That's right, and that's caused by restrictions on supply. Almost every problem we have with housing comes down to us restricting how much can be built so much that extremely low quality units are competitive. If you allowed 10 times as much construction, those units wouldn't be able to compete, because other builders would offer better units for the same price.
It seems like fewer restrictions would mean more garbage getting built.
Depends on the restrictions.
Not being allowed to cast a shadow on the neighbor’s zucchini garden or having to pay off permit expediters has no impact on building quality, mandating wood vs cardboard does.
That's right, and that's caused by restrictions on supply. Almost every problem we have with housing comes down to us restricting how much can be built so much that extremely low quality units are competitive. If you allowed 10 times as much construction, those units wouldn't be able to compete, because other builders would offer better units for the same price.
It seems like fewer restrictions would mean more garbage getting built.
Housing crisis is just a result of increasing income inequality and the resulting real estate investment craze. The population of America (real demand) did not suddenly double at any state/city. Rich have become so much richer that can afford bidding wars at unattainable prices. They can buy investment homes and be cashflow negative for decades in anticipation of the increased market bidding prices. Of course they op…
This seems like it contributes to the problem, but doesn't feel like the root cause at all. Every homeowner, not just the ultra wealthy, has an incentive to oppose new housing. (Though in many metros any homeowner is automatically wealthy by some definition). The lack of supply seems like the core issue here.
Mamdani - rent control. Dean Preston - NIMBY. UK Greens Party - NIMBY. Australian Greens Party - NIMBY. Explain?
In the last election, Australia's Green Party was the only party whose housing plan involves actually building homes. The major parties went with throwing more money at the problem.
Talk vs action. The Australian Greens opposed Australia's build-to-rent legislation. They didn't oppose the entire legislation. They opposed the one part of the legislation that would have helped the problem.
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…
You're claiming that your idea of 'X' is true, and for evidence of this, you're linking to a site that was created by people whose mission is to advocate for the idea of X. Am I likely to be getting an impartial view of the situation from a source which solely exists to push X-related messaging? Is such a group/site really going to give a fair shake to other theories Y and Z, or to conflicting data?
I care about fixing the housing shortage in the city I live in. I spend hundreds of hours as a volunteer, see a lot and read a lot. I'm pointing out what I see on the ground doing the work. And what I see is NIMBYs, not institutional investors or RealPage or 'foreigners' or whatever else the bogeyman du jour is.
If I were convinced the problem lay elsewhere, I would focus on that, because I don't have anything invested in the problem being a specific thing.
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…
You are touting "call up the authorities" and shitting sitting down and talking face to face with authorities, which reads like a value judgement.
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…
>will buy the extra supply and rent to the poor.
The wealthy are generally monetarily shrewd, and building homes makes home ownership a worse investment. If there is a deluge of homes being built, the wealthy will take their money elsewhere. Being a landlord typically has ~10% annual return. Compared to just sticking money in the stock market, it's actually been worse as of late.
The goal of the wealthy isn't to make people suffer, it's to maximize their ROI.
That's right, and that's caused by restrictions on supply. Almost every problem we have with housing comes down to us restricting how much can be built so much that extremely low quality units are competitive. If you allowed 10 times as much construction, those units wouldn't be able to compete, because other builders would offer better units for the same price.
It seems like fewer restrictions would mean more garbage getting built.
More realistically: right now it can take years to get approval to build somewhere, only specific builds for specific places.
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.
Recognizing your frustration with reality's failure to adhere to the academic: the fact is that rent rates for corporate-owned units generally don't go down. At least, not in recent history. In the rare cases where cartel behavior doesn't work to cement rates, and owners have to respond somehow to market conditions in order to avoid cash-flow disruption, they will offer "specials" that lower the out-of-pocket cost, but not the on-paper rental rate, for a unit. Your oft-found "1 month free"-type deals (that are actually a monthly bill credit for the initial lease term). Upon renewal, your increase is based on that paper rate, not what you were actually paying.