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

501–510 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#501

Post by shazbotter »

gwd wrote: post #476
shazbotter wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governm…

Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?

Presumably because anti monopoly right is much less common? Or because the anti monopoly right is concerned with different aspects of monopoly?

If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#502

Post by __turbobrew__ »

aianus wrote: post #420
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would be fine with house sales incurring capital gains/losses. You are right, it is just another asset.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#503

Post by grafmax »

dlcarrier wrote: post #484
grafmax wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers are incentivized to build whatever units are most profitable, not what lowest income people need. More expensive units make more money. Besides that, land and construction are both limited resources that constrain developers ability to “flood the market with small, high density units.” For example in high-land-value urban areas, developers need to build expensive units to be able to make a profit.

Yes, developers are incentivized to build whatever units are most profitable, but the price per square foot is much higher for small units than for large units, so without regulations prohibiting high-density projects, you'll end up with far more units for a given amount of resources. Instead of building 20 units of 2,000 sq ft, if allowed a developer could instead build 40 units of 1,000 sq ft, for a similar cost, a…

It’s more than just extra fixtures and interior walls but bathrooms, kitchens, plumbing, and HVAC - some of the most expensive parts of a build. For example if a developer has 4,000 square foot of land, and it costs $1.6 million to build 4 units selling at $2.4 million total - vs costing $1.2 million to build a luxury unit selling at $2.2 million, they will build the single luxury unit. The overall price for the construction is lower, the price per square foot is lower, but they make more profit.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#504

Post by lll-o-lll »

littlestymaar wrote: post #481
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…

> Excessive regulation is 90% of it. If it was, then the housing price would be correlated with the level of regulation, but it's not (housing less dense places is always cheaper than housing in big cities, even if you compare the most heavily regulated place on earth with the least regulated big city in the world. > Here's how a rational market works. A rational market made from human is as realistic as “dry water”.…

No. The key issue is just the rise and rise of inequality. As more money funnels to the top (thanks covid) the top buy more of the available assets leading to asset inflation.

Nothing will reverse this other than a tax on wealth. Tax wealth, not income.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#505

Post by ponector »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #35

There is an incredibly large lobby group who is fully invested in house prices rising or at least not falling, namely homeowners. and since most politicians at a high level usually own one or more houses, they are fully invested in it as well.

Falling prices are bad for economy. Lending brokers, construction companies, material suppliers - all will be hurt if price falls.

The best solution in my perspective is to have stagnant housing prices so eventually general inflation will make housing cheaper.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#506

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#507

Post by mytailorisrich »

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…

> resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets

The economy is too complex to be planned in details and such attempts at control have failed again and again.

I think some people also miss that, crucially, the market is not an external force, it is just the aggregate of each individual's need, decision, and desires. SO in a way a working market is as free and democratic as can be.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#508

Post by ImHereToVote »

imgabe wrote: post #463
shazbotter wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Renting it still increases the housing supply, someone can live there. I doubt there is any significant amount of housing that is just bought and left vacant. Why would you do that? It’s a stupid and expensive place to park money. You have to pay taxes, possibly condo/co-op/HOA fees, pay someone to do maintenance and keep out squatters, pay transaction costs both buying and selling, it can’t be sold quickly. Why woul…

Banks will not loan you money to put it into the S&P. The wealthy generate money by generating credit in part.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#509

Post by willis936 »

tptacek wrote: post #325
didibus wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

That's what she said.

In the "he said, she said".

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#510

Post by ozgrakkurt »

gwd wrote: post #476
shazbotter wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governm…

Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?

Tbh classification that makes most sense is wealth level.

Ultra rich and very rich and rich and upper middle class and ..

Post reply on HN