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

411–420 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#411

Post by verisimi »

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…

I agree - journalism isn't that hard - Derek Thompson does a good job here. There's lots of good journalism out there.

Still, probably more expensive that having ai write something, and it's not politically on point. Agendas aren't well-served by attempts to describe the truth!

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#412

Post by verisimi »

bnralt wrote: post #196
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…

> 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…

> 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.

The point of most media is to drive agendas, not uncover the truth. Doing proper reporting would create a problem and get in the way of what you want people to do.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#413

Post by NewJazz »

tptacek wrote: post #340
tptacek wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link? I'd love to read countervailing reporting.

I want to say something about Stoller bringing a knife to a gunfight but really this fight only required Thompson to have a telephone. https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1951083395146231957 What did Stoller think was going to happen? Calling people up on the phone is Thompson's entire schtick at this point.

Musharbash left a meaty reply in the thread:

In any event, my argument was also that three other factors — particularly financial policy changes starting in the 1980s that deprived small builders of bank capital, helped Wall Street to exert control over large builders and impose production discipline on them...

https://xcancel.com/DKThomp/status/1951089471501508766#m

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#414

Post by owenversteeg »

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…

>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.

The average article posted to HN is actually of far higher quality than the average newspaper article. Sit down and read many of the “big names” cover to cover. You’ll cry. Contrast them with the same newspaper twenty years ago and you’ll lose hope entirely.

I have a hypothesis. In the 2000s it became more common to Google things instead of asking people. For years, this worked out well, but today the quality of Google (and websites!) is terrible. Today we have an entire generation of journalists that know to do their research with the internet, and surprise, when your inputs are garbage, so are the outputs. The inputs are also homogenized content slop, so there aren’t any real different perspectives. Take any topic, say road construction or a controversial bill or new technology, and read articles about it twenty years ago and now. Twenty years ago you might see some really off the wall ideas - but now, all the articles will be the same. Left, right, whatever, nobody really has any new perspectives, they just have their specific bias projected onto the same universal set of 5 thoughts. If you’ve read one, you’ve read them all.

Back to this article, it seems well written and I have no bones to pick - but what the author did (pick up the phone and call people) would have been entirely unremarkable not long ago. The fact that we’re remarking on it now is an indication of how deeply fucked the profession is.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#415

Post by Tade0 »

spicyusername wrote: post #228
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…

What about wealth inequality as the root cause of housing shortage? Keep building. Eventually there are more houses than people who want to be in them, regardless of whether or not they're being rented or owned. When that happens you'll see the prices fall. After all, if nobody wants to rent your house, you'll either rent it for lower or sell it. If nobody wants to buy it, you'll lower the price. Ad nauseum.

China did that on a large scale, at one point using more concrete in three years than the US in the entire 20th century.

There's reportedly enough housing stock to house the population twice over, yet prices still only increased.

Where there's sufficient inequality, the country will run out of eligible land before the wealthy run out of money.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#416

Post by frollogaston »

Gigachad wrote: post #401
frollogaston wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose instead to allow younger people to buy homes, and if it were implemented, why would young people still want to buy a home under those rules?

I propose construction approvals be managed by a higher government level than the local council which has so far resulted in disastrous outcomes. At the state level, planning can be done for the benefit of the whole city. Entrenched groups of property owners holding inner city areas hostage won't be able to push young people to the outskirts where there is no PT, schools or facilities. Medium and high density buildin…

You're saying young people are pushed to outskirts, but it seems like you mean they can only buy there, and others are renting. Otherwise, there's no way boomers just occupy the entire main part of the city, there aren't that many of them.

So if you enabled them to buy the more desirable homes instead of merely renting, where in this are they actually benefiting from doing so?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#417

Post by munchler »

gboss wrote: post #406
munchler wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a large lobby group that is fully invested in building new houses, namely real estate developers, and since most politicians at a high level usually need large campaign contributions, they are fully invested in it as well.

This is not the problem. We should not castigate people who want to build homes and earn a rightful profit from that endeavor. The problem is the undemocratic process that is the town hearing. It is unreasonable to expect working families and young adults to attend week day, day time hearings to state their position on the construction of new homes or anything else for that matter. The atrocities of urban renewal by…

You want to let rich outsiders make decisions about what happens to a community instead of the people who live there, because... town hearings are undemocratic. All those annoying old people are just going to die anyway, so it's really best to ignore them.

I think I've heard everything now.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#418

Post by thaumasiotes »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #405
thaumasiotes wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Washington Post is also a public company (before 2013). In their 2009 filing, they state that the newspaper's revenue (in 2008) was 51% ads, with the other 49% not attributed. At that time operating expenses exceeded revenues by 25 million dollars, though this was not an immediate problem for them because they owned several other more profitable companies. By contrast, in that same year the New York Times announc…

Why are you looking at 2009? Is it because you think it fits your narrative? What happened in 2008 I wonder that may cause companies to be struggling? NYT is a profitable company with majority of their income coming from paid subscriptions. Does that answer your question about how they are different or do you wanna check their revenue split and financials in 1928 too? A business secured a loan from a billionaire afte…

I'm looking at 2009 because the claim above was that newspapers other than the New York Times, but not the New York Times, are subsidized by billionaires, and 2009 is the year that the New York Times had to beg for a subsidy from a billionaire. Was that not clear from my comment?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#419

Post by mgfist »

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…

You can just look at the empirical evidence. Where are homes being built? Primarily Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona. Where are they not being built? New York, California, Illinois.

Do with that information what you please.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#420

Post by aianus »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #192
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…

My gut feeling is that wealthy people buying up the housing stock to rent out is not actually as common just supply restrictions not meeting the demands of individuals. I used to live in Vancouver, and on my street almost all occupants were owners. But guess what, the number of houses on that street has not changes in 100 years, and the number of people who want to live in Vancouver has probably increased tenfold. Th…

Why not tax primary residences too? Why should housing hoarders pay no tax when someone who invests in a productive business or hoards mostly useless shiny metals has to pay capital gains tax?
Post reply on HN