10 ms·
>Bad housing policy is one of the biggest impediments to overall economic growth[1] and to individual economic opportunity[2][3] in the US. I would say it is t
by aphextron 9y ago
>Bad housing policy is one of the biggest impediments to overall economic growth[1] and to individual economic opportunity[2][3] in the US.
I would say it is the defining problem of our generation. The 20-30 year olds now who grew up in the bay area and aren't involved in tech have three options: Live with your parents until they die, work 40 hours a week just to feed yourself and pay the rent (split with random roommates), or move away from your entire family and support network. They live in a world where literally just being able to afford your own place is considered "bougie". It's insane. They can't even comprehend that there is a world where grown adults can live on there own and afford a respectable place to live while (gasp!) also saving for the future.
- creyes 9y agoIdk about _the_ problem. Healthcare might be a bigger problem than housing - especially since astronomical medical bills and lack of insurance can cause people who had homes to lose them
- wjossey 9y agoJust looking at GDP (in the US), medical expenses do account for more of GDP than housing; however, a lot of those medical expenses come from Medicaid & Medicare, and are not directly out of pocket. I'd love to try to find the % GDP of out of pocket / Premium expenses in the USA as a comparison. I think you could make a clean argument it's a 1a / 1b sort of problem. Housing & healthcare are two of the most basic needs in a modern society, and both have systemic issues across much of the country.
- WillPostForFood 9y agoMedicare and Medicare costs may not be out of the recipients pocket, but they are paid out of someone’s pocket.
- maccam94 9y agoHowever, housing costs affect young people more than Medicaid/Medicare, and younger people contribute more to GDP than Medicaid/Medicare recipients. So, when talking about GDP growth, housing is likely much more significant.
- Decade 9y agoNot everybody needs health care. Everybody needs a home. Housing is also a root cause of a lot of other issues. Equity. Environment. Health. Upward/downward mobility. Ethnic integration. And so on.
- forapurpose 9y ago> Not everybody needs health care Everybody needs health care. Perhaps there's someone who wins the lottery and makes it through life without a doctor - though most don't get through their very first moments without one - that doesn't seem like something to plan on.
- chrischen 9y agoObama did push those healthcare legistlations...
- eanzenberg 9y agoIt’s not a lottery, there are a lot of preventative measures. There are however a number of random serious illnesses that could occur, so everyone does need healthcare.
- forapurpose 9y agoAnd those preventative measures often utilize health care, from doctor's checkups to cancer screenings to immunizations. Also, there are non-illnesses, such as giving birth, where a doctor is needed. And there are accidents ...
- jriot 9y agoNo, everybody does not need health care. 90% (made-up as my wife, two daughters and me haven't been to the doctor in 2 years) if not more of health related issues while you are under 40 (maybe higher) can be taken care of through over the counter medications. However, we still require shelter, particularly since we live in an area that is under 32 degrees for 2 - 3 months out of the year.
- madeofpalk 9y agoGlobally, it seems to be the most defining problem, at least that I hear about. Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, US are all grappling with "housing affordability".
- closeparen 9y agoOne can "just" get a job with good health insurance, whereas homeownership in productive cities has surpassed wage territory (even for professionals) and now requires intergenerational wealth. Helathcare is highly unequal; housing (in job-rich regions) is uniformly impossible for those of us born too late.
- Alex3917 9y ago> homeownership in productive cities has surpassed wage territory (even for professionals) and now requires intergenerational wealth. In NYC, saving up for the down payment on an apartment with a 30-year lease basically requires being able to hold a reasonably high-paying job for 3 years. Real estate is definitely way overpriced, but it's not exactly insane either.
- jimbokun 9y agoNYC has a much better functioning real estate market than SF/Bay Area from what I can tell. With the exception of the remaining rent controlled apartments, there is not an unwillingness to build high density housing. There is a much better match between housing prices and the supply/demand curve.
- tptacek 9y agoIs it the defining problem of our generation, or the defining problem for West Coasters of our generation?
- pc 9y agoI don't mean to take any stance on whether it's the singular outlier in magnitude, but https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/04/the-global-housing-crisis/557639/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/04/the-global-housing-cr... makes a strong case for it being broader than a West Coast issue.
- tptacek 9y agoIt's an interesting article but it doesn't really support the lede (that housing is problematic in Detroit) with evidence. It'd be interesting to cross the median multiple metric for American cities with economic growth, to see the extent to which housing is locking people out of access to opportunity. It would to me be weird to see an argument that there is a housing shortage problem in Chicago, which has a pretty reasonable median home price, and where the median home is within a much more reasonable commute to the city center than most SFBA homes. I assume (without evidence!) that this is true throughout the midwest and throughout the 2nd tier of US cities.
- woolvalley 9y agoIt's a problem in many cities around the world that are experiencing housing price shocks. A list of some of these cities: Vancouver, London, Toronto, SF, LA, NYC, Seattle, Berlin, Austin, Boulder, Sydney, Auckland. And the housing contagion spreads. For example most of the province of BC that Vancouver has similar housing affordability issues. Same with Toronto and many hours away from it. About %70 of the Canadian population lives somewhere heavily unaffordable. Then you add the problem that most jobs are in these cities and it makes it even worse. EDIT: Look at this list of unaffordable metros for example: http://time.com/money/4193804/hong-kong-least-affordable-city-2016/ http://time.com/money/4193804/hong-kong-least-affordable-cit... The US stands out as having a good collection of affordable metros, the but rest of the world is worse and california is horrible.
- toephu2 9y ago4th option: get in Tech.
- almost_usual 9y agoThe wealthiest people I know in the Bay Area are natives not in tech. Most operate or work with family businesses. Their families tend to own A LOT of property (homes and land) as well. They do make quite a bit of income off tech workers though.
- Z0rb 9y agoYep, as a native in the bay area born and raised, I'm fortunate to have landed into tech. Although it's sad to see friends leave due to the tech in which they blame me and others for rising prices.
- beamatronic 9y agoOn the flip side they will inherit millions from their parents.
- raldi 9y agoClimate change is probably the problem of the generation, but amazingly, allowing more housing near transit solves that one, too!
- hueving 9y agoMoving away for a new life has been a recurring theme throughout the history of the US. The only thing that seems to be new is an entitlement to live where you were born.
- murrayb 9y ago> I would say it is the defining problem of our generation. Respectfully disagree. I would say it is a defining symptom. The problem is centralisation and the insistence that people need to show up to an office to do their work. There is plenty of cheap housing even in the US, the issue is to let people work from where the housing is rather than insisting they move to "where the jobs are". IMO Stripes money would be better spent on telecommuting policy and technology. There will always be area's more popular for whatever reason. Those that want to spend their money on an address can do so but every-one else needs some assistance to work from an address that suits them and their budget.
- MarkSweep 9y agoMy parents’ generation paved over the apricot orchards of “the Valley of Heart's Delight”, rechristening it as “Silicon Valley”. Now that we have suburbs and commutes sprawling all the way to Tracey in the Central Valley and to Gilroy to the south, I believe it is not unreasonable to once again transform this fertile valley. This time into housing that is a little denser than single family homes. This would match the current trend of building office buildings that are a little bigger than the tilt-ups that defined the original Silicon Valley. I guess to more specifically address your proposal of having jobs elsewhere via remote working, I would say, why not more density here. We did it once before, turning prime farmland into suburbs. Is the current configuration really the end of history for this valley? I would argue not, if only by counter-example of cities allowing ever larger office buildings to be built along 237.
- wskinner 9y agoI am a huge fan of remote work, but this is just wrong. The current state of remote work is not sufficient to replace the office environment for most tech cases, especially not small startups where low communication latency and overhead, high degree of alignment among team members, and spontaneity are important. Not to mention the numerous non-tech jobs where being physically present is literally a job requirement. This also ignores the non-work reasons people might want to live in an area, as well as the positive network effects from higher urban density.
- afarrell 9y ago
- easytiger 9y ago> I would say it is the defining problem of our generation Only because the economic urge to live in one place has become compelling.
- HunOL 9y ago> work 40 hours a week just to feed yourself and pay the rent (split with random roommates) Actually I don't understand why it's bad option especially if you replace random roommates with friend/gf/bf.
- neolefty 9y agoBecause it's not fair. The effort to feed and house yourself in reality only takes a few hours a week. The rest is rent (in the economic sense--no value provided; just paying someone who got there first and put up a gate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
- HunOL 9y agoLife is not fair. Feel free to be the first one somewhere else.
- keb_ 9y agoNobody said life was fair. But law and legislation is supposed to be fair.
- neolefty 8y agoTrue, nothing in nature guarantees fairness. But I believe that one purpose of civilization is to make life fair. Not to give everyone an equal slice, but to give them an adequate slice so that they have a fair shot at having a healthy, productive, satisfying life. As someone who has more than I need (not by a ton, but all my bills are paid, and I have some surplus), I want to share it effectively at least with those who are struggling through no fault of their own.
- mseebach 9y ago> work 40 hours a week just to feed yourself and pay the rent The problem isn't actually doing that, the problem is when you can't actually pay the rent on the money you earn. Both you and your potential employer lose out when you're hired because you're perhaps not quite good enough to warrant the $150k+[1] salary required, or because there's always going to be someone a bit better at that rate. It's not about not wanting to take the job at $80k[1], or the company not wanting you at that rate, it's that you can't afford a sustainable lifestyle at that salary. Never making it onto the first ladder, you're never going to climb it (or, you're going to climb it much, much slower). This also feeds into education credentialism as a "shortcut" to access this ladder - etc, etc. The people who actually make it onto the ladder are for the most part going to be fine. 1: Adjust for the numbers that are true, these are just rough ballpark figures. The point it, that threshold exists.