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

141–150 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#141

Post by skinnymuch »

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…

Nice points. And of course your first reply in this thread is anlredy light grayed. Classic Hacker News

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#142

Post by tyleo »

johndhi wrote: post #117

I know this isn't how our political system works, but if I were king of America I'd try to solve the problem of expensive housing like this: -Confirm housing is too expensive (for whom, where) -Ask people why they think housing is too expensive and read some books on the topic -Come up with a list of a few reasonable reasons from said reading -try addressing those reasons with experiments in different locations to se…

The first part of this may be overly simplistic but I got a good chuckle reading the second part.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#143

Post by tomhow »

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]

I have a soft spot for anyone with a background in Turbo Pascal from the 90s (my father built our family business on Turbo Pascal then Delphi through the 80s and 90s, so I grew up with it around the house).

I just wish you'd dial back the combative tone of your comments on HN. You've been engaging in a lot of political/ideological battle recently, and it would be good if you could remind yourself of the guidelines and make an effort to use HN in the intended spirit.

We're trying for curious conversation here. Different perspectives about economics are very welcome. Slurs and swipes are not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#144

Post by svachalek »

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…

"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"

People tend to call the Democrats the left, as they're at least somewhat leftward of the Republicans. It's at least easier for discussion purposes than speaking of the right and the other right.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#145

Post by rahimnathwani »

If you like instances of people calling out citation misrepresentation, you may enjoy Brian Conrad's report about drafts of the California Math Framework: https://sites.google.com/view/publiccommentsonthecmf/#h.ko8q...

Sadly, many of the issues he called out remain in the final, approved version.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#146

Post by nathan_compton »

tptacek wrote: post #134
nathan_compton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I guess this is a bit definitional, but I do not think of "very wealthy, extraordinarily progressive" people as typically leftist. I think of them as liberal and only in the American brain is that associated with leftism, so much so that we usually distinguish between "leftists" and "liberals" rhetorically. With, say, Hillary Clinton, being a classic American liberal and Bernie Sanders being more like a leftist. If you visit the DSA contingent I doubt you'd find anyone per se against zoning revisions to build more housing. Eg, Mamdani had literally building more housing as a part of his platform.

Leftists tend to feel very little solidarity with wealthy progressives and don't really vibe with their political interests, in general. It seems really weird that the specific label of "leftist" is being thrown around in this context. Especially in the context of organizing the Democrats where there is a meaningful and material difference between liberal and leftist.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#147

Post by nathan_compton »

svachalek wrote: post #144
nathan_compton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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" People tend to call the Democrats the left, as they're at least somewhat leftward of the Republicans. It's at least easier for discussion purposes than speaking of the right and the other right.

Yeah, I get it. But we also use liberal and I think in this particular case its worth drawing the distinction between these two "camps" of the democratic party.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#148

Post by crooked-v »

tptacek wrote: post #134
nathan_compton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Here in extremely liberal Portland, there are a huge number of people who genuinely believe that 'greedy developers' are the cause of the nationwide housing shortage, having talked themselves into the nonsense belief that building fewer homes makes people more money.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#149

Post by kettlecorn »

lokar wrote: post #106
ThinkBeat wrote: post #35

There is an incredibly large lobby group who is fully invested in house prices rising or at least not falling, namely homeowners. and since most politicians at a high level usually own one or more houses, they are fully invested in it as well.

I never see the NIMBY movement really engage with what falling prices would mean in practice. It just seems impossible to be allowed for any really duration over a large area. I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation).

> I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation).

If you read between the lines that seems to be what Canada's approach to house affordability is going to be. Their leaders are promising housing will be more "affordable" but that the goal isn't to decrease home prices.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#150

Post by skinnymuch »

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.

Neoliberalism, trickle down, abundance. They are all similar and/or the same.
Post reply on HN