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

431–440 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#431

Post by tdeck »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #358
cocaclub wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

Recent history has been corporate rents not decreasing amid tight supply, the question being asked repeatedly (and repeatedly not answered) in this thread is “how exactly would landlords continue seeking high rents if housing were no longer scarce?” The only answer so far has been “by buying up the supply and renting it out” which completely ignores the obvious fact that renting out housing may reduce the supply of p…

Not a direct response but just a follow up question. I'm curious how much surplus supply folks think there needs to be in such a scenario. We've seen that landlords are willing to hold units vacant in order to keep their property values up and avoid renting out at a lower price. At what point does thw math say that should collapse? 10% vacancy? 15%? 30%?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#432

Post by reliabilityguy »

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…

So why are rents falling in Austin for multiple years in a row?

Why did the wealthy simple didn’t buy all of it to extort more rent?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#433

Post by athrun »

dragonwriter wrote: post #381
athrun wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're just applying somewhat arbitrary purity rules to what falls into the "leftist" bucket or not. I believe that for most people "leftists" means "on the left side of the political spectrum", and so, in the US, it would be a strict superset of democrats & Liberals. But for you, it sounds like it's only subset of these, based on some criteria you haven't made explicit. Fair enough, but that's a somewhat…

No, that's not what “leftist" generally means, it means adherence to any of a broad grouping of anti-capitalist ideologies (the more widely recognizable being the various forms of socialism and communism). It overlaps a little bit with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the US, but beyond that is mostly outside of the US major party system. The only people who use “leftist" to describe a superset of the…

I think you're injecting your personal views into the definition, which don't align with the common meaning of the word.

Here's the definition of the word taken from macOS's built-in dictionary (New Oxford American Dictionary):

> leftist, noun: a person who has left-wing political views or supports left-wing policies.

> left-wing, noun: the section of a political party or system that advocates for greater social and economic equality, and typically favors socially liberal ideas; the liberal or progressive group or section

Anti-capitalist thought represents a subset, but is certainly not the sole marker of left-wing political thought.

Now, my _personal_ take on this is that western left-wing thinking and liberalism (in the moral philosophical sense) are deeply intertwined (given the Enlightenment and its values), but anti-capitalist thought is deeply illiberal in nature. It is this fundamental contradiction that leads to permanent infighting within the left-wing spectrum.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#434

Post by meowface »

moneycantbuy wrote: post #385

Gary's Economics claims wealth inequality is at the root of housing unaffordability. Basically as wealth concentration grows, the ultra-rich bid up the assets. See the price of gold doubling in the past few years. Government stimulus is also captured by the richest. It's also a global phenomenon, i.e., every major city is now unaffordable for most people. https://youtu.be/BTlUyS-T-_4?si=P0mdHxtq1F7DV4jo

I know very little about economics so I can only parrot what I've heard from others but the consensus from everyone I've personally heard talk about Gary - not just Abundists - is that he's a crank when it comes to economics.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#435

Post by TFYS »

999900000999 wrote: post #352

Excessive regulation is 90% of it. Here's how a rational market works. If I build an apartment complex, eventually those apartments will get older and more affordable. And even before that upper middle class folks will move in, freeing up their previous homes. But that's not how many in local governments see it. So you have affordable housing quotas on new developments. You have developers building units for the home…

> Here's how a rational market works.

Might regulations be the result of these "rational markets"? After all, if I invest a lot of money to build apartments, I might want to protect that investment by lobbying for regulations to make it harder for competitors, increasing the value of my investment. Or if I buy an apartment, I might want to prevent others from ruining my view, prevent noise, etc. All completely rational.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#436

Post by shazbotter »

imgabe wrote: post #391
moneycantbuy wrote: post #385

Gary's Economics claims wealth inequality is at the root of housing unaffordability. Basically as wealth concentration grows, the ultra-rich bid up the assets. See the price of gold doubling in the past few years. Government stimulus is also captured by the richest. It's also a global phenomenon, i.e., every major city is now unaffordable for most people. https://youtu.be/BTlUyS-T-_4?si=P0mdHxtq1F7DV4jo

This doesn't make sense. Each wealthy family can only live in one house at a time. Yes, they might have multiple homes, but a billionaire having a luxury vacation home in Lake Tahoe or a penthouse in Manhattan are not the reason housing is unaffordable. The type of home a billionaire would buy would never be affordable anyway.

You assume they are buying homes to live in. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. Maybe they buy real estate because it's a useful part of a portfolio. They can rent it or just sit on it and sell it later.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#437

Post by jondwillis »

asta123 wrote: post #348

In Australia most of the narrative on the housing affordability crisis is around lack of supply and nimbyism. In the meantime Melbourne has dropped to 4th most expensive city in the country and becoming more affordable. Most likely reason - land tax change in that state which is turning off accumulating multiple properties through investment and investors turning to other states where prices are still going up. So, w…

It’s not a coincidence that many abundists see nothing wrong with rent-seeking. They’re incentivized by it. Rent-seeking has corrupted market forces. Mao 2.0 will arrive eventually.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#438

Post by nikanj »

imgabe wrote: post #372
999900000999 wrote: post #352

Excessive regulation is 90% of it. Here's how a rational market works. If I build an apartment complex, eventually those apartments will get older and more affordable. And even before that upper middle class folks will move in, freeing up their previous homes. But that's not how many in local governments see it. So you have affordable housing quotas on new developments. You have developers building units for the home…

For years in Washington DC there was one single crank who went to every community engagement meeting and prevented hundreds of units of housing from getting built.

Every avenue of life has it’s weirdoes, but why have we as a society decided a single weirdo can stop a hundred homes from being built?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#439

Post by shazbotter »

didibus wrote: post #287

I just couldn't keep reading with the constant "antitrust left" being refered to on every sentence. The issue, is that for me, the reader, it framed the piece as the author seemingly positioning themselves as the "the other side", the one that knows best and isn't those "antitrust left". It felt like it was creating a strawman and was engaging in tribal signaling. And when you consider the rest of the piece was them…

I'm about as far left as you can be, as a syndicalist anarchist, and I definitely perceived a bit of what you described. But I'm not super worried about it because he didn't say "the left", but rather a specific lefty position.

But also, the left isn't uniform on housing policy. Some folks want anti trust and limited capital ownership. Some folks want to de commodify housing. Some folks want all housing to be government built and owned. The left is a very diverse place (and the joke is no one hates leftists more than other leftists).

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#440

Post by reliabilityguy »

gopher_space wrote: post #166
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?

Collusion using online management services to fix prices across a region. I think Washington State is working on legislation around rental services due to this already being a problem in the Seattle area. “Extra supply” is added to the portfolio containing housing they’ve already purchased. They own part of “existing supply” too.

Why this collusion doesn’t happen in Austin where rents are falling 2 years in a row?
Post reply on HN