3 ms·

In a previous article about crazy rents in SF I argued that increasing supply of housing reduced the price of rent [1], aka, supply and demand. HN commenters we

• intopieces 11y ago
  It's not that intelligent people can't understand basic economics, it's that basic economics isn't enough to explain the situation in San Francisco, so that refrain gets pretty tiresome. Take a look at the responses you got to your comment to understand why "just build more housing" does not get the round of applause you're expecting. I also encourage you to consider the massive differences between Seattle and SF, geographically, politically, economically, and socially. With all of these factored in, I think you'll better understand why "basic economics" is not enough.
  • seibelj 11y ago
    If you disagree with the sentiment that having 200k more units in SF would reduce prices, then you fail to understand basic economics. Now, if you are saying that building 200k more units is impractical, I wouldn't disagree. I'm just saying that the solution boils down to 3 options: increasing supply, reducing demand, or both. That's all there is. You can warp natural economics and impose rent control, mandated affordable housing, etc. but nothing but those 3 options will make any real difference.
    • intopieces 11y ago
      Everything you say is correct, but so lacking in complexity and detail that none of it bears repeating. Do you have any particular insights into how to overcome any of the challenges specific to San Francisco? "It's simple supply and demand" is so often repeated as the catch-all solution it's practically achieved meme status.
• jfoutz 11y ago
  I don't think they were really arguing the supply and demand point. I think they were pointing out all the other stuff that goes along with housing. A lot of people want to move to san francisco, but it's just to expensive. Your point (or part of it) means they'd need to add a whole lot of housing to bring the price down. So far so good, and i think we agree up to here. They were concerned with ancillary effects. If you bring in more people, right of the bat you'll need to deal with more water, sewer and garbage. Next you have cars. Roads are tough to widen. Expanding mass transit might help. Next the fire, police, schools and voting districts need to be expanded. Scaling is hard. Scaling government organizations is even harder. Compound interest is awesome, so maybe a few % a year would be tolerable, but it's not like you can just build 100k apartments one Thursday afternoon and call it good. So, you're absolutely right supply and demand works. You're wrong because that's not the only effect in play.
• abalone 11y ago
  Did you even read the article? The Seattle market weakened before all those new apartments opened. Clearly a sign that there are multiple factors at work in macroeconomics than simple microeconomic supply/demand. I think the first reply to your linked comment is not apoplectic at all and pretty reasonable counterpoint: when a highway is full of cars, adding more highway does not necessarily decrease congestion.