Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents • Hacker News Board

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#611

Post by pydry » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:23 AM UTC

hahahacorn wrote: post #386

bluegatty wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control is one of the best ideas, and it may be a civilizational, foundational idea. Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, and the foundation of rent-seeking and wealth asymmetry. If you look at even the Monarchs of long past - it wasn't their 'titles' that made them powerful - it was the economic rent that came along with the land ownership. Even in more open market economies, property is…

It would be far more efficient to simply tax away all rent collected from land instead of grossly warping markets and creating terrible incentives for all involved. The reason is that you can’t produce more land. Fixed supply will also warp economic markets and create terrible incentives (land speculation). If you want the best solution, you implement a land value tax. If you want the 2nd best solution, tax property…

Rent control doesnt change the underlying fundamentals but it inhibits the ability of the ownership class from exploiting the working class based upon those fundamentals.

It will also provide immediate relief for struggling citizens, whereas a LVT or taxing property will take time to actually drive construction which will push down rents.

It's something local governments often have the authority to implement, unlike LVT.

A little mentioned fact: the highest rate of house building in new york (FAR FAR higher than today) coincided with by far the STRICTEST rent controls. Something to ponder next time somebody tells you that rent controls just stops homes from being built.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#612

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:23 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #609

scoofy wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing where? Is housing for me in Malibu a human right? There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing. I'm honestly trying to take this seriously, but I really can't square the problem of location and utility. On of the reasons why West Virginia has such a low homeless rate is just that mobile homes and manufactured housing is pretty much legal in many areas around the state. One of the reasons wh…

> There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing. What are the employment options there? If I move to a cheap house somewhere where there are no jobs for me, I just moved somewhere where I cant afford.

You can always work full remote. Or maybe you're an elderly retiree.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#613

Post by anovikov » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:24 AM UTC

Is it simply normal supply and demand? They had massive surge of prices that made construction more profitable so after a time lag, building boom happened, bringing prices back to the average long-term trend. If some place becomes 'affordable', its economy suffers because good people don't like living in places where housing is affordable - they move out.

Hey, here's a good way to improve 'housing affordability' locally: dumb down schools. People with cash will move out and prices will fall. Something suggests me it's not the solution really lol.

Affordability is relative. System always balances itself on the level that barely over 50% of people can afford housing (because it's a democracy). There's no fixing to it unless one abolishes either democracy (so no one cares what people want and developers have a free roll building as much as they want), or market economy (when the Party provides housing as it pleases).

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#614

Post by bo0tzz » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:24 AM UTC

kakacik wrote: post #589

unethical_ban wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some would say that housing is a right (while acknowledging the need for housing construction and its workers and supplies to be paid for) and that it should be funded somehow, even if the free marker profit becomes negative during certain periods. Like any market manipulation, the question then would be how to intervene to keep housing construction going when construction isn't profitable, while not fomenting corrup…

... but your own housing isn't any form of basic human right, its a luxury all around the world and always has been. Now I completely understand folks who come out of uni and see the salaries (sans faangs and generally devs and few other lucky positions), the prices and the emotions of missing out come easily. But it isn't a right, just because you would like it. Same as I don't have a right to a car at price I would…

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1:

> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#615

Post by cyberax » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:27 AM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #565

cyberax wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, think about it. You got more people into the place. Now more employers move in, as they have access to a bigger pool of employees. What's next? Put yourself into the shoes of a real estate developer.

Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy. The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily. But the goal is to not reduce is permanently. The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.

> Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.

No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.

That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble, while beautiful traditional houses decay into dust just 3-4 hours away.

> The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily.

Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).

Again, this is simple observable truth.

> The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.

Yeah. The goal is social engineering to force people into shoebox-sized apartments, to be ruled by their benevolent masters.

That's also why we're getting a global pushback against it.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#616

Post by crystaln » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:28 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #221

pclowes wrote: post #176

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just: Build more housing. Keep law and order. No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea. Just build more housing. Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

New construction has already decelerated in Austin due to falling prices, which compresses already-near-zero margin on real estate development. So yes, it really is "just build more housing." The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?

This is how markets balance. When there is under supply prices go up and incentivize production. When there is oversupply production goes down. Prices converge on a small premium to the price of production.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#617

Post by Paradigma11 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:29 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #403

wolfi1 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vienna built housing itself, with this housing it was possible to have cheap rents and keep rents from private investors down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Vienna

It’s worth noting that a major confounding factor is that, unlike most cities with a housing crisis, Vienna is well below its population peak and so does not need to build nearly as much housing

Technically yes, but lol no. Population is about the same as at its peak and density (person/m2) was about four times that of today. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlafg%C3%A4nger https://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10...

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#618

Post by wnc3141 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:30 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #221

pclowes wrote: post #176

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just: Build more housing. Keep law and order. No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea. Just build more housing. Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

New construction has already decelerated in Austin due to falling prices, which compresses already-near-zero margin on real estate development. So yes, it really is "just build more housing." The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?

Of its still profitable to do so, considering opportunity costs for the capital, firms will continue to build. However, it's so expensive to build that these project wind up not becoming bankable very quickly. I think that's the underlying issue that needs to be addressed.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#619

Post by vkou » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:30 AM UTC

TurdF3rguson wrote: post #579

vkou wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Juan be treated like trash if he wants to move from Mexico City or Honduras to Queens? Why should you deny him that mobility? Is he any worse a person than you are? Why does he have to jump through hoops and quotas and queues and all sorts of degrading, dehumanizing bullshit before he can do so? Why? --- If your answer is 'because that's the law and because we can make him jump through all those hoops', that's…

I guess I need to hear more about your seniority rules. If I leave in a city all my life and leave for a month, do I have to start over when I move back?

Not sure what your point is. My point is that the rules around rent exist to protect current residents of a city. Just like rules about immigration exist to protect current residents of a country.

If you think one of them is immoral and unfair, but the other isn't, you're the one who needs to square that cognitive dissonance - not me.

It sounds like you generally think economics should trump the welfare of existing residents. That's certainly a view, but a logical consequence of it is wide-open borders.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#620

Post by hunterpayne » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:33 AM UTC

verteu wrote: post #464

EcommerceFlow wrote: post #408

Why do people accept that supply/demand works in so many industries when the private market is allowed to flourish, but won't accept it for healthcare, education, etc?

Because for-profit healthcare and higher ed have shown poor outcomes empirically?

When? Because we don't use market solutions for those things now. Those are two of the most manipulated markets in the US. They also are two of the three industries whose prices increased by more than inflation, everything else has gotten cheaper (inflation adjusted) over the last several decades. Those things are related.