11–20 of 817 posts
Not housing per-se, but concentrating too many jobs in few locations. Which causes issues with housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not housing per-se, but concentrating too many jobs in few locations. Jobs weren't "concentrated" per se by any form of planning or centralized action, employers simply shifted to urban centers because the amount of skilled workers and other necessities (such as high speed Internet, universities, road and rail infrastructure) was vastly higher there than in dilapidated flyover-state villages. Additionally, rural ar…
I read this kind of thinking a lot lately, people trying very hard to come up with solutions that don't address the main issue. Just guessing, you already own a house? The fix is to enable builders to build enough housing, and not just single family detached housing, by removing regulations which allow NIMBY-ism. At the same time, prevent investors from hoarding houses and jacking up the prices. I find it similar to…
This is the short term fix, and I completely agree with you.
The long term fix is, aside from letting local governments make minor regulatory changes to facilitate denser urban construction, to simply do nothing.
Cities are expensive. People will (and are) moving away from HCOL areas because of this. Businesses are adapting (e.g., with remote work) to hire people living in MCOL and LCOL areas. At the same time, new economic agglomerations are springing up in these areas to support growing populations.
Given enough time, two things will happen. Many of these MCOL and LCOL areas will become more expensive. Some will urbanize. Some wont. Second, eventually, people living in the areas that don't urbanize will realize that they actually would enjoy living in a HCOL area. And the cycle will continue.
Investment bubbles are at the root of houses. Undertaxation is at the root of investment bubbles. Accumulating economic energy devouring the containment of the system that created it, as at the root of the root of the rootproblem. We need a dependency manager for discussion topics.
Even in the cities where the renter population is bigger than the homeowners, such as in Seattle, half of the votes come from people of > 65 years old (all of whom are homeowners, likely more than one home). Young people simply won't vote at all.
There is very little incentives for the young people to vote. Even if you cancel all the regulations right now and allow for unlimited constructions in the cities like Seattle, SF of NY, one will need about 10 years or longer to build enough apartments for the price to go back to affordable (which is 2-3 years salary of an average worker in the area). So the after-next generation will profit from the effort of the current renter generation.
Nevertheless, I think young generation needs to engage in the politics with the uncompromised goal to crush the housing price, to prevent the economic collapse of the "rich" world and prevent entire Earth from sliding into the dictatorship. Such is life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not housing per-se, but concentrating too many jobs in few locations. Jobs weren't "concentrated" per se by any form of planning or centralized action, employers simply shifted to urban centers because the amount of skilled workers and other necessities (such as high speed Internet, universities, road and rail infrastructure) was vastly higher there than in dilapidated flyover-state villages. Additionally, rural ar…
I read this kind of thinking a lot lately, people trying very hard to come up with solutions that don't address the main issue. Just guessing, you already own a house? The fix is to enable builders to build enough housing, and not just single family detached housing, by removing regulations which allow NIMBY-ism. At the same time, prevent investors from hoarding houses and jacking up the prices. I find it similar to…
LOL, I wish. Renting in Munich for enough money that I'll never be able to save enough for a downpayment. If I ever want to own my home, I'll have to move to the German equivalent of Alabama, with all the issues that come with that.
> The fix is to enable builders to build enough housing, and not just single family detached housing, by removing regulations which allow NIMBY-ism.
Where? Seriously, where?! Urban areas literally don't have enough space left any more to build any kind of building at affordable prices (plot values have sometimes doubled over four years here [1]), not to mention the associated followup costs of high-density populations (you need expensive subways as public transport at some point, denser / more anonymous populations leading to lower societal cohesion and rising crime as a result) or the fact that most urban areas simply are unsustainable regarding climate change in the long term (no trees to provide shade = lots of heat).
[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-grundstueckspr...
Nothing will change while the homeowners have more political power than the renters. Even in the cities where the renter population is bigger than the homeowners, such as in Seattle, half of the votes come from people of > 65 years old (all of whom are homeowners, likely more than one home). Young people simply won't vote at all. There is very little incentives for the young people to vote. Even if you cancel all the…
I started voting when I was 16 (my birth country allows that) and voted on every single election until I immigrated to the US - and then voted on every US election since becoming a citizen.
Housing is (along with healthcare in the US) a big part of why most people in the so-called "rich world" are in fact dismally poor, only one missed paycheck or turn of bad luck away from life becoming unlivable. For most of us poors, money is a tool we need to survive. For the people who have the bulk of it, it's a weapon. And we're the targets. They love blowing us up; it's what they do. They care more about making…
Not really.
Let's set up a quick boundary condition. Since you mentioned most people, you're talking about the lower-middle and middle classes. Let's keep the discussion on them. The working poor have it bad almost everywhere, and I think we both agree that there's more that can be done in most countries to support them.
For someone with a median household income, it's still very much possible to finding housing that is less than 25-30% of their household income. This is true even in high cost of living (HCOL) areas. Now, there are some cities or sections of cities that are unaffordable for someone with a median income, but these are very much the exceptions.
To put it simply, if you have a median household income for your country, in almost all locations in almost all OECD countries, you earn enough to follow a household budget that allows you to save 15-20% of your take home pay. If you can't save a portion of your income and you're not living off of a below-average wage, it's very likely that you either made decisions that aren't conducive to saving (e.g., you're house poor, car poor, or your discretionary spending is too high).
> along with healthcare in the US
Quality health care is expensive in most countries. The US has its own set of issues that make health care more expensive than in most other countries (e.g., population density), but it's not orders of magnitude higher. It's also offset by the higher salaries that people in the US earn over, say, the average EU state.
Not housing per-se, but concentrating too many jobs in few locations. Which causes issues with housing.
It is very good for productivity when many jobs are concentrated in one location. This unlocks the possibility for serendipitous connections. It is awesome when you can meet a founder, a leading engineer, an investor, a designer and a PR person in a coffee line, forming a new company before finishing your morning coffee. Talents concentrated in one place gives significant boost to their productivity. This is called a…
Nothing will change while the homeowners have more political power than the renters. Even in the cities where the renter population is bigger than the homeowners, such as in Seattle, half of the votes come from people of > 65 years old (all of whom are homeowners, likely more than one home). Young people simply won't vote at all. There is very little incentives for the young people to vote. Even if you cancel all the…
If you are free and able to vote but won't do it, it's hard for me to feel too much pity for your situation. I started voting when I was 16 (my birth country allows that) and voted on every single election until I immigrated to the US - and then voted on every US election since becoming a citizen.
Sometimes I am considering running myself for a local government after getting my citizenship, with the only goal: drop housing price at my city for at least 70%. Once achieved - retire from politics :).