641–650 of 1001 posts
So glad we don't need to re-write the first chapter of almost every economics 101 textbook!
it's crazy that people nowadays seriously question basic market pressure being a thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the possibility that the government builds housing, since the government doesn't have to care about direct profits and can include the overall economic effects of affordable housing in its calculations. We don't expect much direct profits from roads either, but we keep building more and more of them.
Because they don’t care about profits, they always end up overpaying and taking way longer time than necessary. And who pays for that? The whole society: Either the government raises taxes, gets more in debt, or they print more money driving inflation up. The most basic commodity, food, is a great example. The moment the government has ever step into controlling production of food, we’ve only seen subpar performance…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Crazy that the reason we can't have an order-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of the most important thing people need (shelter) is not due to resource constraints, but man-made ones. You say that as though reduction in cost of housing is a universal desire, but it isn't. Suppose a couple of years ago you took a $500,000 loan to buy a $700,000 house, which you'll be paying off for the next 10 years. Would you like…
Always comes back to the good ol “fuck you, I got mine.”
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?
Theres no problem here. Thats how the system should work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why new housing devalues old housing. In my mind, higher density generally makes an area more desirable (e.g. because higher density enables more jobs, better infrastructure) and raises the value. Imagine as an extreme example and existing house in the middle of nowhere around which a metropolis is developed. Surely the value of the house, or at least the land it is built on, goes up, even though it lose…
You think if there were modern highrises in Menlo Park a tiny 2BR shack next door would still sell for $2M? It’s a supply and demand issue, nothing more.
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.
At least the latter has been equated with fascism in recent years. That's why it's become such a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account This is true for California, where people (foolishly) rely on their home value as their retirement plan, which further incentivizes NIMBYism. But in places like Texas (and other areas with affordable housing), the house is just treated as something you pay off to have a low housing cost in retirement. And your investments are your retirement+savings accoun…
I'm not from Texas or California but it doesn't intuitively feel true to me that Texans are better at investing and saving for retirement. According to the first relevant search result I can find https://www.cnbc.com/select/average-retirement-savings-by-st... the retirement savings per dollar of median annual income in California is $1.44 and in Texas is $1.17 Do you think that's wrong? Or do you think it's a mislead…
Also those people will saturate downtown making it lose its culture.
I'm always amazed at the American way of "just throw money at the problem".
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't need economic theory for that it's just common sense. Humanity has been erecting structures to live in for approximately our entire existence. The modern economy is mechanized. How could a wood frame structure or a small high rise possibly be unaffordable if the market is functional? Stop and think for a second. Someone in good health with a willingness to DIY and a sufficiently flexible schedule can literal…
It's regulations. But before you call them broken, some of it is safety. Safety standards keep rising with technology and the economy as people can afford more. Same with cars. There's also zoning restrictions in some places designed to prevent slums by requiring large residences. I guess that's happening here too.