5 ms·

Oh, looking at this it is worth remembering that NIMBYism and real estate prices are one of the biggest drivers of inequality in the world. Housing doesn't hav

Oh, looking at this it is worth remembering that NIMBYism and real estate prices are one of the biggest drivers of inequality in the world. Housing doesn't have to be expensive. It is, mostly, due to political reasons. https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21647349-rising-house-prices-may-be-chiefly-responsible-rising-inequality-through https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2164734...

api 9y ago
"Real estate cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment." As soon as someone becomes a homeowner, it becomes in his/her best interests to make sure others cannot become homeowners at anything but a higher price. It's one of the most extreme perverse incentives in modern economies.
- Retric 9y ago
  Taxes can be a counterpoint to this. So, you want low value unless you're going to sell soon.
  - davidw 9y ago
    Unless you live somewhere like California (Prop 13) or Oregon (Measures 5 & 50) where taxes don't track home price increases.
  - raldi 9y ago
    To provide a little more detail on davidw's comment: In several US states, your property tax is locked in when you buy a house. So you could have two identical houses next door to each other, one last sold in 1975, the other 2015, and their property taxes would likely differ by a factor of at least 30x.
    - mikeyouse 9y ago
      To Raldi's point.. Two random houses near Pacific Heights: https://i.imgur.com/kltiDm4.png?1 https://i.imgur.com/kltiDm4.png?1 But at least people with $10 million houses are spared the indignity of paying for local services.
rsync 9y ago
"Oh, looking at this it is worth remembering that NIMBYism and real estate prices are one of the biggest drivers of inequality in the world." I am not sure that is the case. Certainly the growing inequality between the falling middle class and the increasingly rare upwardly mobile class could very well be due to the factors you cite. But the biggest inequality (both globally and locally) is between people who have literally nothing - as in, zero dollars - and people who have (anything more than zero). Even if you live at the poverty level and have no assets you are still infinitely better off than someone with nothing. That inequality gap is not due to zoning laws or illegal sublets or OMI evictions or whatever.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  That's exactly the case I talked about, growing inequality, driven by higher returns on capital, is drive actually by higher returns on housing, due to NIMBY laws.
coolspot 9y ago
Good places are expensive to live because competition is high. Whole world population could not fit into Malibu ocean view mansions.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  You don't need to live in a Malibu mansion with a view to the ocean, you just need to live within reasonable distance of your routine locations. And competition is high because supply is constrained by NIMBY zoning regulations. It's an artificial constraint.
  - Diederich 9y ago
    I get what you're saying, but it's really not that simple. It's a bit of both. > And competition is high because supply is constrained I think you and the person you're replying to are using the word 'competition' differently.
    - davidw 9y ago
      'Competition' is about competing for the available housing. If there's less housing, because of zoning laws and NIMBYism, the competition will be fiercer and prices higher. No one is saying that San Fran will ever be dirt cheap, just that it could be a lot cheaper if the market were allowed to function there.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      It actually is that simple. Housing mostly follows the supply-demand curves. If demand increases and you pass laws forbidding the increase in supply, prices will increase.
bluthru 9y ago
>Housing doesn't have to be expensive. It is, mostly, due to political reasons. And it's made even more expensive because of interest on mortgages--which isn't real money to begin with. That's right, the banks charge you interest on money they created out of thin air.

api 9y ago

"Real estate cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment." As soon as someone becomes a homeowner, it becomes in his/her best interests to make sure others cannot become homeowners at anything but a higher price. It's one of the most extreme perverse incentives in modern economies.

Retric 9y ago
Taxes can be a counterpoint to this. So, you want low value unless you're going to sell soon.
- davidw 9y ago
  Unless you live somewhere like California (Prop 13) or Oregon (Measures 5 & 50) where taxes don't track home price increases.
- raldi 9y ago
  To provide a little more detail on davidw's comment: In several US states, your property tax is locked in when you buy a house. So you could have two identical houses next door to each other, one last sold in 1975, the other 2015, and their property taxes would likely differ by a factor of at least 30x.
  - mikeyouse 9y ago
    To Raldi's point.. Two random houses near Pacific Heights: https://i.imgur.com/kltiDm4.png?1 https://i.imgur.com/kltiDm4.png?1 But at least people with $10 million houses are spared the indignity of paying for local services.

rsync 9y ago

"Oh, looking at this it is worth remembering that NIMBYism and real estate prices are one of the biggest drivers of inequality in the world." I am not sure that is the case. Certainly the growing inequality between the falling middle class and the increasingly rare upwardly mobile class could very well be due to the factors you cite. But the biggest inequality (both globally and locally) is between people who have literally nothing - as in, zero dollars - and people who have (anything more than zero). Even if you live at the poverty level and have no assets you are still infinitely better off than someone with nothing. That inequality gap is not due to zoning laws or illegal sublets or OMI evictions or whatever.

ucaetano 9y ago
That's exactly the case I talked about, growing inequality, driven by higher returns on capital, is drive actually by higher returns on housing, due to NIMBY laws.

coolspot 9y ago

Good places are expensive to live because competition is high. Whole world population could not fit into Malibu ocean view mansions.

ucaetano 9y ago
You don't need to live in a Malibu mansion with a view to the ocean, you just need to live within reasonable distance of your routine locations. And competition is high because supply is constrained by NIMBY zoning regulations. It's an artificial constraint.
- Diederich 9y ago
  I get what you're saying, but it's really not that simple. It's a bit of both. > And competition is high because supply is constrained I think you and the person you're replying to are using the word 'competition' differently.
  - davidw 9y ago
    'Competition' is about competing for the available housing. If there's less housing, because of zoning laws and NIMBYism, the competition will be fiercer and prices higher. No one is saying that San Fran will ever be dirt cheap, just that it could be a lot cheaper if the market were allowed to function there.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    It actually is that simple. Housing mostly follows the supply-demand curves. If demand increases and you pass laws forbidding the increase in supply, prices will increase.

bluthru 9y ago

>Housing doesn't have to be expensive. It is, mostly, due to political reasons. And it's made even more expensive because of interest on mortgages--which isn't real money to begin with. That's right, the banks charge you interest on money they created out of thin air.