Why Britain doesn’t build • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#141

Post by jareklupinski » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #117

jareklupinski wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who is actually in control here? Is it blind forces pushing us to an inevitable outcome? The Illuminati? Lizard people? less blind forces, more "well, what would you do in their situation": the people who first paid money for a given square of land were also the first to try to convince someone else to pay them more for that same land natural resources aside, land only really has the value that other people are wil…

> less blind forces, more "well, what would you do in their situation": the people who first paid money for a given square of land were also the first to try to convince someone else to pay them more for that same land It seems a bit silly to argue that increasing land prices is principally a result of marketing. The amount of earth on the planet in the last 10k years essentially hasn't changed but the number of huma…

that's true, market forces like supply and demand affect everything in the economy, and while we've grown, our landmass has remained static.

which parts of the land are worth more than others though, I think the article does a good job of providing examples too: people living closer to each central city had higher wages, which meant they could pay more for the land pieces... so they did, which meant they had to ask more when selling in order to 'break even' or 'realize on their investment'

i guess the bigger question is: why did we tie our need for shelter into the economy? in order to achieve constant growth (ensure someone isnt left 'holding the bag'), we have to either be willfully ignorant of a growing population, or maintain a fantasy of there always being viable room for ever more people

i hope we start colonizing the moon or even mars before we have to deal with fallout from the above...

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#142

Post by robertlagrant » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

Jochim wrote: post #87

robertlagrant wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a limited amount of space and a non-negligible portion of society are unable to afford market rates. When the state doesn't build accommodation, citizens end up transferring ludicrous amounts to private landlords to house foster children, asylum seekers, the poor, or the disabled. Space is limited by regulation and zoning. 90% of the UK is rural. Market rates are high because of the supply not matching the…

> Space is limited by regulation and zoning. 90% of the UK is rural. Market rates are high because of the supply not matching the demand, or being allowed to match it. This does not square with the fact that private builders are leaving nearly half of approved developments unbuilt. It's almost like private builders are incentivised to squeeze the market rather than bring prices down. > The same number of people would…

> It's almost like private builders are incentivised to squeeze the market rather than bring prices down.

Yes - incentivised by government regulations to do so, and moreover too disincentivised to build. If you can't make money by building, it's better to wait. No builder wants to stop building - money now is much better than money in the future - but enough government and local intervention will cause this.

The housing thing you've gone on a while, but basically if you remember the context, two comments up, I was replying to something that you're not arguing for, as far as I can tell, which is that if the government hadn't sold some houses it would have enough houses. This is not the case, and I don't think you've said it is.

> I didn't claim you were arguing for no regulation, arguing that regulations should be made more lax in the face of those events is what's disheartening. Those disasters occurred because existing regulations were not sufficiently strict/enforced.

Companies not obeying regulations in specific instances doesn't mean all regulations are good. Regulations are not a tower, with fire retardation regulations being piled on the stupid ones, and so removing the stupid ones would cause the ones you want to fall.

My fundamental bewilderment with this and some other comments is you're complaining about government-caused things, and you blame the private sector for it, and want the government to be in charge of more things, despite the evidence of your own eyes of how well the government does with what it already has.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#143

Post by panick21_ » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

lll-o-lll wrote: post #49

ggm wrote: post #3

I find the economic reductionism in housing planning really irritating. It's not like other public utility functions, but it is damn close to a fundamental and is included in human rights declarations. What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that? Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual househol…

It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence? And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actuall…

It not nearly as universal as you think.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#144

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 8:54 PM UTC

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #128

ggm wrote: post #3

I find the economic reductionism in housing planning really irritating. It's not like other public utility functions, but it is damn close to a fundamental and is included in human rights declarations. What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that? Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual househol…

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate. 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or ch…

> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners...the entire system is rigged

Homeowners, irrespective of age, vote more. This is in part enabled by material comforts. But there may be other layers of causation.

The first two are problematic per se (though I'm uncertain of the effect size). But the last is fundamental--if someone can vote but can't care to, they're not going to have their interests represented.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#145

Post by umeshunni » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:02 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate. 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or ch…

> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners...the entire system is rigged Homeowners, irrespective of age, vote more. This is in part enabled by material comforts. But there may be other layers of causation. The first two are problematic per se (though I'm uncertain of the effect size). But the last is fundamental--if someone can vote but can't care to, they're not going to ha…

> But there may be other layers of causation.

Having a permanent, of sorts, attachment to a location incentivizes people to vote to protect their interests in that location.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#146

Post by deathgripsss » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #4

Britain's energy-per-capita has collapsed since 1965 [0]. How are they meant to build houses and live in them without energy? Construction is one of the most energy-intensive activities we have, and maintaining a warm home is up there. Britain is one of the usual suspects who listened to environmentalists, fought nuclear, let fossil fuels slide and bet big on renewables. They're going to need to have a bit of a focus…

Britain moved away from being a manufacturing to a service based economy which uses significantly less energy.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#147

Post by pontifier » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

lll-o-lll wrote: post #49

ggm wrote: post #3

I find the economic reductionism in housing planning really irritating. It's not like other public utility functions, but it is damn close to a fundamental and is included in human rights declarations. What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that? Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual househol…

It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence? And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actuall…

There's a pattern I've noticed of outsourcing code requirements. Most municipalities seem to adopt the international building code, and then because that code book is updated all the time, and none of the local officials actually understand it, they start to require that applicants prove that they meet the code. Planning commissions start to believe that they need to control everything that everybody does, but they shouldn't. Because everything is a shifting target, and proof is almost impossible, everything gets road blocked.

For the most part, I agree with building codes. They serve a purpose by ensuring that unsafe buildings aren't created. But they've become so esoteric, that meeting them is an exercise in futility.

I can't wait for the day that a "safe building" AI just watches everything, and tells people what to do. That way even unskilled labor can do work, and the work will be up to a safe standard.

Code officials are the worst sort of power tripping bureaucrats. I can't wait for them to be eliminated.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#148

Post by Chyzwar » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #128

ggm wrote: post #3

I find the economic reductionism in housing planning really irritating. It's not like other public utility functions, but it is damn close to a fundamental and is included in human rights declarations. What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that? Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual househol…

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate. 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or ch…

Migration to bigger tier one cities is partly to blame. Many young people want to live in NY and rent a shoebox flat for life. They think that they can become Friends protagonists when in fact they become broke and blame government.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#149

Post by brailsafe » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

leoedin wrote: post #76

lll-o-lll wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence? And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actuall…

It's an interesting observation. I'm part of a few UK and Canadian regional subreddits, and the topics of conversation are often very similar. House prices are too high, we need to build more, the government is favouring boomers, the economy is stagnating, we need more manufacturing and less real estate speculation etc. What's particularly interesting is that often in the UK ones people paint Canada as being far bett…

Which Canadian subreddits idolize the U.S? Generally both countries have pretty similarly horrible development patterns with a tiny amount of exceptions. My impression is that the U.S just does sprawl and car-centricity to an extreme, like Toronto, but I can't say I've come across anywhere more compelling.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#150

Post by pdonis » Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:10 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #125

lll-o-lll wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence? And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actuall…

> since the 70s Is part of the problem that we think the 70s was normal and not the outlier? https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco... Certainly there have been a couple recent bubbles, but even as recently as 2012 we were basically within the bounds of the long-term normal. I'd like to say it's a supply problem, and demographics does support that argument to some extent, but the fact that it in…

> I'd like to say it's a supply problem

It is to the extent that various laws and regulations prevent or strongly disincentivize new construction, yes.

> the fact that it involves most of the western world makes me think it may have to do with monetary policy

It does. Mortgage loans have always been one of the primary places that governments choose to put newly printed money. The ostensible purpose of this is to make it easier for people to own homes, but what it actually does is bid up home prices to the point where consumers are no better off than they were before, but financial institutions and other corporate interests make a nice extra profit. It's similar to the way the easy availability of financial aid for college has not actually made it easier for people to go to the college of their choice (indeed, admission rates to many colleges have sharply declined as financial aid becomes more available), it's just transferred more wealth to the colleges from taxpayers.