4 ms·

I disagree. The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities. Housing costs rise because that's where the money/

I disagree. The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities. Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are. Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing(which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization), we need to address capital concentration. edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? Was something that I said inaccurate?

Wohlf 9y ago
I guess you're a big fan of China's city planning then.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I don't know a thing about China's city planning. How is it relevant to the conversation?
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    There's no well-known city planning being done in Venezuela, so there was a reversion to more traditional enemies.
closeparen 9y ago
Capital concentration is the whole point of cities. The only economically equal and balanced settlement pattern is everyone getting a small farm. The problem we’re trying to solve here is that people are artificially denied access to the (jobs, infrastructure, culture) benefits of concentrated capital. If you think we shouldn’t have cities, that’s one thing. If you think they should be reserved exclusively for the people who already live in them, that’s quite another, and you’re simply creating a new form of structural inequality based on birthplace (even within the US).
bmmayer1 9y ago
You're being downvoted because your comment doesn't make any sense. To elaborate: > The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities This is a pretty bizarre claim, since by definition a city's housing crisis is a local affair, so what does it have to do with capital being concentrated in a 'handful' of cities? But assuming your claim is that wealth in a city ---> housing shortage, then you need to explain how you make that connection. > Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are What does this mean? If you mean that you need money to build housing, then shouldn't capital concentration to a city mean more housing? If you mean that wealthy or powerful people benefit from less housing, show your work. If you're trying to demonstrate the above connection between wealth and housing shortage, there are a plethora of cities with high wealth and no housing shortages (Singapore, Chicago, Budapest, Seoul...) Also, aren't housing costs driven by the same forces that drive the cost of anything else? Namely, supply and demand? > Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing If the definition of the housing crisis is 'not enough housing for the people who need homes' then why would "increasing housing" - the literal solution to the crisis - be considered slapping on a bandaid? > which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization Again, this makes no sense. If more houses means more wealth concentration, then shouldn't the wealthy want to build more houses? But in your previous comment, you made it sound like the wealthy don't want to build more houses. > we need to address capital concentration This is a altogether different point that you are welcome to argue on your own time but it really has nothing to do with housing shortages unless you want to expound upon the above a little more clearly.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  The amount of money a household can spend on a mortgage increases drastically as income increases. Because, for the most part, the costs of raising a family doesn't have to increase in proportion to income. What this means is that a family making $100k/yr can spend dramatically more than one making $50k/yr, and making $200k can spend more on housing their the other two families make in a year. In most cities, this plays out by having islands of expensive neighborhoods in desirable areas. And housing decreases proportional to desirability as you get out. The problem in some cities in California is that there are so many extremely wealthy families, that the island of desirability has become so large that there are no affordable housing anywhere close to where the good jobs are, so lower income people are forced to commute for longer and longer. Most other cities do not have the same numbers of extremely wealthy people. But in every city where a large number of disproportionately wealthy people move in, a housing crisis seems to follow. It used to be, living closer to the city meant a compromise in some other area. Maybe you lived in an apartment and took the bus everywhere because you couldn't afford to have a house and a car in the neighborhood you want to be in. But now, people can afford to have a single family home with a garage in areas that really should be limited to large apartments.
mixmastamyk 9y ago
Yes. So, you are saying there is a big demand for housing in the city close to jobs? True dat. Econ 101 tells us the way to meet that demand without increasing prices is to increase supply. That part hasn’t been done. No amount of “housing denial” and rent control will change it.
pascalxus 9y ago
The reason you are downvoted, is because there's one part you're extremely wrong about: Increasing housing is not a "band aid". It's the lack of supply of housing which is the ENTIRE cause of the housing crisis. Any solution to the housing crisis MUST in some way increase the housing supply, or at least decrease housing demand (say by getting rid of jobs). Even without lots of rich people/capital concentration, you would still have the same problem (housing prices wouldn't be as high), but the percentage of people able to afford a house would remain the same. Supply/Demand is the problem -> Supply is not allowed to increase to meet demand and at the same time we're encouraging all kinds of demand by increasing the number of companies and jobs in CA. It's like playing musical chairs with 1000 people and only 5 chairs. No matter how you split up those chairs, there's gonna be a lot of unhappy people.

Wohlf 9y ago

I guess you're a big fan of China's city planning then.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
I don't know a thing about China's city planning. How is it relevant to the conversation?
- pessimizer 9y ago
  There's no well-known city planning being done in Venezuela, so there was a reversion to more traditional enemies.

closeparen 9y ago

Capital concentration is the whole point of cities. The only economically equal and balanced settlement pattern is everyone getting a small farm. The problem we’re trying to solve here is that people are artificially denied access to the (jobs, infrastructure, culture) benefits of concentrated capital. If you think we shouldn’t have cities, that’s one thing. If you think they should be reserved exclusively for the people who already live in them, that’s quite another, and you’re simply creating a new form of structural inequality based on birthplace (even within the US).

bmmayer1 9y ago

You're being downvoted because your comment doesn't make any sense. To elaborate: > The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities This is a pretty bizarre claim, since by definition a city's housing crisis is a local affair, so what does it have to do with capital being concentrated in a 'handful' of cities? But assuming your claim is that wealth in a city ---> housing shortage, then you need to explain how you make that connection. > Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are What does this mean? If you mean that you need money to build housing, then shouldn't capital concentration to a city mean more housing? If you mean that wealthy or powerful people benefit from less housing, show your work. If you're trying to demonstrate the above connection between wealth and housing shortage, there are a plethora of cities with high wealth and no housing shortages (Singapore, Chicago, Budapest, Seoul...) Also, aren't housing costs driven by the same forces that drive the cost of anything else? Namely, supply and demand? > Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing If the definition of the housing crisis is 'not enough housing for the people who need homes' then why would "increasing housing" - the literal solution to the crisis - be considered slapping on a bandaid? > which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization Again, this makes no sense. If more houses means more wealth concentration, then shouldn't the wealthy want to build more houses? But in your previous comment, you made it sound like the wealthy don't want to build more houses. > we need to address capital concentration This is a altogether different point that you are welcome to argue on your own time but it really has nothing to do with housing shortages unless you want to expound upon the above a little more clearly.

mywittyname 9y ago
The amount of money a household can spend on a mortgage increases drastically as income increases. Because, for the most part, the costs of raising a family doesn't have to increase in proportion to income. What this means is that a family making $100k/yr can spend dramatically more than one making $50k/yr, and making $200k can spend more on housing their the other two families make in a year. In most cities, this plays out by having islands of expensive neighborhoods in desirable areas. And housing decreases proportional to desirability as you get out. The problem in some cities in California is that there are so many extremely wealthy families, that the island of desirability has become so large that there are no affordable housing anywhere close to where the good jobs are, so lower income people are forced to commute for longer and longer. Most other cities do not have the same numbers of extremely wealthy people. But in every city where a large number of disproportionately wealthy people move in, a housing crisis seems to follow. It used to be, living closer to the city meant a compromise in some other area. Maybe you lived in an apartment and took the bus everywhere because you couldn't afford to have a house and a car in the neighborhood you want to be in. But now, people can afford to have a single family home with a garage in areas that really should be limited to large apartments.

mixmastamyk 9y ago

Yes. So, you are saying there is a big demand for housing in the city close to jobs? True dat. Econ 101 tells us the way to meet that demand without increasing prices is to increase supply. That part hasn’t been done. No amount of “housing denial” and rent control will change it.

pascalxus 9y ago

The reason you are downvoted, is because there's one part you're extremely wrong about: Increasing housing is not a "band aid". It's the lack of supply of housing which is the ENTIRE cause of the housing crisis. Any solution to the housing crisis MUST in some way increase the housing supply, or at least decrease housing demand (say by getting rid of jobs). Even without lots of rich people/capital concentration, you would still have the same problem (housing prices wouldn't be as high), but the percentage of people able to afford a house would remain the same. Supply/Demand is the problem -> Supply is not allowed to increase to meet demand and at the same time we're encouraging all kinds of demand by increasing the number of companies and jobs in CA. It's like playing musical chairs with 1000 people and only 5 chairs. No matter how you split up those chairs, there's gonna be a lot of unhappy people.