5 ms·

And what about “We want less traffic. Build more roads.” Macroeconomics rarely have such simple solutions. I didn’t pin it on YIMBYs solely. I said they would

And what about “We want less traffic. Build more roads.” Macroeconomics rarely have such simple solutions. I didn’t pin it on YIMBYs solely. I said they would do better to take seriously what minority and low income housing advocates are saying. You’ve articulated exactly the problem; YIMBYs have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority. This leads them to be dismissive of and even paternalistic towards those who actually experience the direct effects of displacement and gentrification.

ewjordan 8y ago
Well, "We want less traffic, build more roads" actually helps, in a way: all the additional people driving are doing so because it's more convenient than the next available option, so they're all getting real value out of the extra roads. They just don't reduce traffic as much as we'd expect. And sure, the plan results in more people driving, which is mostly a bad thing due to emissions, so it's not a great strategy, especially when alternatives like mass transit are available to invest in. Housing is not the same. Besides the fact that it doesn't share the qualities that make traffic highly susceptible to induced demand (you've gotta sleep somewhere, whereas you can choose not to drive, or at least choose when to drive), even if the end result of building more housing is that prices stay the same, it's still a better situation. The externalities of "people sleeping indoors" are not nearly as bad as "people driving cars", there would be more people living where they want to live, less of them would have to travel to get to work, environmental impact is lower per person when they live at higher density, economic output is greater at higher density, etc. I get that macroeconomics is not always simple, but that doesn't mean it's always counterintuitive. And let's be honest here: in the Bay Area we've been adding housing much slower than we've been adding jobs for many decades now, and the "over simplistic" econ 101 prediction that prices would go up as a result has been extremely accurate. One point for Occam's Razor. Activists are implicitly making the argument "yeah, our counterintuitive 'build less to reduce prices' policy hasn't worked in the past, but that's only because we haven't been allowed to implement it fully and prevent any market rate housing from being built!", which is the same kind of bullshit all-or-nothing argument that hardcore anti-government types make when we point out situations where deregulation fails to produce great results. Sometimes we just need to accept that maybe there's nothing subtle going on, apply F = ma, and see if the simple solution works. Especially when we've already been trying the crazy out-of-the-box solution and it's been failing miserably.
thwarted 8y ago
And what about “We want less traffic. Build more roads.” Macroeconomics rarely have such simple solutions. Sorry, I thought it was obvious that when I said "build" it was building housing, since that is the YIMBY platform were talking about. The simplicity or not of macroeconomics may or may not come into play, but citing roads as example when we're talking about housing is disingenuous. In the context of housing, "We want less traffic" is equivalent to "We want housing near public transportation", to which the YIMBY solution is the same "Build [housing] near public transit". Attacking it from the other side, build more public transit, is entirely possible too, and is a problem worth tackling, and fits within the YIMBY platform in general, but it's not directly about housing. And YIMBYs have rightly realized that focusing on too many solutions at once spreads effort too thin and plays into the incessant delays that result in nothing getting done. You’ve articulated exactly the problem; YIMBYs have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority. This leads them to be dismissive of and even paternalistic towards those who actually experience the direct effects of displacement and gentrification. So while we're here, your claim that YIMBYs are not listening to low income communities could use some substantiation. Which concerns are being ignored by the platform of build more? And you can't say "more below market rate housing" because driving down prices by encreasing supply is exactly the position that YIMBYs have. Unless we're concerned that a protected class of people would disappear because housing would be affordable and there would be no need for a BMR classification to rally for. have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority You can say this about pretty much EVERYONE on EVERY SIDE of this issue. This is really a debate about which economic solution is the best/most appropriate, which is why it makes no progress. Everyone and their dog can show up and spout off. That being said, I find the refutations, refutations of well established and accepted supply-and-demand solutions, to this problem to be naive and unfounded. And part of the problem is that even trying to experiment is difficult because good ideas and compromises are shutdown. And those who prefer the status quo of no building get exactly what they want, so status quoers are incentivized to muck up the process and cause delays by whatever means necessary. Part of the debate is if those who prefer the status quo should have as much voice or influence as they do.

ewjordan 8y ago

Well, "We want less traffic, build more roads" actually helps, in a way: all the additional people driving are doing so because it's more convenient than the next available option, so they're all getting real value out of the extra roads. They just don't reduce traffic as much as we'd expect. And sure, the plan results in more people driving, which is mostly a bad thing due to emissions, so it's not a great strategy, especially when alternatives like mass transit are available to invest in. Housing is not the same. Besides the fact that it doesn't share the qualities that make traffic highly susceptible to induced demand (you've gotta sleep somewhere, whereas you can choose not to drive, or at least choose when to drive), even if the end result of building more housing is that prices stay the same, it's still a better situation. The externalities of "people sleeping indoors" are not nearly as bad as "people driving cars", there would be more people living where they want to live, less of them would have to travel to get to work, environmental impact is lower per person when they live at higher density, economic output is greater at higher density, etc. I get that macroeconomics is not always simple, but that doesn't mean it's always counterintuitive. And let's be honest here: in the Bay Area we've been adding housing much slower than we've been adding jobs for many decades now, and the "over simplistic" econ 101 prediction that prices would go up as a result has been extremely accurate. One point for Occam's Razor. Activists are implicitly making the argument "yeah, our counterintuitive 'build less to reduce prices' policy hasn't worked in the past, but that's only because we haven't been allowed to implement it fully and prevent any market rate housing from being built!", which is the same kind of bullshit all-or-nothing argument that hardcore anti-government types make when we point out situations where deregulation fails to produce great results. Sometimes we just need to accept that maybe there's nothing subtle going on, apply F = ma, and see if the simple solution works. Especially when we've already been trying the crazy out-of-the-box solution and it's been failing miserably.

thwarted 8y ago

And what about “We want less traffic. Build more roads.” Macroeconomics rarely have such simple solutions. Sorry, I thought it was obvious that when I said "build" it was building housing, since that is the YIMBY platform were talking about. The simplicity or not of macroeconomics may or may not come into play, but citing roads as example when we're talking about housing is disingenuous. In the context of housing, "We want less traffic" is equivalent to "We want housing near public transportation", to which the YIMBY solution is the same "Build [housing] near public transit". Attacking it from the other side, build more public transit, is entirely possible too, and is a problem worth tackling, and fits within the YIMBY platform in general, but it's not directly about housing. And YIMBYs have rightly realized that focusing on too many solutions at once spreads effort too thin and plays into the incessant delays that result in nothing getting done. You’ve articulated exactly the problem; YIMBYs have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority. This leads them to be dismissive of and even paternalistic towards those who actually experience the direct effects of displacement and gentrification. So while we're here, your claim that YIMBYs are not listening to low income communities could use some substantiation. Which concerns are being ignored by the platform of build more? And you can't say "more below market rate housing" because driving down prices by encreasing supply is exactly the position that YIMBYs have. Unless we're concerned that a protected class of people would disappear because housing would be affordable and there would be no need for a BMR classification to rally for. have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority You can say this about pretty much EVERYONE on EVERY SIDE of this issue. This is really a debate about which economic solution is the best/most appropriate, which is why it makes no progress. Everyone and their dog can show up and spout off. That being said, I find the refutations, refutations of well established and accepted supply-and-demand solutions, to this problem to be naive and unfounded. And part of the problem is that even trying to experiment is difficult because good ideas and compromises are shutdown. And those who prefer the status quo of no building get exactly what they want, so status quoers are incentivized to muck up the process and cause delays by whatever means necessary. Part of the debate is if those who prefer the status quo should have as much voice or influence as they do.