4 ms·

This will just contribute to rising costs spiral, as it's already the case with healthcare and education. Such kind of arrangements are only profitable for exis

This will just contribute to rising costs spiral, as it's already the case with healthcare and education. Such kind of arrangements are only profitable for existing big players in the market. The only sustainable way to make something affordable is to push down the prices. The only way to do it is to increase competition — which, in order, requires dramatically lowering the barriers of entry. But it seems that nobody is actually interested in that, and NIMBY attitude and monetary diversion schemes prevail.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Of course not. Lowering the cost to build housing benefits developers and people looking to move into the community. Subsidizing rents directly lines the pockets of landowners in the local community, as does restricting supply. Guess who has the most votes for determining local policy?
bradleyjg 10y ago
We need a lot more units. That's it. All these crazy schemes with lotteries, vouchers, and set asides are all unnecessary. We just need more units. Remove the laws that prevent building more units and tax the value of the land as opposed to the value of the property as a whole. That second part encourages maximum use of the land, which generally means more units. Other than that, work on the infrastructure to support the new units and get out of the way.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  How about disincentivizing the centralization of jobs? Then housing wouldn't be ins such high demand in such a small geographic area and prices would go down.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    Centralization of jobs has worked well for nearly every other non-US city practically forever. Other places have fewer zoning laws etc. that cause an artificial shortage of houses in what would be high-density areas.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
I re-read http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies... today. It would suggest weathering short-term pain, letting the bubble eventually collapse, and picking up from there - funneling money into a bubble only makes it grow.
kefka 10y ago
Yep, great idea. "push down the prices". In other words, lowering compliance costs, regulatory costs, and in general any governmental barrier placed forth. This is called "Trickle Down Economics". This works for saving more of the elites money, but not for us. Frankly it just doesn't work, at all, when looked at with a lens of government. But boy, will they sell us this package that "It'll lower costs... We'll be able to hire more people.... We'll be able to...". In the end, they stockpile and shovel the money out of the US. If X costs $100 and by eliminating ALL governmental costs, goes to $80... and the average person only has $40, neither choice does a damn bit of good. They're both unaffordable. But now, one pays less to the burden of citizenship and public resource usage (aka Taxes). You want to stimulate the economy? Put money in the hands of the people! Yeah, you won't "save" that mythical $20 of compliance costs, but if the citizenry has $150, now they can afford your X. Course, the argument here is that X now goes up to $200. But Y over there is willing to play 'Supply and Demand' and undercut X... Just like how things do now in many markets. But, you know, something about socialist programs makes people get up and deny the very facts about supply and demand, and competition. For some reason, they all claim that everything will miraculously buffer up by Z% because socialist programs.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  What if X costs $100 only because price got extremely inflated over time? If you just give money to the people, then citizens have $150, $100 of which they'll spend on X, and the price of X is unlikely to go down - in fact, it'll likely go up! How about finding a way to reboot the X market, so that the price goes back down to a reasonable level (e.g. $35)?
  - kefka 10y ago
    You're right in specific areas. Medical is fucked. Primarily, because of complete opaqueness in everything, and heavy regulatory control over many parts. We could either use a whole lot of socialism here, or a whole lot of capitalism here. Cause right now, we have the worst of each with none of the gains. Education is also fucked. Except this is good ol' protectionism straight up. We need look no further than the laws that forbid bankruptcy on school debt. Only one other area shares that distinction: criminal debt as a part of a punishment. Once these laws were enacted, school spending/loans/building/spending loop was going to spiral out of control. They have a captive audience, and they know it. And, a simple fix? Re-allow bankruptcy. It'd certainly be painful for the schools... but what's that phrase? "Market Correction"? I do still think you're wrong, overall. Cheap goods don't do a damn bit of good when people don't have money. And where we're going, AI applications and robotics are going to eat a lot of things quickly. I'm just waiting for the trucking industry to go "poof".. But you know, cheap goods.. With jobless, moneyless workers displaced who can't afford even cheap.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Of course not. Lowering the cost to build housing benefits developers and people looking to move into the community. Subsidizing rents directly lines the pockets of landowners in the local community, as does restricting supply. Guess who has the most votes for determining local policy?

bradleyjg 10y ago

We need a lot more units. That's it. All these crazy schemes with lotteries, vouchers, and set asides are all unnecessary. We just need more units. Remove the laws that prevent building more units and tax the value of the land as opposed to the value of the property as a whole. That second part encourages maximum use of the land, which generally means more units. Other than that, work on the infrastructure to support the new units and get out of the way.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
How about disincentivizing the centralization of jobs? Then housing wouldn't be ins such high demand in such a small geographic area and prices would go down.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Centralization of jobs has worked well for nearly every other non-US city practically forever. Other places have fewer zoning laws etc. that cause an artificial shortage of houses in what would be high-density areas.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

I re-read http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies... today. It would suggest weathering short-term pain, letting the bubble eventually collapse, and picking up from there - funneling money into a bubble only makes it grow.

kefka 10y ago

Yep, great idea. "push down the prices". In other words, lowering compliance costs, regulatory costs, and in general any governmental barrier placed forth. This is called "Trickle Down Economics". This works for saving more of the elites money, but not for us. Frankly it just doesn't work, at all, when looked at with a lens of government. But boy, will they sell us this package that "It'll lower costs... We'll be able to hire more people.... We'll be able to...". In the end, they stockpile and shovel the money out of the US. If X costs $100 and by eliminating ALL governmental costs, goes to $80... and the average person only has $40, neither choice does a damn bit of good. They're both unaffordable. But now, one pays less to the burden of citizenship and public resource usage (aka Taxes). You want to stimulate the economy? Put money in the hands of the people! Yeah, you won't "save" that mythical $20 of compliance costs, but if the citizenry has $150, now they can afford your X. Course, the argument here is that X now goes up to $200. But Y over there is willing to play 'Supply and Demand' and undercut X... Just like how things do now in many markets. But, you know, something about socialist programs makes people get up and deny the very facts about supply and demand, and competition. For some reason, they all claim that everything will miraculously buffer up by Z% because socialist programs.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
What if X costs $100 only because price got extremely inflated over time? If you just give money to the people, then citizens have $150, $100 of which they'll spend on X, and the price of X is unlikely to go down - in fact, it'll likely go up! How about finding a way to reboot the X market, so that the price goes back down to a reasonable level (e.g. $35)?
- kefka 10y ago
  You're right in specific areas. Medical is fucked. Primarily, because of complete opaqueness in everything, and heavy regulatory control over many parts. We could either use a whole lot of socialism here, or a whole lot of capitalism here. Cause right now, we have the worst of each with none of the gains. Education is also fucked. Except this is good ol' protectionism straight up. We need look no further than the laws that forbid bankruptcy on school debt. Only one other area shares that distinction: criminal debt as a part of a punishment. Once these laws were enacted, school spending/loans/building/spending loop was going to spiral out of control. They have a captive audience, and they know it. And, a simple fix? Re-allow bankruptcy. It'd certainly be painful for the schools... but what's that phrase? "Market Correction"? I do still think you're wrong, overall. Cheap goods don't do a damn bit of good when people don't have money. And where we're going, AI applications and robotics are going to eat a lot of things quickly. I'm just waiting for the trucking industry to go "poof".. But you know, cheap goods.. With jobless, moneyless workers displaced who can't afford even cheap.