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

601–610 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#601

Post by hobs »

joenot443 wrote: post #554
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…

It's a shame to let two words color your opinion on an entire piece like that; I found it to be really compelling. Your last paragraph is a bit confusing; is it your position that Derek's lying? Which quote did you think was inaccurate? Or are you specifically concerned with his rhetoric?

Two words that were repeated at least a half dozen times and used as the framing for the article. I literally went and looked at past articles to see how much this framing was used (and it wasn't) because when you use this framing you are literally appealing to tribalism and usually that comes with a LOT of other baggage.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#602

Post by andriamanitra »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #210
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…

Piketty logic assumes infinite demand. Housing demand is very large, large enough to seem infinite when North American cities have spend 100 years banning every form of housing imaginable except the single family house, but it is not actually infinite. If Piketty was correct, then inflation adjusted housing cost per sqft floor would always go up everywhere all the time. But we see dramatic differences in different pe…

Just off the top of my head I can think of plenty of functional reasons why residential floor space cannot be analogous to cars.

Most importantly location matters. Space and buildings are not something that you can easily ship from one market to another to balance supply and demand. Space is inherently limited and replacing existing buildings with new more efficient ones is also problematic when you have people happily living in those old buildings, especially in high demand areas. Construction work takes time and in the meanwhile the displaced families will create even more demand.

There are practical limits on how densely you can pack floor space before it becomes prohibitively expensive, unsafe, or simply impractical. As you build higher the costs grow exponentially while the livable space per floor keeps decreasing due to the tapered shape of the building and need for larger structural core and more elevators. Above certain height you will be forced to target wealthier residents which means either offices or large luxury apartments that are anything but space efficient.

Construction is extremely capital intensive. A building takes a large upfront investment, and it takes a long time for it to pay off. With cars the cost of making more is marginal once you have an assembly line in place so it's significantly easier to re-invest profits into ramping up production.

Renting real estate makes more sense than renting automobiles because real estate is more expensive, less liquid, and better at holding its value over time. Owning a house is more difficult even when it would make financial sense to do so (not everyone can get a mortgage, or commit to living in the same city for an extended period of time).

> for better or worse we have chosen to place almost no limits on the quantity and density of cars

Even worse, most places have chosen to place a lower limit on the quantity and density of cars through parking mandates. It is absolutely insane that we are still wasting space on parking even in densely populated urban centers where it's impossible to accommodate everyone commuting by car.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#603

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

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.

> namely homeowners

I'm a homeowner and rising house prices are terrible for me. Property taxes have doubled, and the prospect of switching neighborhoods (as one might consider doing for work, school, or other reasons) feels off the table given the high costs involved in the transaction, since agent fees are a percentage of the sale.

But some homeowners are to blame, at the civic level, where those who are happy with the way things are reinforce the roadblocks against affordable housing. Minimum lot sizes and anti-apartment legislation dissuade the pesky low-income riff-raff from moving in.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#604

Post by lanfeust6 »

woooooo wrote: post #307
lanfeust6 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People on the left feel that we need to be speaking to economic problems that regular people face. Housing is that. This just sounds like you want populist things and the outcome doesn't matter. Like price controls and tariffs.

Its about the message. Centering the message on something that has indirect, timelagged effects and isnt even actionable at the federal level is terrible messaging strategy for the national party. "The dairy industry ran ads saying milk was good for you for 20 years and sales went down. Then they tried 'got milk' and sales went up" https://youtu.be/keCwRdbwNQY?si=kc14Ms7ECxglNgbl

"Build more" is direct and actionable. Regulatory reform is only one dimension.

Up north, Carney ran on a platform of building 500k homes annually, approx double the rate of housing starts. That's direct and done at the federal level, with billions in financing. It's impossible to be less timelagged than that by way of policy. So-called "affordable housing" qua government funding development (price controls after the fact notwithstanding) still entails hoop jumping and waiting for approvals, they don't spring up the next day.

The effects of zoning reform where they're implemented are reflected quickly as well. See: Minneapolis.

The general trend I see is that the left attacks the "Abundance agenda" without having read about it. Either that or the fact that it isn't just about market solutions is deliberately ignored.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#605

Post by LargeWu »

grafmax wrote: post #467
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…

Abundance YIMBYism has many shortcomings. It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement, the slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing, or the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities. Journalistic ideologues deserve little praise for dismantling the weakest counterarguments of their opponents while ignoring core criticisms.

Abundance YIMBYism in housing decreases gentrification. Gentrification happens when the only housing that is affordable is in low-income neighborhoods. If there is plenty of housing supply throughout a city, the demand for those low-income neighborhoods is lower.

Nothing in the Abundance agenda states that direct public housing is bad, per se. The argument is that what we need is more housing, and the only realistic way for that to happen is to make housing easier and cheaper to build, typically by easing zoning restrictions and other things like parking minimums that drive up costs.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#606

Post by banku_brougham »

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 sense the labelling is a tell of sorts. As to the critique, I think the focus on homebuilder corporate profits leaves out important parts of the ecosystem. As example: Observing the only profitablity of Toys R Us as it collapsed would mislead you as to the very profitable exploit that KKR and Bain executed.

Its a great article though, lots of facts to ponder. Would love a view of the next layer up into financial arrangements in those Texas housing markets.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#607

Post by forgotoldacc »

chii wrote: post #582
forgotoldacc wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't. But it's entering one now. New apartment prices in Tokyo are double what they were a few years ago. [1] The reason is foreign investors buying up loads of properties and sitting on them or turning them into AirBNBs. Locals can't afford them because wages aren't increasing. The concept of buying a property to resell it also isn't a thing amongst locals, so it's clueless rich people and corporations buying u…

> it's clueless rich people and corporations buying up properties and thinking they can flip them so the original owner got a nice priced deal out of the sale. Then, when said clueless rich person decides to sell in the future due to being unable to hold on to it any more, they make a loss (which is a gain for that future buyer, whoever they are). > after a few years of squeezing, locals may have no choice but to pay…

An AirBNB can be occupied for 2 days a week and make more than typical rent.

People who see homes as a mere unit of value meant to be priced on a global scale, and not something people should be living in, are simply inhuman. People in cities around the world are getting fed up with it, with justified protests and even riots happening.

Rentseeking has no limit. Unimaginably rich corporations can buy up every property and leave almost everyone homeless. They can take 90% of the paychecks of everyone else. And they'll say "well prices were artificially low before." No. Now they're artificially high. People in desperate situations pay more and take out debt because they have no other reasonable choice.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#608

Post by LargeWu »

grafmax wrote: post #593
niam wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement This is a puzzling critique because it seems very much in the wheelhouse of "abundance YIMBYism" to advocate for cheaper housing--an argued byproduct of which is that fewer people are displaced. It probably changes the problem statement of gentrification since, if housing is abundant and displacement is low, there's not much to distinguish "gentrificati…

This “abundance” ideology which aims to influence Democratic policy promotes YIMBYism to address housing shortages by deregulating construction. It’s this claimed benefit I’m criticizing. Public housing does address this issue, which is why I bring it up. Similarly, gentrification is enabled by this narrow focus on YIMBYism. Upzoning increases land value. Developers build profitable market rate houses there. This inc…

"Upzoning increases land value. Developers build profitable market rate houses there"

Unless you are upzoning ONLY in low-income neighborhoods, this doesn't add up. The assumption is that upzoning makes development more attractive. But this would apply to the entire city, and would therefore increase housing supply outside those low-income neighborhoods as well, which actually reduces the propensity for displacement.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#609

Post by jeromegv »

grafmax wrote: post #593
niam wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement This is a puzzling critique because it seems very much in the wheelhouse of "abundance YIMBYism" to advocate for cheaper housing--an argued byproduct of which is that fewer people are displaced. It probably changes the problem statement of gentrification since, if housing is abundant and displacement is low, there's not much to distinguish "gentrificati…

This “abundance” ideology which aims to influence Democratic policy promotes YIMBYism to address housing shortages by deregulating construction. It’s this claimed benefit I’m criticizing. Public housing does address this issue, which is why I bring it up. Similarly, gentrification is enabled by this narrow focus on YIMBYism. Upzoning increases land value. Developers build profitable market rate houses there. This inc…

You are arguing as if buildling more make things worse, when in fact, this is not the case. The opposite of buildling more is building less. Building less will increase existing price a lot more on an existing neighborhood than building a new buildling will ever do.

When there's not enough housing for people to live in, people start competing on rent and bidding wars on purchases, this drives price very fast.

That's why you have to build more. To avoid the biggest issue which is a housing shortage.

Is that the ONLY solution? Of course not! Public housing is great. But the same things that prevent YIMBY policies is the same thing that prevents public housing to be built. When you advocate for more zoning to prevent new condos in your neighborhood, it's not just new condos at market price that will be prevented, it's a whole range of housing.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#610

Post by tvier »

wilkommen wrote: post #587

Monopolistic activity and corporate consolidation are driving up prices in many industries in the United States. Why wouldn't corporate consolidation be a major factor in driving up housing prices, like it is in so many other sectors? I am suspicious of journalists like Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein because their solutions seem to punch down on municipal governments and homeowners instead of punching up at our nation…

This opinion sets up corporate consolidation as the cause of all issue in the US. I don't think it makes sense for that to be the null hypothesis that needs to be disproven.

For this specific issue, homebuilding, and construction in general, are very regional businesses. There just aren't a few giant homebuilders controlling the industry across the nation.

There are certainly some antitrust issues with rentals, but they don't seem to be nearly as widespread as the housing issue in general.

I don't think the punching down vs up lense is a particularly effective way to analyz this issue. Nor do I think its easy to figure out who's "down" and who's "up".

Post reply on HN