3 ms·

These 'zero growth for bottom X%' headlines, even when mathematically valid, are deceiving because growth isn't randomly distributed across the income space, it

These 'zero growth for bottom X%' headlines, even when mathematically valid, are deceiving because growth isn't randomly distributed across the income space, it's concentrated at the top. 'Zero for bottom 50' is usually code for 'positive for 40-50', 'neutral for 20-40', 'negative for 0-20'.

jseliger 10y ago
This is a great point. I also think that some people, especially in the media, feel more pinched than they did decades ago because we've systematically made housing dramatically more expensive through parochial zoning: http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities/ http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-futu... or http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2002/10/v25n3-7.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/re.... Household consumption costs are dominated by housing, first of all, and transport, secondarily; in many coastal cities, strangling supply has led to higher prices that consume way more income, making people feel artificially poorer than they would in a freer market.
- internaut 10y ago
  > we've systematically made housing dramatically more expensive through parochial zoning Surely this is a side effect of something else. This effect cannot be caused by population increases because most of the 20th century had large increases without this zoning pattern emerging. Additionally many European countries have declining populations and high rent/house prices. So what is it? Low interest rates? But then low interest rates are supposed to spur business development and new enterprise. More people should have more savings to spend on things, like houses. Why isn't this happening? And finally we're back to Peter Thiel's position = ex-computation technological progress has stalled and many people in the intelligentsia haven't noticed it due to their cocoon. Do you agree with this train of thought?
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    > Surely this is a side effect of something else. I recommend the writings of Prof. William Fischel (author of Zoning Rules![0]) to answer this question-- he uses a Coasian approach to identify that restrictive/exclusionary zoning policy is a rational response by homeowners when they are given undue entitlements. One entitlement that's especially relevant is low property taxes (Prop 13 in California/Measure 5 in Oregon)-- this drives up housing prices and incentivizes homeowners to hold on to housing stock and resist the increase of housing stock elsewhere in their community. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulation/dp/155844288X https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulatio...
    - internaut 10y ago
      > I recommend the writings of Prof. William Fischel (author of Zoning Rules![0]) to answer this question-- he uses a Coasian approach to identify that restrictive/exclusionary zoning policy is a rational response by homeowners when they are given undue entitlements. Very interesting, thank you. > It's important to remember that the rise of the automobile happened over this same period, which raised the level of marginal land (and delayed conflict over overpopulation, for at least a few generations). A good point. I expect self driving to extend such an effect.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    Oh, and also: > This effect cannot be caused by population increases because most of the 20th century had large increases without this zoning pattern emerging. It's important to remember that the rise of the automobile happened over this same period, which raised the level of marginal land (and delayed conflict over overpopulation, for at least a few generations).
tomp 10y ago
Hm... I interpret it more like "negative-to-neutral for 0-70, slightly positive for 70-98, exponential for 99-100".

jseliger 10y ago

This is a great point. I also think that some people, especially in the media, feel more pinched than they did decades ago because we've systematically made housing dramatically more expensive through parochial zoning: http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities/ http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-futu... or http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2002/10/v25n3-7.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/re.... Household consumption costs are dominated by housing, first of all, and transport, secondarily; in many coastal cities, strangling supply has led to higher prices that consume way more income, making people feel artificially poorer than they would in a freer market.

internaut 10y ago
> we've systematically made housing dramatically more expensive through parochial zoning Surely this is a side effect of something else. This effect cannot be caused by population increases because most of the 20th century had large increases without this zoning pattern emerging. Additionally many European countries have declining populations and high rent/house prices. So what is it? Low interest rates? But then low interest rates are supposed to spur business development and new enterprise. More people should have more savings to spend on things, like houses. Why isn't this happening? And finally we're back to Peter Thiel's position = ex-computation technological progress has stalled and many people in the intelligentsia haven't noticed it due to their cocoon. Do you agree with this train of thought?
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  > Surely this is a side effect of something else. I recommend the writings of Prof. William Fischel (author of Zoning Rules![0]) to answer this question-- he uses a Coasian approach to identify that restrictive/exclusionary zoning policy is a rational response by homeowners when they are given undue entitlements. One entitlement that's especially relevant is low property taxes (Prop 13 in California/Measure 5 in Oregon)-- this drives up housing prices and incentivizes homeowners to hold on to housing stock and resist the increase of housing stock elsewhere in their community. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulation/dp/155844288X https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulatio...
  - internaut 10y ago
    > I recommend the writings of Prof. William Fischel (author of Zoning Rules![0]) to answer this question-- he uses a Coasian approach to identify that restrictive/exclusionary zoning policy is a rational response by homeowners when they are given undue entitlements. Very interesting, thank you. > It's important to remember that the rise of the automobile happened over this same period, which raised the level of marginal land (and delayed conflict over overpopulation, for at least a few generations). A good point. I expect self driving to extend such an effect.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  Oh, and also: > This effect cannot be caused by population increases because most of the 20th century had large increases without this zoning pattern emerging. It's important to remember that the rise of the automobile happened over this same period, which raised the level of marginal land (and delayed conflict over overpopulation, for at least a few generations).

tomp 10y ago

Hm... I interpret it more like "negative-to-neutral for 0-70, slightly positive for 70-98, exponential for 99-100".