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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by strbean »

amarant wrote: post #353
terminalshort wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super easy unless you have moved recently, then you don't get the bill and end up years later in collections for the original amount plus a million late fees added on.

Nah it arrives electronically to kivra, which is like email except you log in with your social security number and it's only for "official business" like invoices and whatnot.

Unfortunately here in the US we are pathologically incompetent.

One day we will attempt to roll out such a system. We'll pay McKinsey billions to develop and operate it, set no targets, and they will take the money and disappear for 10 years, and then deliver some unusable website developed by one offshore developer.

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

#982

Post by zahlman »

ggm wrote: post #966
zahlman wrote: post #964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch. Can you cite a version of it that worked?

From an economist? no. From rent activists? Sure. From The Mayor of London? He wants it. From economists in London? They don't want it. From rent activists in Berlin? It worked for their client pool. From economists in Germany? Mixed outcome. The thing is, there is no neutral arbiter. The people who say it failed, are systems level reviewers with overal economic takes. The people (like me) who say it succeeded are lo…

I didn't say anything about who wants the policy in the future. I asked for an example where it achieved its stated objectives in the past.

> The thing is, there is no neutral arbiter.

There are, however, arbiters who pre-register metrics for success and then don't move the goalposts. That way people can at least see what you want and what you're willing to sacrifice.

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

#983

Post by Forgeties79 »

4fterd4rk wrote: post #905
Forgeties79 wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ALL housing increases supply/reduces market price. I can tell you firsthand that that is absolutely not true. The massive rush to renovate or build new short-term rentals in the 2010s had a disastrous impact on rental prices around my city, especially coupled with historically low interest rates that made these enterprises far less risky. It’s also incredibly disruptive to neighborhoods/communities, not just becaus…

STRs reduced the supply of housing. You’re making my point.

I think we might be talking at cross purposes

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

#984

Post by ammonumfisher »

zahlman wrote: post #964
ggm wrote: post #597

Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch. Public housing also has many models. State owned. State funded but via cooperatives. Part state. state assisted co-buy. There's lots of models and so it is also a bit bogus to talk as if public housing has o…

> Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch. Can you cite a version of it that worked?

[dead]

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

#985

Post by aiisjustanif »

hunterpayne wrote: post #486
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty generous interpretation that requires you to believe rent control and building housing are diametrically opposed to each other.

rent control dramatically decreases the incentives to build and in many cases makes it impossible (read uneconomic) to do so

Blanket statements like this is the point of many of the above replies, it’s not a true statement with evidence. All rent control does not reduce the number of rentals, “more restrictive rent control”[1] [2] does. These nuances are important in the conversation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4904928

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

#986

Post by whattheheckheck »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #436
estearum wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why let private developers build at all? The market provides perverse incentive to not house everyone.

Because central planners do not have the information processing feedback loops necessary to distribute all of the complex network of component commodities.

Truly there is some scarcity of resources in any given place that takes energy to extract, transform, and transport to the desired location.

Because everything cannot be everywhere, there will be unmet needs in a society.

The "free" market economy allows for a natural price discovery of everything which is more likely to not have shortages or overages in any given spot.

Granted this is pure basic economics. It does not imply when for a toy example, there are 10 people thirsty and a baby and there is a scarcity of milk, 1 cup, the milk should go to the highest bidder. obviously it should go to the baby.

Same thing with housing. There is a scarcity of all of the components that go into housing and administering the amenities that houses need in a city. Central planners do not have a good track record but with careful tracking and modulating feedback loops we might be able to meet more people's needs that an otherwise regulatory captured monopoly of vertically integrated home builders so that everyone has a better chance at a home.

But again not everyone can live everywhere logistically so how do you fairly distribute it? Obviously hunger gaming it in a cut throat capitalist world isn't working out too well but we do have the largest number of people ever on the planet so its a pretty decent system so far

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

#987

Post by whattheheckheck »

torginus wrote: post #732
estearum wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How can real estate have zero margin when housing rises exponentially in price? No other good behaves like this. A midsize sedan didn't increase in price (in real term) over time, while new cars improved. New houses don't really improve that much over time, yet are getting more more and more expensive. Why is that?

The stock market has greater returns than housing by a lot

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

#988

Post by foobiekr »

estearum wrote: post #934
foobiekr wrote: post #932

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you build more cars as prices fall? What do you think homebuilders do? Just close up shop when the market dips? The answer is there are companies in the business of building homes. If there is profit to be made, they will keep building. Most of the issues we have today are caused by extreme and dysfunctional regulatory regimes that destroy the return on investment by extending the process out. More time sit…

> What do you think homebuilders do? Just close up shop when the market dips? Uhh yes. Downward price pressure is a business-destroying event in real estate development. The amount of risk developers take on with each project is pretty incredible actually. > Why would you build more cars as prices fall? For one, there are advantages to scale. That is hardly true (and in many cases the opposite is true -- diseconomies…

That is exactly what the rest of my message said, had you read it.

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

#989

Post by underlipton »

Sankozi wrote: post #942
underlipton wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless builders aren't building for profit. Create an entity with a mandate to build and the funds to make it solvent. Basic and dignified shelter that enables all the other economic activity does not need to be a profit center.

This is possible but requires lots of money and oversight. I have never heard about scheme like that that replaced private investors. But as a way to offset some RC problems it could probably work.

A whisper on the wind, barely perceptible, it tickles your ear. "Singapore~ (also the UK before the Iron Lady messed things up)."

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

#990

Post by kortilla »

tkel wrote: post #215
kortilla wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“People like to drink certain kinds of beer” and “some people don’t drink beer often” are not arguments against supply and demand driving beer prices.

Prices in massively inefficient markets do not follow the supply + demand equilibrium. Beer is not an inefficient market. You're doing the absurd comparison.

housing isn’t an inefficient market. It’s surprisingly liquid for how large the purchases are
Post reply on HN