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

671–680 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#671

Post by llbbdd »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #567
bboygravity wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fascinating to me that people would pay to read obvious political propaganda. I get that the state-sponsored "news" in many EU countries is heavily politically coloured, but why would something like NYT be if they have paying subscribers? I never did the research, but I'm guessing they must have huge additional streams of income besides payments from readers?

It's a form of tithing. You give to the propagandists providing the slant you align with, even if they're wealthy billionaires. It's been common for belief communities for centuries. Poor people do it for access to wealthy individuals or as a form of gambling on the promises of the propaganda, and wealthy individuals, when they give, are also doing so for influence (access to poor people en masse). Its propaganda all…

It's just called exchanging money for goods and services. When did HN contract reddit's obsession with billionaires in every thread?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#672

Post by [deleted] »

ramchip wrote: post #516
podgorniy wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excessive regulation is 90% of it. Housing crisis is observed in almost all what is called "first world" (europe, japan, usa). I believe that 90% of the issue is more global than a regulation.

Japan doesn't have a housing crisis. I'm in a great location in Tokyo, the rent is under $750/month, and it's been the same for the decade+ I've been in this specific place. If there's a problem, it's too many empty homes in aging rural areas. Cities are doing just fine, even with a growing population in Tokyo.

[deleted]

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#673

Post by potato3732842 »

oarla wrote: post #162
spankalee wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the evidence that wealth inequality is the root cause of housing shortage, as opposed to say, the real and factual lack of building? Even if the wealthy did buy up extra supply to rent out, that would only mean increased supply of rentals, which would lower rents.

Not commenting on the ethical side of it, in many instances rentals are just a side income, the real value is in the increasing price of the house due to demand outpacing supply. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37855625 for past discussion on this.

Demand is out pacing supply because while the greatest and silent generation was happy to retire on stonks, pensions and bonds the boomers all went out and bought more and more homes and condos and whatnot for rental income.

It used to be that rental housing was either owner occupied, like a landlord living on one side of a duplex or it was a big commercial investment. The current trend of every idiot having their starter house from 20yr ago listed as an airBnB wasn't a thing back then.

So basically we "need" way more housing per capita now so that they can all have their stupid little side gigs.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#674

Post by screye »

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.

> slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing, or the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities

Your claims are unsubstantiated. I've only ever seen vague critiques by anti-abundance commentators. If you think YIMBY is wrong, then be specific in your criticisms. There is nothing special about direct public housing. It is housing built by the govt. The govt gets caught between regulations, is slower, wasteful & pays higher wages to workers. It's market rate housing but worse in every way. Chicago [1] is contemporary proof that Govt. can't build housing.

On the other hand, YIMBY Austin [2] has seen slower rent growth despite rapid migration over the last decade.

> gentrification and displacement

You realize this is a home ownership problem right ?

YIMBY doesn't cause gentrification. It is a balm to reduce the pain of inevitable gentrification. A neighborhood gentrifies because increased economic opportunity draws new transplants in. If housing supply is limited, then existing residents are going to get priced out one way or another. As a neighborhood starts to gentrify, YIMBY redevelopment projects roll in & existing landowners see large windfalls. It's great if you own. Gentrification is only bad if you rent. Even then, YIMBY redevelopment projects increase housing supply, giving locals an option to move to home ownership and reduce the magnitude of rent spikes. It curbs the supply crunch.

Anti-abundance people don't have a coherent alternative other than rent control. Rent control has an unbeaten track record of failure in the western world. Either, prices diverge [3] and create a rental class system between new tenants and old residents. Or, they turn dilapidated like America's famous inner-city 'projects'.

There are 2 ways to look at it: the empathetic lens vs the pragmatic lens.

We've looked through the empathetic lens for the existing residents. But, from a pragmatic lens, why do they deserve to live exactly where they want to ? Yes, A city should provide sufficient housing to earning families within its boundaries. But, why should a person deserve to live on a specific block over another ? The existing renter had a choice to lock a spot down by buying it, and they didn't. Now, the renter is owed no such right. The newcomer and the old renter both have a valid claim to reside on the land, and rent control takes an unequal stance by favoring the older renter over the newcomer. Even in its best rendition, rent control is discriminatory. And rent control's best rendition lives in the same realm as Santa Claus or True Communism, called 'things that never happen'. At least YIMBYism buys time and opportunity for the older renter to figure out their next move.(opportunity to buy new housing, time because rents creep up slower)

[1] https://citythatworks.substack.com/p/construction-costs-for-...

[2] https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-with-the-la...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/30/rents-...

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#675

Post by Matticus_Rex »

NewJazz wrote: post #413
tptacek wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Musharbash's argument, however, is dependent on the exercise of oligopoly power (whether he admits that or not, and given that he's long argued that the oligopoly is present...), and there's no evidence of it!

He tries to twist Lambert's words to say he's only saying there's no evidence of builders throttling at a national scale, thereby leaving room for his argument that it's happening in particular markets (https://x.com/musharbash_b/status/1951133245342404888). The only problem? Lambert clearly isn't specifying a national scale when he says "US," because he then continues by providing an explanation for the local weakening seen in some metros.

Musharbash seems smart enough to understand that, which leaves intentional misrepresentation. He's doing damage control, and hoping to wave his hands hard enough that it isn't noticed.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#676

Post by thaumasiotes »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #449
whatshisface wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the NYT could sell those shares at the market price, they'd have been able to sell them to public markets. The only reason they'd possibly have to transacting with an individual is if there was something about the deal that exceeded the debt or equity financing available publicly.

What shares are you talking about? Debt != shares

From wikipedia:

> Slim's investments in the company included large purchases of Class A shares in 2011, when he increased his stake in the company to 8.1% of Class A shares,[43] and again in 2015, when he exercised stock options -- acquired as part of a repayment plan on the 2009 loan -- to purchase 15.9 million Class A shares, making him the largest shareholder.

[my emphasis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Company ]

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#677

Post by jollyllama »

waldohatesyou wrote: post #85
jerlam wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a much bigger group than homeowners. Banks don't want housing prices to fall, since then homeowners start foreclosing and then banks lose interest payments and own undesired property. Cities don't want housing prices to fall, since they were counting on money from developers and property taxes.

I don’t agree with this take, we’re overly simplifying the nature of housing here. It depends on the housing mix as well. If the vast majority of the pro-housing prices crowd is heavily invested in single family residential then they should favour widespread upzoning and deregulation of apartments because that would increase the value of their SFHs through two mechanisms: 1) presumably single family homes will be des…

But assuming that the upzoning and deregulation doesn't happen, isn't their calculation correct?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#678

Post by jajko »

simgt wrote: post #616
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…

My shallow experience of Japan tells me that if there's one country that can regulate the shit of the airbnb problem, it's this one. We're so used in the west to see properties as an asset that only appreciates that we've lost sight of what homes are meant to be. Meanwhile the whole Mediterranean coast is being bought by foreigners with the help of greedy local fucks. I've been told the Portuguese have it much worse…

Nothing vents off like a bit of class hate, doesnt it. Locals from your description act legally within the limits of the law, if you dont like situation change laws, thats the way for a change.

Everybody maximizes their profit and thinks first and foremost about themselves and only then about the rest. Case point - a better half of this forum works/worked for faangs and their variants who destroy privacy and more of whole mankind for the sake of profit for themselves, and even pat themselves in the back how effectively they helped the 'the goal'.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#679

Post by screye »

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…

If the problem is in our midst, we must acknowledge it.

Local boards in blue cities (California in particular) have blocked new housing for decades using every tool at their disposal. Places that lean left have anomalous rent growth. Places that lean left approve fewer new houses. Places that lean left have anomalously high building costs. This is a matter of written record. Embarrassingly, the only US city to buck this trend is Austin, a city in red-Texas known for a recent influx of radicalized right wingers.

> yuppies who want to defend their housing prices

Yuppies, but definition, are young professionals. They don't own houses, they rent. They are the ones paying the high rental costs as neighborhoods gentrify. They want more housing. The 35+ home owning population is the one that blocks new housing.

> I don't associate this position with leftism in any way

The leftist - YIMBY conflict shows up on 3 fronts.

First, Leftists have issues with the free-market. They reject market-housing solutions as a way to create new housing.

Second, Leftists like Govts and regulation. YIMBY wants less regulation, so they can maximize for space and price. Regulated Govt built housing is both more expensive and worse than what free markets already provide.

Third, and the most important, is a subtle accusation: "Leftists act just as selfish as everyone else, once they are the ones in power". Having come from an ex-socialist country, I have a deeply rooted belief in this accusation. Not that leftists are worse people, but that people are people, and systems should work around their imperfections rather than having expectations of ideological virtue.

The anti-trust left is a nice way to point a sub-section of the left which uses regulation, social outrage and critiques of free-market as a way to get personally beneficial outcomes, at the expense of the wider population. I understand - #NotAllLeftists. YIMBY & abundance advocates themselves have left-sympathies. But the anti-trust left is a non-trivial number and the conversation must start from acknowledging that they exist.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#680

Post by CPLX »

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 has nothing to do with journalism. Both sides of this argument are advocates for points of view.
Post reply on HN