The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

Post by Schiendelman » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 1:59 AM UTC

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.

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 2:02 AM UTC

Onavo wrote: post #200

hamhock666 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't people already pay for things like the NYT? I guess local papers might be harder, they may have to demonstrate they can reveal the journalistic failures of other papers in local affairs.

NYT is an exception, or more specifically it's much bigger than most other news shops and has the luxury of having a large loyal customer base, a brand reputation to defend, and a full time business analysis and data science team to upkeep its excellence. Your local papers are barely scraping by and are mostly owned by hedge funds whose primary objective to squeeze the consumer via judicial usage of paywalls and clic…

Post by cocaclub » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 2:04 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #176

arrosenberg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a small number of landlords continue to control the supply (which I understand to also be part of the premise) then they can charge whatever rate allows them to profit. Housing is pretty inelastic and is a first order priority for most people, so they will pay the maximum they can afford if they have to. At least near me, most of the housing being created is owned by large corporations like the Irvine Company, it’…

I'm asking: how does a small number of landlords continue to "control the supply" of an ever-increasing supply of housing when each of their holdings is non-remunerative (and, in fact, incurs tax and maintenance costs). This seems like a pretty simple math problem, a bet that you would not take if it was laid out in front of you, but I'm waiting for someone to explain how that might not be the case. Keep in mind: as…

Post by yen223 » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 2:06 AM UTC

energy123 wrote: post #182

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…

Mamdani - rent control. Dean Preston - NIMBY. UK Greens Party - NIMBY. Australian Greens Party - NIMBY. Explain?

Post by Schiendelman » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 2:08 AM UTC

sedawkgrep wrote: post #89

lambda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.