

Post by nielsbot »

nradov wrote: post #24
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.

Don't we have a housing shortage? Also, many (institutional?) landlords are happy to leave units vacant and/or evict tenants spuriously for higher profits.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#79

Post by tptacek »

nielsbot wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?

Depends on how many tenants there are: is is a buyers' or sellers' market?

Whether it's a buyer or seller's market depends on supply!

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#80

Post by baby_souffle »

nielsbot wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?

Depends on how many tenants there are: is is a buyers' or sellers' market?

If - hypothetically - I had a ton of money and buying another house or two or fifteen wasn't a big deal, wouldn't there be a clear-ish signal that I should stop my demand for more housing lest too much supply screw with my income? I would also have an incentive to deploy some of my resources/capital to making sure that the supply of housing is juuuuuuust right for my extractive needs.
Post reply on HN