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

311–320 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#311

Post by energy123 »

ajkjk wrote: post #236
Schiendelman wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bundling all regulation into a single monolith is a classic mistake.

Some regulations are bad. Some regulations are good.

The abundance types do not want to remove good regulations, like structural integrity or fire safety regs.

They want to remove bad regulations, like parking minimums or building height limits.

Please understand this very important distinction.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#312

Post by didibus »

Most interesting proposal I heard on this topic, is that the solution to housing prices is to ban renting altogether.

It's so radical that it's almost impossible to predict if it would be better or worse. But at least it had the moral ground that rent is one of the last remnant of pre-capitalist lords and barons economies.

The idea being it would commoditize housing. Millions of units would now be for sale, prices would drop, tons of people would now be able to afford buying. Home builders would be incentivize to build nicer, cheaper, as the competition would move entirely to the selling/buying market.

It's radical for sure, but I've always found the thought experiment fascinating.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#313

Post by [deleted] »

pixl97 wrote: post #110
denimnerd42 wrote: post #84

i hope the next part of his article covers the zoning issues. because I'm certainly not seeing the zoning issues making the homes be on bigger lots or requiring things like 3 car garages? If anything the lots in new tract developments in dallas fort worth are smaller and have less land using features like they don't have alleys. and then in Dallas city limits any small slice of land that can possibly be used for new…

I feel lucky in the sense that I have both the physical ability and the skill to do almost all of my own maintenance myself. With what I saved on landscaping alone I was able to buy all the tools I needed for almost any project.

[deleted]

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#314

Post by whoknowsidont »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #206

Not surprising at all to hear that Matt Stoller got the economics of an antitrust issue wrong. I appreciate the attention he brings to the topic and his diligence in digging up stories but his own analysis is often just totally wrong. I don’t think he’s worth taking seriously as an analyst. Maybe as a reporter at best.

>Not surprising at all to hear that Matt Stoller got the economics of an antitrust issue wrong.

I mean he didn't. The article is legitimately straw-manning. All of his claims are not present in the source article.

It's a disgusting, sleazy piece of journalism.

So no, you didn't hear he got it wrong. You were lied to by the author.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#315

Post by whoknowsidont »

jjk166 wrote: post #191

> So, Dallas doesn’t meet Quintero’s oligopoly threshold. Now let’s consider the rest of the country. I tracked down a complete listing of the country’s 50 largest homebuilding markets, from #1 Dallas to #50 Cincinnati. How many meet Quintero’s first oligopoly threshold (two companies = 90 percent of the market)? Zero out of 50. And how many meet his second threshold (six companies = 90 percent of the market)? One: C…

>spends entire article cherry picking evidence in an attempt to discredit one article specifically to advance a competing narrative.

Worse than that. He's lying about what the article claims. Straw-man is too generous of a term, he's blatantly just making shit up.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#317

Post by whoknowsidont »

pembrook wrote: post #195

While we’re debunking that can we debunk the weird leftist conspiracy theories around index fund companies like Blackrock “buying up all the residential homes.” Yes, the largest index fund company that sells investment products that allow people to invest in indexes (entire markets) is going to defacto be a custodian on holdings across the entire economy, including homes. Operating the funds offered in your 401k does…

>While we’re debunking

The entire article is just blatantly lying about what the source article says lol.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#318

Post by didibus »

tptacek wrote: post #302
didibus wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed Did it collapse, or he simply created another dubious narrative to replace the previous one?

It collapsed.

I assume I'm somewhat impartial, I don't know this author, it's the first time I hear of the "antitrust left" or of the argument that big monopoly builder purposely keep the market scarce to increase prices. And it's not an issue that I hold a strong opinion about.

The way the piece reads to me is a "He said, She Said". And I have to choose whose word I trust.

Two articles, both claim to have spoken to expert sources, both claim the expert have told them X and Y. One says the expert told them things that corroborates the idea of the "antitrust left", and the other claims the sources actually disagreed with it.

So my personal take is that both appear untrustworthy and biased, pushing their own distorted narrative.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#319

Post by __turbobrew__ »

TJSomething wrote: post #300
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property taxes are relatively independent from the absolute value of the property. Only the relative value of a property to other properties in municipality determines property taxes.

In Nevada, it's a percentage (approximately 0.5%, varying from city to city and with other conditions, like commercial usage) of its assessed value, which is 35% of taxable value. Taxable value is the market value of the bare land plus the replacement cost for all improvements on the land, less depreciation.

Ok, but if real estate prices half the city can just double the tax from 0.5% to 1%? Correct?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#320

Post by whoknowsidont »

tptacek wrote: post #83
nielsbot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Explain the economics of keeping units vacant in the face of increasing supply.

Maybe read the referenced article?
Post reply on HN