Live data from Hacker News

The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

derekthompson.org

321–330 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Keep in mind: Klein and Thompson's political project is a plan to organize the Democrats. This is the crux of the opposition. It's not that leftists necessarily have a problem with zoning reform, I don't at least, its fine. It's that the "abundance" project is a play for control of the party by the same losers who gave us Biden and Kamala. People on the left feel that we need to be speaking to economic problems tha…

FWIW: Ezra Klein called for Biden to step down before most others and asked for a fast national convention (not Kamala). Broad brushstrokes are energy saving, but just incorrect.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#322
Quote: "I don’t see the value in discussing a “national” crisis in homebuilding oligopoly from which the 49 biggest metros are exempt."

I enjoyed most of this article, but it did slide into opinions periodically. This quote in particular stood out given the issues rural communities face regarding availability of competition in a lot of other services.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#323

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…

Long permitting processes also encourage construction of larger SFHs. The permitting cost is largely fixed whereas three profit margins scale with the value of the home which mostly scales with the size of the home

yes bigger houses to an extent are way more profitable because there is a somewhat linear relationship between sqft and value but houses have a lot of fixed cost. there's probably a sweet spot around 2500sqft in suburban/exurban Dallas Fort Worth to maximize the market for the house and still generate low $/sqft such that the guy building something bigger next tract over isn't crushing you on $/sqft.

that 2500sqft house is still $200-250/sqft way out in the middle of nowhere where the land doesn't really even factor in much.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been involved in a lot of discussions about "what is journalism? what do real journalists do?", and the best response I've heard was from Ian Betteridge (of Betteridge's Law fame), who told me "Journalists pick up the phone." It may have already dated as a pithy description, but the idea of literally calling[1] people to fact-check or dig deeper is a low bar that a surprising amount of current journalism doesn't…

> I know why people blame the internet, the drop in rewards for journalism, the pressures to churn out text, that has led to. But I'd also emphasise that it's a vocational skill that not everyone is built for, or trained to do. As someone both built for and trained to do it, I can tell you I'd be making at least US$150k/year less if I was still doing it. I wager I'd be short about $1.25M in career earnings through ju…

Urban primary school teachers get a pretty attractive comp package these days!

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"He said they said, so I talked to them, and they said otherwise".

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hold on. Take the first claim. Derek Thompson called the author of the paper who effectively said "no my paper does not support the claims made".

So either:

1. Derek Thompson is flat out lying

2. The author is wrong and confused, or

3. The critics are wrong

The critics haven't claimed to speak from the author to confirm their interpretation is correct. So to think the critics are right you have to think the convo is a lie or the author is muddled and confused.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#327
This is a very online oriented debate. Derek Thompson might hear mostly from left coded anti-trust types on twitter, but I really don't think that's the main opponent to abundance.

If you spend time in the individual communities where this battle happens, the voice of the classic NIMBY (worried about property values and crime) drowns out the left-NIMBYs that worry about "greedy developers" and gentrification. At least that's been my experience in West LA. Many of the less-online left critics eventually come around to realize that upzoning type solutions and public housing type solutions aren't actually in conflict with each other even if they disagree on relative priority and impact.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#328

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…

> The population of America (real demand) did not suddenly double at any state/city.

The population has literally doubled multiple times, and housing supply has not increased. There used to be significantly more units per capita.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#329
post #196
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…

> We're often so down on journalism on HN, and I believe a big part of that is we tend to read so much opinion and analysis and so little basic reporting. I think a large part of it is that major news organizations too often don't do this kind of reporting, and often just seem to chase the same hot button topics as the rest of the crowd over and over again. And even then, few really dive into the details. You're larg…

Links for the curious - DCCrimeFacts [0] and I assume the FAA case is Tracing Woodgrains [1], though I could be wrong

[0] https://dccrimefacts.substack.com/

[1] https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#330
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

10 years of 2% is a real value decrease of 20%. that would be amazing!
Post reply on HN