The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#801

Post by LargeWu » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 4:34 PM UTC

antifa wrote: post #792

LargeWu wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dogmatic among the left that "market based solutions are bad". And because Abundance embraces market solutions, it must therefore be bad too. Basically, all the arguments I've seen against Abundance tend either towards the ideological, or irrelevant. I tend to see very little empirical arguments.

No, the problem is when the markets are freer than the people.

I don't disagree with that. I think economic power getting concentrated in a relatively small number of hands is unequivocally bad.

That said, the Abundance argument for building more housing is that in many local housing markets, the pendulum has swung too far the other way in ways that are well-meaning but ultimately counterproductive. This very article makes the case that oligopolistic economic power is not the reason for unaffordable housing.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#802

Post by kortilla » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 5:26 PM UTC

regularization wrote: post #257

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…

> 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. Matthew Stoller called the people Derek Thompson called, and some said Derek had misrepresented their opinions. So shoe lea…

That didn’t age well. Based on the response it sounded like he made it up whole cloth or just completely ignored big portions of what the people he called said?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#803

Post by kortilla » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 5:29 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #318

tptacek wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It collapsed.

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…

No, this article is saying that the sources are saying they never supported the original thing.

It’s a proof by falsification. It’s not saying necessarily that there isn’t some monopoly builder issue somewhere. It’s saying the current movement is based on complete bullshit.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#804

Post by h2zizzle » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 5:31 PM UTC

talkingtab wrote: post #611

Fish Tank Thinking is where your thinking is so constrained by some artificial walls that you cannot actually ... well actually think. It is the wages stupid. Let me repeat that. It is the wages stupid. What happens when a society is so brain washed that it cannot even consider that if you don't pay people they can't afford housing. Or cars. Or medical care. Or food. If you actually have some desire to consider the p…

Because if you fix wages, you fix inequality, and inequality is the entire goal of this coup.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#805

Post by kortilla » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 5:33 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #509

tptacek wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He said they said, so I talked to them, and they said otherwise".

That's what she said. In the "he said, she said".

No it’s not. “He said, she said” applies to two people talking about an event and there is no root source of truth.

In this case there are direct researchers and the researchers are saying their work is being misrepresented.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#806

Post by Braxton1980 » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

lanfeust6 wrote: post #647

Braxton1980 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

,"having talked themselves into the nonsense belief that building fewer homes makes people more money." Can you show me an example of someone pushing this?

keep reading along in the comments, I've come across an example already

So people in comments are pushing it? That's not meaningful. I can find a Republican who pushes pedophilia would you act against Republicans because of that?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#807

Post by didibus » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #805

willis936 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what she said. In the "he said, she said".

No it’s not. “He said, she said” applies to two people talking about an event and there is no root source of truth. In this case there are direct researchers and the researchers are saying their work is being misrepresented.

The researchers wrote neither of the articles.

Two people are claiming the researchers say/mean different things.

In both cases you have no access to what the researchers have actually told either.

So yes, you have two people talking about an event (their interaction/reading of some research and the researchers).

Both are telling you that the research and researchers prove their point of view.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#808

Post by tomrod » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #800

tomrod wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people don't enjoy paying taxes if they perceived they should go down.

The cost of running a city is largely independent of house prices, so if the real estate market crashes there is no getting around that municipalities need to increase tax rates to meet their cashflow needs. People may not like that they feel they are getting ripped off, but the existing infrastructure has relatively fixed ongoing costs to maintain.

Oh absolutely, but that ignores the political cost of doubling tax rates.

Better to not get into that mess to begin with. Strongtowns is a great resource for cities looking to be prudent financially.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#809

Post by Schiendelman » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 11:52 PM UTC

shazbotter wrote: post #450

crooked-v wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet action gets taken about the rent price fixing, but not about actually encouraging more building.

Seattle upzoned huge chunks of the city, allowed ADUs (now two adus are permitted on all lots), and removed single family zoning. All within the past five years. Last year, Seattle built 20% more houses than the highest of any of the previous ten years. (~13k units) And this year we're 11% above last year, so far. What about that is not "actually encouraging more building"? I'd say your data might need revising.

It's honestly not that much. I know it looks good when comparing to recent years, but it doesn't look as good when you look at regional numbers (the city limits don't matter much in a housing market) - and the number of ADUs you can build in the entire city in a year is lower than some single new apartment buildings. We aren't keeping up with demand, much less drawing down the likely hundreds of thousands (seriously) of units we need to allow.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#810

Post by Schiendelman » Sat, Aug 02, 2025, 11:54 PM UTC

kacesensitive wrote: post #347

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.

I mean by that logic wouldn't the cheap house just cost even less? What about housing prevents it from being a race to the bottom like every other product? Like yes a nice pair of boots costs more and you do get more value out of them compared to Amazon basics boots.. but far more people end up buying the cheap option because it's cheap and available.

When you say "like every other product" - if you're interested in me really answering your question seriously, give me an example product category. I usually use cell phones to demonstrate, but most major consumer products will do.