4 ms·
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 ho
by 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 agoYou 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 agoanyone that claims that housing "is too complicated to be explained by econ 101" really does not understand econ 101.
- uola 10y agoThat'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 agoThere 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.
- intopieces 10y agoAbsolutely they do. This is precisely the point I've attempted to make -- if you can find me an Econ 101 book that takes into account the particular political predilections of individual San Francisco neighborhoods, I'll donate $20 to the charity of your choice. Until then, I contend the Econ 101 meme is totally insufficient. There is no "just build housing." There is only a complex intersection of need, desire, and will that changes by the seasons. Let's acknowledge those and work towards a compromise instead of calling the other side stupid. That argument is lazy.