Live data from Hacker News

The Folk Economics of Housing

aeaweb.org

61–70 of 250 posts

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#61
post #8

Is it that they truly don’t believe it or they don’t want more supply (since that changes their quality of life, neighborhoods, traffic, etc) but still do want lower prices in other ways (like by price caps or other things). One legitimate reason to not think supply reduces prices is because of big financial companies buying up lots of houses and having effectively free rein to price how they want. It removes the com…

This is another huge myth in the US housing market, that big companies own lots of the housing and are jacking the prices up. It's simply not true. Large corporations own a tiny fraction of the market while the vast majority is owned by individuals and small landlords.

investor market share of homes is down from its peak of 20% a few years ago, but i wouldn’t call it a “tiny fraction”

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-stabiliz...

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#62

I think that what contributes to this view is that new construction always seems to be at the high end of the market. This makes sense, it doesn't cost the builder a lot more to build a $500k house than to build a $250k house, and building two $250k houses will take twice the time and close to twice the costs. So builders/developers are going to build what is most profitable, which is the most expensive houses that t…

> It's not new affordable housing, but the people moving in to the new expensive houses are leaving their old houses, and the people who buy those are leaving their old houses, so eventually the price drops happen on the older, smaller homes at the bottom end of the market. As I commented elsewhere, that’s the paper math version that doesn’t resemble reality for those of us living in it. Buyers of new luxury stock ar…

how does renting out old stock not increase supply? Renting and buying are relatively fungible. People buy fewer houses when renting is cheaper.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#63

Colloquially you can see this in sentiments such as: "All these developers are building is just expensive new luxury apartments" And as the study mentions: > To the extent that ordinary people form loose mental associations between “housing development” and “housing affordability,” they may well associate more development with higher prices rather than greater affordability. New housing, being new, tends to be more e…

Yup, and the kneejerk response from economists is that the housing cycle suggests that new luxury stock would be inhabited by buyers who own existing stock, and what they sell would be more affordable to those buyers, and what those buyers sell would become more affordable to the next rung down, etc. Except that’s not the reality. The reality is that a large chunk of the market (as much as 25% in some areas) is specu…

Vacancy taxes seem like a reasonable solution to this problem.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#65
post #37

One thing few people take into account is that demand housing is much, much more elastic than people realize - per capita people are consuming far more square footage than they used to. Houses that were built to be house multiple generations under one roof now only hold one generation. Usually elderly empty nesters. In our area we also see people buying up lots of older duplexes or triplexes and converting them into…

Curious for a source on the sq footage per capita if you wouldn’t mind sharing. That’s very interesting. Could that also be explained perhaps by the fact that people are willing to live farther away from cities (where land / homes are cheaper and larger) because they only have to work 3 days a week from the office? Or because commuting is less painful with newer cars?

I dont have sources, but the trend for larger houses was happening much earlier than the WfH trend.

It's a mix of car culture, proprty value being lower farther away from cities so develops can create a high margin on building neighborhoods marketed on big, new houses.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, they can only address the luxury market so much. If you're only legally or practically able to build and sell so many cars, then you're gonna focus on Lexuses more than Toyotas. But if you can build and sell as much as you want, that's when you start seriously addressing the mainstream market.

Yes, but you'll only do this once the luxury market is saturated. As long as you can sell more luxury homes that is what you are going to build.

Right, but there's only so many people in that market. The reason it never seems to be saturated is that building more homes in expensive areas is typically very restricted and difficult and time consuming to do, mostly due to local/state regulations.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you are suggesting that one house is better than two to alleviate supply? this is exactly why market incentives isn't the cure. we would have more housing if we built more housing. if we built double the housing, then we would be in an even better place. this logic makes zero sense to me.

As your sibling comment says, there is only so much market for luxury housing. If the land, permitting, etc. exists to build two houses, then two will get built. And if there's only sufficient demand for one of them to be high-end, then only one will be. (In aggregate on larger scales of course, not literally any given two houses.) It's not necessary to force a given developer to build two houses instead of one; if t…

What’s considered luxury housing vs upper middle class?

Like there are plenty of houses marketed as “luxury style” in my area and command $500k-$700k easily but it’s just fancy looking. Not built with any better materials, wood, concrete, drywall or brick that you can get any local Home Depot.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#68

I think that what contributes to this view is that new construction always seems to be at the high end of the market. This makes sense, it doesn't cost the builder a lot more to build a $500k house than to build a $250k house, and building two $250k houses will take twice the time and close to twice the costs. So builders/developers are going to build what is most profitable, which is the most expensive houses that t…

> It's not new affordable housing, but the people moving in to the new expensive houses are leaving their old houses, and the people who buy those are leaving their old houses, so eventually the price drops happen on the older, smaller homes at the bottom end of the market. As I commented elsewhere, that’s the paper math version that doesn’t resemble reality for those of us living in it. Buyers of new luxury stock ar…

Building a new house and renting the old one absolutely does increase the supply of housing.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#69
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheaper, sure, but not cheap enough to satisfy anyone who already cannot afford a home. Like cars, the used market is always going to be a reflection of the new market. Used houses are expensive because new ones are even more expensive.

I think it probably could be cheap enough. Part of the issue is actually just that new home sizes keep getting bigger. Like yeah, new homes are more expensive now even in relatively cheaper parts of the countries compared to decades ago, but it's also true that the homes are much larger than they used to be. A lot of the homes from the 50s and 60s that people talk about being very affordable at the time they are made…

That is quite true. Early Americans had absolutely no trouble living in their 300 sq. ft. log cabin with eight children under foot. You don't technically need the behemoths we see today (or even what we saw in the 50s, which were still huge by historical standards). But it remains, if it was cheap enough, people would already be doing it. The law sometimes gets in the way, sure, but that's another subject entirely.

Re: The Folk Economics of Housing

#70

I think that what contributes to this view is that new construction always seems to be at the high end of the market. This makes sense, it doesn't cost the builder a lot more to build a $500k house than to build a $250k house, and building two $250k houses will take twice the time and close to twice the costs. So builders/developers are going to build what is most profitable, which is the most expensive houses that t…

> people who buy those are leaving their old houses I do not believe this is accurate, at least not in the last ~10 years or so. The houses are purchased by hedge funds and other smaller investors.

Only because they are scarce enough to be worth doing that.

With greater supply, there comes a point where you can make better investments than buying up empty houses. And so they will stop buying them.

Post reply on HN