Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

pew.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#971

Post by otherme123 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #534
otherme123 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the investment funds have to build the houses? Houses has been built/funded from zero by the future owners since forever, either individually or through cooperatives. That way, "investors" don't need a positive ROI, and they happily lose money overall if they get a home. I know some people that are currently "willing to invest" in buying a ship container or two and transform it into a house to get costs down. The…

Using a shipping container is almost always a stupid plan compared to just putting up some wood. As much as I want to make zoning more flexible, I'm not in a rush to change that particular regulation.

Sounds arrogant to block someone else plan to have a home, just because you don't like it. And then claim regulations are not the problem, but lack of willing to invest.

If you think containers are a bad idea, don't buy one.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#972

Post by jdasdf »

kleiba wrote: post #604
jdasdf wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it does show a number of problems inherent in Germany's current situation: (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape. These three points alone are among the most frequently cited factors that companies feel inhibit business, and it holds across disciplines. There are 9 billion people in the world, roughly half of them are perfectly capable of doing manual labor.…

Like most other things, labor is highly regulated in Germany. You've got to understand that (from my experience as an outsider) it seems to be a country where it matters more what you are on paper (e.g., degrees, certifications, etc) than what you can actually do (e.g., practical experience). Not that the latter is not valued at all, but on the job market, it's often not sufficient. Labor costs are determined by a lo…

It is that easy.

Those regulations are choices. You can make different choices. You can make them tomorrow.

I'm sorry but i cannot take seriously any problem that essentially boils down to "We want it to be like this".

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#973

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

dan-robertson wrote: post #826
harrall wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the biggest reason is, learning from history, the instability of food prices destabilizes nations. There have been many “bread riots.”

Bread is much cheaper today (at least relative to incomes) than in the days of bread riots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#974

Post by bsder »

cuuupid wrote: post #351
bsder wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values Real estate is NOT supposed to be a good "investment" and only became so because the government started propping it up with bank bankstops, zoning, NIMBY, redlining, etc. If your pricing is working correctly, real-estate should be close to zero-sum. Austin,…

For nearly every homebuyer, a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth. It needs to be a good long term investment that at least reasonably paces with inflation, otherwise you are losing money by buying a home and everyone has to rent and then you have feudalism with extra steps. The good news is this is totally fine with keeping cost of living under control and overbuilding, b…

> It needs to be a good long term investment

No, it needs to be roughly zero sum but only over very long timescales. Anything else is a disaster.

If housing is a "good investment", it attracts rampant speculation and concentration of ownership to the capital class. You need regular wipeouts to force the speculators out of the market (doubly so if they are buying on leverage).

If housing is a "bad investment", people abandon the real estate and you get blight which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle downward.

Things need to be kept balanced in housing so that people can use it to be a place to live. We are currently in the middle of seeing the dysfunction that happens when being "shelter" is overshadowed by being an "investment".

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#975

Post by pydry »

davidw wrote: post #785
pydry wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you need a government agency which will build social housing. Not once has the private sector ever been "encouraged" to build social housing with deregulation. The only reason it keeps getting touted as The Solution in the media is because deregulation would boost their profits. The bottleneck is land, anyway. If you dont tax that enough or take it with eminent domain then you'll end up like San Francisco with ab…

The problem in San Francisco is NIMBYism, where supposed 'socialists' try and stop purely below market rate housing because it's the wrong shape or size or something.

Of course. they have enormous mortgages and anything which drags down the absurd value of their home is an ominous threat.

Blaming "fake socialists" or "nimbyism" doesnt change the fact that they are entirely rational actors in an economic system that is rigged to make the wealthy wealthier (e.g. with prop 13).

In fact, it's a clever rhetorical device to conceal the root cause and displace criticism towards the main culprits and, well, you fell for it.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#976

Post by foltik »

jfoster wrote: post #643
foltik wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always comes back to the good ol “fuck you, I got mine.”

When the problem is particularly exacerbated, it's not even "I got mine", but rather, "I already went into eye-watering levels of debt and I'm still paying off the roof over my head."

So you made a half-million dollar leveraged bet and now want the government to rig the market so it pays off, at everyone else’s expense.

Being more desperate doesn’t make it any less selfish. It’s a universal desire for everyone who’s not selfish.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#977

Post by muyuu »

array_key_first wrote: post #834
terminalshort wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look through the comments on any post about housing or immigration and you will see hordes of them.

I think it's not that people question free market dynamics, it's that they question a market is free in the first place. For example, healthcare in the US is basically exempt from typical free market dynamics like supply and demand because of how the market works. Consumers don't choose, everyone has a moat and parents, and costs are often subsidized.

but the market doesn't need to be free for basic market pressure to have an overwhelming effect

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#978

Post by fyredge »

solatic wrote: post #737
fyredge wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is right to evict tied to rent control? Seems irrelevant "Pressure to stay" can certainly be alleviated, rent control all properties. Half measures do not necessarily solve half the problem.

Rent control is literally the removal of the right to evict a tenant who refuses the otherwise-uncontrolled rent increase you request. The inability to evict them for refusing the rent increase is what de-facto keeps the rent from increasing beyond its controlled limit.

Oh, I get that, but what's stopping the landlord from evicting someone who damages their property? Or if the landlord no longer wants to rent and wants to live in it themselves?

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#979

Post by chmod775 »

BobbyJo wrote: post #819
chmod775 wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost. Plus you should not wait for the market to respond to a lack of housing: people will be homeless in the meantime. Supply/demand is mostly reactive, because building for anticipated fu…

> Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost You provide no basis for the idea that the returns on housing have to drop below the point at which its financially viable to build before housing becomes affordable. You just say "b…

"Not worth the opportunity cost" is not the same as "not financially viable". It means that there are lower risk/higher return investment opportunities than creating that housing. More simply stated "Why would I want to turn my $100 into $110 +/- 20% if I could turn them into $130 +/- 20% instead?"

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#980

Post by davidw »

pydry wrote: post #975
davidw wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in San Francisco is NIMBYism, where supposed 'socialists' try and stop purely below market rate housing because it's the wrong shape or size or something.

Of course. they have enormous mortgages and anything which drags down the absurd value of their home is an ominous threat. Blaming "fake socialists" or "nimbyism" doesnt change the fact that they are entirely rational actors in an economic system that is rigged to make the wealthy wealthier (e.g. with prop 13). In fact, it's a clever rhetorical device to conceal the root cause and displace criticism towards the main…

NIMBYs exist throughout the US, even in states without Prop 13 or similar things.

Some of them are even renters.

No one is trying to conceal the problems with unfair tax systems - indeed, the people who spend time advocating for housing are probably your most likely allies in trying to fix it.

Post reply on HN