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

131–140 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#131

Post by nathan_compton »

tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

This article is good, but the phrase "antitrust left" really turned me off. I am probably some kind of a leftist (I want higher taxes on rich people and a society much more welfare oriented with a substantial degree of labor and resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets) but I don't know a single leftist who actually cares about this housing shit except to think that houses should be cheaper by any means necessary. Like the idea that there is an active contingent of leftists trying to construct some kind of defense of the current housing system or critique of reforms (in general) aimed at making it easier to build houses strikes me as truly bizarre.

There may be some environmentalists who have housing as a pet peeve or something, and there are lots of yuppies who want to defend their housing prices who might be liberal but I don't associate this position with leftism in any way.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#132

Post by diziet_sma »

nielsbot wrote: post #78
nradov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes we do. The OP's point is that _if_ there is collusion, building housing will help solve the collusion problem _and_ solve the housing shortage.

Spending effort on theoretical collusion which may or may not be happening is a diversion from the real problem, which is lack of housing supply.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#133

Post by elgenie »

xnx wrote: post #94
sedawkgrep wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a perfectly succinct way to put it. I think the entire analogy falls apart the minute you realize houses almost always appreciate while cars do the opposite.

Land appreciates. Houses depreciate.

Houses depreciate if there's an adequate supply of newer housing keeping up with the housing demand of the area. If there isn't then the general GDP growth of the area in which the house is located dictates that the house's value grows as well.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#134

Post by tptacek »

nathan_compton wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

This article is good, but the phrase "antitrust left" really turned me off. I am probably some kind of a leftist (I want higher taxes on rich people and a society much more welfare oriented with a substantial degree of labor and resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets) but I don't know a single leftist who actually cares about this housing shit except to think that houses should be cheaper…

I live in a very wealthy, extraordinarily progressive muni (almost certainly in the top 5 nationally), and my primary political project is zoning reform, and I assure you that left-NIMBYism is a thing, and that the "we should make blue state governments perform better and increase supply of things people want" thesis of "Abundance" (Thompson and Klein's book) is a bête noire among those leftists.

The argument isn't that the left broadly construed opposes housing legalization! Just that there's a prominent faction of them that do. Right-NIMBYs are a much bigger problem across the US.

Thompson recently recorded a podcast episode with Zephyr Teachout, taking the "we shouldn't do anything before we address antitrust" side of the argument; you can listen to it if you think "the antitrust left" isn't a real thing. Understand: the issue isn't antitrust; it's a totalizing worldview based purely on antitrust. Antitrust is probably super important! But where I live, zoning reform is much more important.

Keep in mind: Klein and Thompson's political project is a plan to organize the Democrats. They're not talking to the Republicans. Not in the sense they're talking to Democrats, at least. I don't think they could make that much clearer than they have.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#135

Post by s1artibartfast »

xnx wrote: post #94
sedawkgrep wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a perfectly succinct way to put it. I think the entire analogy falls apart the minute you realize houses almost always appreciate while cars do the opposite.

Land appreciates. Houses depreciate.

Houses appreciate too. The materials and labor cost required to build my house have outpaced inflation by far.

This is most clear in insurance data where replacement cost is isolated from land value.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#136

Post by Alive-in-2025 »

nathan_compton wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

This article is good, but the phrase "antitrust left" really turned me off. I am probably some kind of a leftist (I want higher taxes on rich people and a society much more welfare oriented with a substantial degree of labor and resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets) but I don't know a single leftist who actually cares about this housing shit except to think that houses should be cheaper…

Excellent comment. I agree that not many leftists support the current housing system. Probably only some existing home owners are excited about how it works today - they may want home prices to stay high. I'm lucky to be a home owner but I also see that the current system is incredibly destructive, having not enough homes and very high home purchase prices is really hard on people. We should not have to spend so much of our income pursing a home.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#137

Post by elgenie »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
bsder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you don't generally destroy the used car in order to build a new one. So increasing the new cars on the road eventually also increases the number of used cars on the road.

> you don't generally destroy the used car in order to build a new one There is very little de-densification construction happening in hot housing markets.

De-densification isn't required; a one-for-one knocking down and rebuilding of a single family residence suffices.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#138

Post by spankalee »

simpaticoder wrote: post #124
tptacek wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking more along the lines of a simple math problem and less along the lines of an outline for a dystopian novel. Like, show the work.

If capital returns 5% and the economy grows at 1%, where does the extra wealth come from? Spoiler: it's a transfer from the poorest to the wealthiest. Asset classes include stocks, bonds, real-estate, art, and metals. So if artists make more art, will this make art ownership more accessible to the average person? Or will it be a small transient soon erased by the monumental financial forces pulling all assets into th…

tptacek is asking how investors buying properties to rent them out, which clearly leads to increased rental supply, then somehow supposedly leads to higher, not lower, rents.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#139

Post by jerlam »

waldohatesyou wrote: post #85
jerlam wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a much bigger group than homeowners. Banks don't want housing prices to fall, since then homeowners start foreclosing and then banks lose interest payments and own undesired property. Cities don't want housing prices to fall, since they were counting on money from developers and property taxes.

I don’t agree with this take, we’re overly simplifying the nature of housing here. It depends on the housing mix as well. If the vast majority of the pro-housing prices crowd is heavily invested in single family residential then they should favour widespread upzoning and deregulation of apartments because that would increase the value of their SFHs through two mechanisms: 1) presumably single family homes will be des…

No, what you said is mostly correct; but I'm mostly talking about not having home prices go down, which is different but related.

There are different kinds of homeowners. There are those who are flipping houses and directly betting that the values go up, which is the crowd that you're describing. But at least in my area of the world, the majority of the anti-housing crowd is just old and is more anti-change than anything else. Even if the value of their home skyrockets even more, they won't sell and move. Their complaints are more about noise, traffic, and "quality of life" than home values.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#140

Post by nicoburns »

spankalee wrote: post #101
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…

Where's the evidence that wealth inequality is the root cause of housing shortage, as opposed to say, the real and factual lack of building? Even if the wealthy did buy up extra supply to rent out, that would only mean increased supply of rentals, which would lower rents.

If people had the wealth to own land and build on it then they'd build their own.
Post reply on HN