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

521–530 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#521

Post by alienbaby »

olddustytrail wrote: post #491
meowface wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very little about economics so I can only parrot what I've heard from others but the consensus from everyone I've personally heard talk about Gary - not just Abundists - is that he's a crank when it comes to economics.

Really? I've never heard that. He seems reasonable to me. Can you provide a link where someone dismisses him as a "crank"? I'd be interested to see whose opinion this is.

a quick google for 'garys economics critique' throws up a good few places to get started :) - I would summarise here, but I'm no expert and am just digging into this myself.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#522

Post by rightbyte »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #358
cocaclub wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recognizing your frustration with reality's failure to adhere to the academic: the fact is that rent rates for corporate-owned units generally don't go down. At least, not in recent history. In the rare cases where cartel behavior doesn't work to cement rates, and owners have to respond somehow to market conditions in order to avoid cash-flow disruption, they will offer "specials" that lower the out-of-pocket cost, b…

Recent history has been corporate rents not decreasing amid tight supply, the question being asked repeatedly (and repeatedly not answered) in this thread is “how exactly would landlords continue seeking high rents if housing were no longer scarce?” The only answer so far has been “by buying up the supply and renting it out” which completely ignores the obvious fact that renting out housing may reduce the supply of p…

> “how exactly would landlords continue seeking high rents if housing were no longer scarce?”

I think land lords wont lease out at marker rate due to that would lower the book value of the house which would make the banks call in loans.

Like, bank and land lords have some sort of understanding which in practice is some sort of price fixing and market collusion via proxy.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#523

Post by michaelmior »

robertclaus wrote: post #322

Quote: "I don’t see the value in discussing a “national” crisis in homebuilding oligopoly from which the 49 biggest metros are exempt." I enjoyed most of this article, but it did slide into opinions periodically. This quote in particular stood out given the issues rural communities face regarding availability of competition in a lot of other services.

Agreed. Especially since more than 50% of the population lives outside those areas.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#524

Post by littlestymaar »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #504
littlestymaar wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excessive regulation is 90% of it. If it was, then the housing price would be correlated with the level of regulation, but it's not (housing less dense places is always cheaper than housing in big cities, even if you compare the most heavily regulated place on earth with the least regulated big city in the world. > Here's how a rational market works. A rational market made from human is as realistic as “dry water”.…

No. The key issue is just the rise and rise of inequality. As more money funnels to the top (thanks covid) the top buy more of the available assets leading to asset inflation. Nothing will reverse this other than a tax on wealth. Tax wealth, not income.

This is way too narrow of an explanation.

Yes rising inequalities are a problem, but the housing price being absurdly high is a much broader problem: when a middle class family spends $500k+ for a house, they are part of the systemic problem. Same when the same family expects such a sum when selling the old house they inherited from their boomer parents.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#525

Post by modo_mario »

podgorniy wrote: post #477
999900000999 wrote: post #352

Excessive regulation is 90% of it. Here's how a rational market works. If I build an apartment complex, eventually those apartments will get older and more affordable. And even before that upper middle class folks will move in, freeing up their previous homes. But that's not how many in local governments see it. So you have affordable housing quotas on new developments. You have developers building units for the home…

> 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 does not. But it's also the place that didn't (fully) decide to try to keep it's population growing into perpetuity with migration and also has some other more unique market and monetary conditions.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#526

Post by mft_ »

gwd wrote: post #476
shazbotter wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm about as far left as you can be, as a syndicalist anarchist, and I definitely perceived a bit of what you described. But I'm not super worried about it because he didn't say "the left", but rather a specific lefty position. But also, the left isn't uniform on housing policy. Some folks want anti trust and limited capital ownership. Some folks want to de commodify housing. Some folks want all housing to be governm…

Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?

Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions and view of an ideal society will also diverge significantly?

---

Also, it should be noted that we lack sufficiently concise but specific terms to use instead, and because alternative terms that are used are relative, and open to interpretation.

e.g.:

Many political commentators currently use the term "populist" to describe someone who's somewhat divergent from the capitalist political mainstream (and in US terms, I'd include the current Democrat establishment and traditional non-MAGA Republicans in this group). But when the term is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#527

Post by rightbyte »

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…

I have never heard antitrust left either. The author casually namesdrop it like some school of thought. I just read it as a virtue signaling epithet.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#528

Post by sethammons »

tptacek wrote: post #324
starkparker wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know why people blame the internet, the drop in rewards for journalism, the pressures to churn out text, that has led to. But I'd also emphasise that it's a vocational skill that not everyone is built for, or trained to do. As someone both built for and trained to do it, I can tell you I'd be making at least US$150k/year less if I was still doing it. I wager I'd be short about $1.25M in career earnings through ju…

Urban primary school teachers get a pretty attractive comp package these days!

I was a teacher and stopped in 2011. Pay was $38k/yr with summer school. Looks like the same southern California inner city school district pays $68k/yr now for the same pay step. That is a big jump but I am not sure I would call it attractive. And in North Carolina's state capital, where I am now, the rate is $50k/yr. That is some struggle-bus territory.

My first programming gig doubled my income and nearly halved my hours. The stress lowering alone would have been worth it. I haven't had anyone try to physically fight me as a dev. I think the same applies today; teachers are underpaid.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#529

Post by mft_ »

littlestymaar wrote: post #481
999900000999 wrote: post #352

Excessive regulation is 90% of it. Here's how a rational market works. If I build an apartment complex, eventually those apartments will get older and more affordable. And even before that upper middle class folks will move in, freeing up their previous homes. But that's not how many in local governments see it. So you have affordable housing quotas on new developments. You have developers building units for the home…

> Excessive regulation is 90% of it. If it was, then the housing price would be correlated with the level of regulation, but it's not (housing less dense places is always cheaper than housing in big cities, even if you compare the most heavily regulated place on earth with the least regulated big city in the world. > Here's how a rational market works. A rational market made from human is as realistic as “dry water”.…

> The key issue is that housing is treated as an asset, and the policies made to boost housing construction are designed around building a market in a way that gives housing the same kind of financial yields as stocks. But while stock prices can grow because productivity increase, housing value can only increase if housing becomes more expensive.

I like your thesis, but can you give more information on the nature of the policies that drive the housing market in the manner you describe, but which aren't just "regulation" that makes it directly harder (e.g. you can't build housing in this zone) or more expensive (e.g. minimum plot sizes, parking requirements, building codes)?

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#530

Post by sillyfluke »

gwd wrote: post #519
shazbotter wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably because anti monopoly right is much less common? Or because the anti monopoly right is concerned with different aspects of monopoly? If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.

> If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest. So consider several perspectives: a. The government should be in charge of, or at least heavily involved in, planning and organizing most resources in a country. b. The market is a good way of solving most problems, and it works bes…

> My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.

This is a tad naive I think. "antitrust left" is also to useful term to use to signal to the billionaire class of Democratic party that you are not their enemy. If the author actually agreed with many of the antitrust group's positions and housing policy was one of the few exceptions they disagreed on, they would shy away from using the term. The only reason you would use that term is because you want to bring disrepute to their entire platform.

These abundance folks appear to be the only hope the billionaire Democrats have after having sunk so low as to direct their media assets to support Cuomo and to pour bucketloads money into the coffers of the corrupt disgraced governor in order prevent those "wacky socialists" to gain any more traction.

Post reply on HN