4 ms·

There is no need for additional construction to meet housing demand. In the continental US there are something like 6 empty units for every homeless person in t

There is no need for additional construction to meet housing demand. In the continental US there are something like 6 empty units for every homeless person in the country. In turn this means there is no pent up demand for building materials, so putting people to work in forestry, quarry, cement, steel, etc is also a non-starter. Global food surplus indicates there is no pressing need to put additional people to work in agriculture. I'm not certain that there is pent up demand for 3.5 million new nannies or therapists in the country, which is a relevant number as that's roughly how many OTR truckers that are on the cusp of losing their livelihoods to automation. There simply isn't enough work to go around.

stale2002 10y ago
There are empty houses, but not in places where people want to live. There is absolutely a housing shortage in popular metropolitan areas (take your pick) . If there wasn't, then prices wouldn't be so high.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Popular because people are clumping in areas that have jobs...
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Also because they like those areas? Many people dream of moving to New York. And they would dream that with out without the jobs.
    - zardo 10y ago
      It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York.
      - forgetsusername 10y ago
        >It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York Movies and TV shows are filmed in NY because it's a world class, iconic city. It didn't become that because of media.
    - isostatic 10y ago
      I'm sure there are many who live in New York who want to move out but can't because of the work. Certainly that's the case in London. Desires change through life. Sure when I was 20-something I'd be happy living in manhattan, but in my 30s I want somewhere in the country with a nice small school for the kids. When I'm in my 50s I suspect a house by the beach would be good, maybe even abroad. When it comes to my 70s and I've got grandkids I'll want to be near them. How many people want to live in Ny to live the "friends" lifestyle, find out reality doesn't meet expectation, then want to leave but can't due to work?
- internaut 10y ago
  Why aren't we building down? Each plot owns the land beneath, yes? So build downwards if zoning prohibits building up.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    The cost per sq ft is higher. You often hit aquifers. Less light. More difficult egress in an emergency. (Just giving some reasons why building down isn't done more, but it is happening.)
    - internaut 10y ago
      Yes it is happening I know, I remember a 99% Invisible podcast episode talking about it. Also there was a documentary on London millionaires doing it. I find it striking it is not done even more. I recognize the technical difficulties but the costs are surely lower than the potential value of easily doubling the sq ft. There are interesting tricks you can do with fibre optic cable and mirrors to send daylight down there. Not to mention CoeLux and similar products.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    You don't gain that much by building downward, one or two floors at most, and you also run into other laws. For example, an apartment is required to have a window or fresh air source.
    - internaut 10y ago
      There are technical difficulties but you're doubling the sq ft! That is huge. Have you seen London's iceberg buildings? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0 I admit I just want this because the idea of hidden labyrinths behind our cities is just intrinsically appealing to me. There could be shops! Neon signs! It would be cyberpunk and then I would know the future has arrived :-) The monetary payoff does seem to be there. I wonder if the delay in transformations of this sort might have a lot to do with a lack of 3D expertise among builders.
_audakel 10y ago
> There simply isn't enough work to go around. Dissagree. Technolgy works best when augmented with humans, however the training needed for ppl (ie truck drivers) may take longer to retool their minds then they have life left. So there may be a generation gap in jobs. Also consider space as the final frontier. How much work will be needed to build fleets of ships to colonize space and all that entails?
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Disagree all you want to, the market clearly finds your argument unpersuasive.
  - vehementi 10y ago
    Yes, that's the point. "The market" is not a system that is suited for this. The market is not going to get people to make cool paths through parks, clean up the neighbourhood, etc. because the market doesn't derive shareholder profits from that at current wages. That work though is indisputably valuable stuff that could be done. Clearly, we have proven that there is plenty more work to go around and that the market is "wrong" about this.
    - knieveltech 10y ago
      I'm fairly certain that no proof of any kind has been presented that there is plenty of work just lying around waiting to be done. Idle speculation certainly, but proof?
      - vehementi 10y ago
        It's trivially true. Garbage men could pick up the trash 5x as often. Individual people could come cook for everyone. Parks could be maintained 10x as much. Trash collectors could clean up the streets all the time. More people could help the IRS catch crooks. etc. All of those things happen but 5x more people could do those jobs as well, but that would make them unprofitable to shareholders i.e. not worth paying someone minimum wage to do it. So this system doesn't get people to do that work.
donall 10y ago
Do you have citations, particularly for housing? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely interested in the sources because I have a sense that you're right but have never found great evidence to back it up. The raw number of residential-zoned buildings vs the number of homeless people is not as useful as it could be. I'd love to see some deeper analysis.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  I initially ran across those numbers in a comment thread somewhere and spent some time researching them. To date I haven't come across a reputable source like the New York Times quoting them online but also wasn't able to find a snopes article demolishing the claim. I spent some additional time this evening looking up the base numbers: Vacant units in 2016: http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/u-s-q1-2016-u-s-residential-property-vacancy-analysis/ http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/u-s-q1-201... Snapshot of US homeless numbers (likely low): http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2016 http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2016 Assuming these numbers are in any way accurate that leaves us with roughly 2 and a third houses per reported homeless person in the US. So it looks like the initial statement may not be accurate but a housing surplus certainly exists.
donall 10y ago
Do you have citations, particularly for housing? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely interested in the sources because I have a sense that you're right but have never found great evidence to back it up. The raw number of residential-zoned buildings vs the number of homeless people is not as useful as it could be. I'd love to see some deeper analysis.

stale2002 10y ago

There are empty houses, but not in places where people want to live. There is absolutely a housing shortage in popular metropolitan areas (take your pick) . If there wasn't, then prices wouldn't be so high.

knieveltech 10y ago
Popular because people are clumping in areas that have jobs...
- stale2002 10y ago
  Also because they like those areas? Many people dream of moving to New York. And they would dream that with out without the jobs.
  - zardo 10y ago
    It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York.
    - forgetsusername 10y ago
      >It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York Movies and TV shows are filmed in NY because it's a world class, iconic city. It didn't become that because of media.
  - isostatic 10y ago
    I'm sure there are many who live in New York who want to move out but can't because of the work. Certainly that's the case in London. Desires change through life. Sure when I was 20-something I'd be happy living in manhattan, but in my 30s I want somewhere in the country with a nice small school for the kids. When I'm in my 50s I suspect a house by the beach would be good, maybe even abroad. When it comes to my 70s and I've got grandkids I'll want to be near them. How many people want to live in Ny to live the "friends" lifestyle, find out reality doesn't meet expectation, then want to leave but can't due to work?
internaut 10y ago
Why aren't we building down? Each plot owns the land beneath, yes? So build downwards if zoning prohibits building up.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  The cost per sq ft is higher. You often hit aquifers. Less light. More difficult egress in an emergency. (Just giving some reasons why building down isn't done more, but it is happening.)
  - internaut 10y ago
    Yes it is happening I know, I remember a 99% Invisible podcast episode talking about it. Also there was a documentary on London millionaires doing it. I find it striking it is not done even more. I recognize the technical difficulties but the costs are surely lower than the potential value of easily doubling the sq ft. There are interesting tricks you can do with fibre optic cable and mirrors to send daylight down there. Not to mention CoeLux and similar products.
- stale2002 10y ago
  You don't gain that much by building downward, one or two floors at most, and you also run into other laws. For example, an apartment is required to have a window or fresh air source.
  - internaut 10y ago
    There are technical difficulties but you're doubling the sq ft! That is huge. Have you seen London's iceberg buildings? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0 I admit I just want this because the idea of hidden labyrinths behind our cities is just intrinsically appealing to me. There could be shops! Neon signs! It would be cyberpunk and then I would know the future has arrived :-) The monetary payoff does seem to be there. I wonder if the delay in transformations of this sort might have a lot to do with a lack of 3D expertise among builders.

_audakel 10y ago

> There simply isn't enough work to go around. Dissagree. Technolgy works best when augmented with humans, however the training needed for ppl (ie truck drivers) may take longer to retool their minds then they have life left. So there may be a generation gap in jobs. Also consider space as the final frontier. How much work will be needed to build fleets of ships to colonize space and all that entails?

knieveltech 10y ago
Disagree all you want to, the market clearly finds your argument unpersuasive.
- vehementi 10y ago
  Yes, that's the point. "The market" is not a system that is suited for this. The market is not going to get people to make cool paths through parks, clean up the neighbourhood, etc. because the market doesn't derive shareholder profits from that at current wages. That work though is indisputably valuable stuff that could be done. Clearly, we have proven that there is plenty more work to go around and that the market is "wrong" about this.
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    I'm fairly certain that no proof of any kind has been presented that there is plenty of work just lying around waiting to be done. Idle speculation certainly, but proof?
    - vehementi 10y ago
      It's trivially true. Garbage men could pick up the trash 5x as often. Individual people could come cook for everyone. Parks could be maintained 10x as much. Trash collectors could clean up the streets all the time. More people could help the IRS catch crooks. etc. All of those things happen but 5x more people could do those jobs as well, but that would make them unprofitable to shareholders i.e. not worth paying someone minimum wage to do it. So this system doesn't get people to do that work.

donall 10y ago

Do you have citations, particularly for housing? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely interested in the sources because I have a sense that you're right but have never found great evidence to back it up. The raw number of residential-zoned buildings vs the number of homeless people is not as useful as it could be. I'd love to see some deeper analysis.

knieveltech 10y ago
I initially ran across those numbers in a comment thread somewhere and spent some time researching them. To date I haven't come across a reputable source like the New York Times quoting them online but also wasn't able to find a snopes article demolishing the claim. I spent some additional time this evening looking up the base numbers: Vacant units in 2016: http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/u-s-q1-2016-u-s-residential-property-vacancy-analysis/ http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/u-s-q1-201... Snapshot of US homeless numbers (likely low): http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2016 http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2016 Assuming these numbers are in any way accurate that leaves us with roughly 2 and a third houses per reported homeless person in the US. So it looks like the initial statement may not be accurate but a housing surplus certainly exists.

donall 10y ago