4 ms·

Nobody believes or has claimed that supply and demand are "not real" and reducing the housing crisis to "Econ 101" is highly disingenuous. It ignores non-econom

Nobody believes or has claimed that supply and demand are "not real" and reducing the housing crisis to "Econ 101" is highly disingenuous. It ignores non-economic factors (environmental, cultural) that are contributory. Everyone wants to wave a magic wand and fix housing, but until we acknowledge that such a wand does not exist (and that the situation far exceeds Econ 101) we will continue having the same unproductive conversations.

twblalock 10y ago
It's very obvious that many of the people and organizations active in San Francisco politics do not understand economics 101. They say some really stupid things, and voters believe them. There are certainly productive conversations to be had within a rational economic paradigm, but too many of the participants reject the paradigm, and therefore no productive conversation with them can occur. For example, here is one opinion piece from the Examiner, in which the author writes, "But supply and demand does not apply to housing": http://www.sfexaminer.com/nato-green-do-the-math-you-cant-buy-a-home-in-sf/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/nato-green-do-the-math-you-cant-bu... Here is another paper, by the founder of the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods and the Council of Community Housing Organizations, which denies that supply and demand operate in the San Francisco housing market: http://www.sfhac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/calvin-welch-paper.pdf http://www.sfhac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/calvin-welch...
- intopieces 10y ago
  It's incredible what you can conclude when you take pieces out of context. The first article says suppy and demand is not enough to explain the complexity of housing vis-a-vis the demographics that demand it. The paper you linked expands on this. It's clear that you want a solution. We all want a solution. But there isn't one solution. There are competing interests at play, and smugly declaring that anyone who denies your oversimplification is saying something "stupid" or "irrational" only highlights what little information you have to add to the discussion. I'd much rather see a point by point rebuttal to the studies done rather a simple, "it's not confirming my belief about economics so must be utter bullshit." Yawn.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    You wrote: > Nobody believes or has claimed that supply and demand are "not real" and reducing the housing crisis to "Econ 101" is highly disingenuous. I responded by providing links demonstrating that there are indeed people active in SF media and politics who need an econ 101 lesson, which rebuts your assertion that "nobody" does. There are many other articles by SF activists that are similar to the links I provided. There is nothing disingenuous about "reducing" the housing crisis to econ 101 when many of the people involved clearly need an econ 101 lesson.
    - randyrand 10y ago
      anyone that claims that housing "is too complicated to be explained by econ 101" really does not understand econ 101.
      - uola 10y ago
        That's a pretty meaningless statement. Just because you can explain something with the concepts in covered in econ 101 doesn't mean that you understand it after econ 101. Few people who understand even basic economics are surprised that a mid-sized US city can't keep up with the demands of being a center of the most successful industry of this era. Nor that people who aspire to be the next Steve Jobs are willing to pay more than hippies who would rather not work. The reason it is an advanced economic question isn't because that the economics is complicated, but because the real life factors are. If you think it's simple and you're convinced you're right you should go be an analyst and make a lot of money.
  - thwarted 10y ago
    There are competing interests at play Those competing interests feed into the supply and demand curve. Those who don't want new development, for reasons of neighborhood character, density, whathaveyou, increase demand for not building. Those who claim they want new building, but only if it's "affordable" (whatever that actually looks like when it's built, I'm unable to determine a solid answer on) have high demand on a specific kind of housing, and low demand on another kind. People who want luxury residences would be satisfied by a different kind of supply than those who want low-income housing.
- randyrand 10y ago
  Wow. Those articles... my god. No wonder SF has a housing crisis. Great sources, that support your point. Thanks.
BurningFrog 10y ago
To my eye arguments denying supply and demand are dominating the SF debate. Perhaps the most common is the idea that adding new "luxury" housing will drive up prices.
- intopieces 10y ago
  There's the opposite myth that abounds too -- that building "luxury" housing is the silver bullet that will make housing affordable. The reality is that even loosening zoning laws to pure anarchy will not make a big enough impact on supply vs demand to make housing as affordable as the government mandated affordable housing lottery creates. And the other reality that rarely gets discussed is that the city's ancillary infrastructure: water/sewage/police/transportation/EMT/fire -- must be accounted for with every additional housing unit. But it's all just supply and demand, right? Just add more supply and everything will be okay? San Francisco does not want to be Hong Kong. San Francisco does not want to be Manhattan. What people actually want for their city -- that is, the desires of the people that already live there -- will always trump the demands of people who wish they could live there. But, alas, the Econ 101 meme is too convenient not to endure in every discussion.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    The econ 101 meme is convenient because it is true, and because it is very obvious that many people involved in the discussion don't understand economics. > San Francisco does not want to be Hong Kong. San Francisco does not want to be Manhattan. What people actually want for their city -- that is, the desires of the people that already live there -- will always trump the demands of people who wish they could live there. The people who live there are getting what they voted for -- restrictive housing policies and rent control. The voters caused this situation. They just don't understand enough about econ 101 to realize it. If they did, they would change their minds. People want to move to SF, and bring their money and their labor power with them, and nobody can or should prevent that -- most cities would welcome that kind of investment. The city can accommodate their need for housing, or not. If the city does not accommodate the newcomers' need for housing, it is the existing residents who will suffer most, because the newcomers are generally richer than the existing residents and are better able to compete for housing.

twblalock 10y ago

It's very obvious that many of the people and organizations active in San Francisco politics do not understand economics 101. They say some really stupid things, and voters believe them. There are certainly productive conversations to be had within a rational economic paradigm, but too many of the participants reject the paradigm, and therefore no productive conversation with them can occur. For example, here is one opinion piece from the Examiner, in which the author writes, "But supply and demand does not apply to housing": http://www.sfexaminer.com/nato-green-do-the-math-you-cant-buy-a-home-in-sf/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/nato-green-do-the-math-you-cant-bu... Here is another paper, by the founder of the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods and the Council of Community Housing Organizations, which denies that supply and demand operate in the San Francisco housing market: http://www.sfhac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/calvin-welch-paper.pdf http://www.sfhac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/calvin-welch...

intopieces 10y ago
It's incredible what you can conclude when you take pieces out of context. The first article says suppy and demand is not enough to explain the complexity of housing vis-a-vis the demographics that demand it. The paper you linked expands on this. It's clear that you want a solution. We all want a solution. But there isn't one solution. There are competing interests at play, and smugly declaring that anyone who denies your oversimplification is saying something "stupid" or "irrational" only highlights what little information you have to add to the discussion. I'd much rather see a point by point rebuttal to the studies done rather a simple, "it's not confirming my belief about economics so must be utter bullshit." Yawn.
- twblalock 10y ago
  You wrote: > Nobody believes or has claimed that supply and demand are "not real" and reducing the housing crisis to "Econ 101" is highly disingenuous. I responded by providing links demonstrating that there are indeed people active in SF media and politics who need an econ 101 lesson, which rebuts your assertion that "nobody" does. There are many other articles by SF activists that are similar to the links I provided. There is nothing disingenuous about "reducing" the housing crisis to econ 101 when many of the people involved clearly need an econ 101 lesson.
  - randyrand 10y ago
    anyone that claims that housing "is too complicated to be explained by econ 101" really does not understand econ 101.
    - uola 10y ago
      That's a pretty meaningless statement. Just because you can explain something with the concepts in covered in econ 101 doesn't mean that you understand it after econ 101. Few people who understand even basic economics are surprised that a mid-sized US city can't keep up with the demands of being a center of the most successful industry of this era. Nor that people who aspire to be the next Steve Jobs are willing to pay more than hippies who would rather not work. The reason it is an advanced economic question isn't because that the economics is complicated, but because the real life factors are. If you think it's simple and you're convinced you're right you should go be an analyst and make a lot of money.
- thwarted 10y ago
  There are competing interests at play Those competing interests feed into the supply and demand curve. Those who don't want new development, for reasons of neighborhood character, density, whathaveyou, increase demand for not building. Those who claim they want new building, but only if it's "affordable" (whatever that actually looks like when it's built, I'm unable to determine a solid answer on) have high demand on a specific kind of housing, and low demand on another kind. People who want luxury residences would be satisfied by a different kind of supply than those who want low-income housing.
randyrand 10y ago
Wow. Those articles... my god. No wonder SF has a housing crisis. Great sources, that support your point. Thanks.

BurningFrog 10y ago

To my eye arguments denying supply and demand are dominating the SF debate. Perhaps the most common is the idea that adding new "luxury" housing will drive up prices.

intopieces 10y ago
There's the opposite myth that abounds too -- that building "luxury" housing is the silver bullet that will make housing affordable. The reality is that even loosening zoning laws to pure anarchy will not make a big enough impact on supply vs demand to make housing as affordable as the government mandated affordable housing lottery creates. And the other reality that rarely gets discussed is that the city's ancillary infrastructure: water/sewage/police/transportation/EMT/fire -- must be accounted for with every additional housing unit. But it's all just supply and demand, right? Just add more supply and everything will be okay? San Francisco does not want to be Hong Kong. San Francisco does not want to be Manhattan. What people actually want for their city -- that is, the desires of the people that already live there -- will always trump the demands of people who wish they could live there. But, alas, the Econ 101 meme is too convenient not to endure in every discussion.
- twblalock 10y ago
  The econ 101 meme is convenient because it is true, and because it is very obvious that many people involved in the discussion don't understand economics. > San Francisco does not want to be Hong Kong. San Francisco does not want to be Manhattan. What people actually want for their city -- that is, the desires of the people that already live there -- will always trump the demands of people who wish they could live there. The people who live there are getting what they voted for -- restrictive housing policies and rent control. The voters caused this situation. They just don't understand enough about econ 101 to realize it. If they did, they would change their minds. People want to move to SF, and bring their money and their labor power with them, and nobody can or should prevent that -- most cities would welcome that kind of investment. The city can accommodate their need for housing, or not. If the city does not accommodate the newcomers' need for housing, it is the existing residents who will suffer most, because the newcomers are generally richer than the existing residents and are better able to compete for housing.