3 ms·

The challenge of the next 10 years will be housing. We are not building nearly enough. A fraction of what we need even to slow price growth. We still have the

The challenge of the next 10 years will be housing. We are not building nearly enough. A fraction of what we need even to slow price growth. We still have these quaint subdivisions built in the 60s and 70s full of nimbyism and voting down all development. We need a big move here.

tropo 8y ago
No amount will ever be enough if we all try to cram into the most fancy spot. Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades.
- carlmr 8y ago
  >Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades. But the empty towns also don't have jobs. It's not fine even now.
  - burfog 8y ago
    They did have jobs. What happened? Undo that. It should be even easier now, given that a little remote office can be easily connected to the rest of the world.
    - volkl48 8y ago
      Their jobs were based in industries which no longer exist or which have been automated into requiring far fewer workers. Similarly, you have the problem that a lot of people lived there by necessity rather than by choice. There are absolutely people who enjoy a rural lifestyle. But there's plenty of rural places not particularly enjoyable to anyone over other rural places with better scenery, less difficulty to getting to a store, etc. They have/had a town because at one time, there was a farm, or a factory, or whatever there that needed people and it the next closest town was too far of a commute for the time period.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      > What happened? Undo that. 1. the construction of interstates and airports that routed around old railroad/highway towns. 2. The green revolution. Agriculture became much more efficient, productive, centralized, and automated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_Stat... 3. Resource extraction running its course. 4. Efficiency improvements in manufacturing and resource extraction. The amount of rural blight caused by the favority political demon of late (outsourcing of manufacturing) is relatively minor compared to the above items. Especially 1 and 2! (Seriously, if you come across a run-down main street away from any interstate, odds are better than even it used to be a railroad station.) IF we follow your advice in a way that's meaningful to most rural communities, we'd have to roll back the green revolution, bring back passenger rail, and magically refill coal veins/oil wells. Other favorite policy quick-fixes as of late (in particular, on-shoring manufacturing) might help a handful of communities but are a teeny, tiny fragment of the story for blighted rural america in general. The ~80% of small towns that never had a factory to begin with can't reasonably blame outsourcing for their woes. > It should be even easier now, given that a little remote office can be easily connected to the rest of the world. 1. Have you lived in rural America? Especially outside of "technically rural" locations such as university/college towns, good internet connections are sometimes available but usually not. And if not, convincing an ISP to dig is anything but "easy". 2. Most execs have no interest in building a big office in a remote location, both for personal reasons and for legitimate business reasons (proximity to a major airport is important in a lot of businesses). 3. Chicken-and-egg: People very reasonably won't move to most small towns due to lack of quality services (schools, hospitals, and entertainment). But those services can't be established without a critical mass of people moving into town.
      - burfog 8y ago
        You reasons mostly date to the era from 1910 to 1960. The era from 1960 to 2010 matters too, and that is more about outsourcing. The USA already subsidizes airport service for these locations. Increasing that might be worthwhile. The same goes for good internet connections and many other services. It's like the rural electrification done a century ago. The schools are sometimes better than the urban ones. Often there are pros and cons that could be considered to even out. We can expand Teach for America if need be, but I think things are mostly fine already.
mrep 8y ago
The only area that I am aware of that has that problem is the bay area. Yeah, you guys are fucked but every other city that I am aware of is aggressively building to supply demand for housing.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  Boston, NYC, and DC are all similarly fucked. Not as bad, but not good... Part of the problem is that a lot of wage growth is concentrated in areas that are experiencing a housing crunch.
  - grandmczeb 8y ago
    > Part of the problem is that a lot of wage growth is concentrated in areas that are experiencing a housing crunch. This is actually a really good point. There's actually a great paper that covers how much higher housing prices have hurt growth due to workers being discouraged from moving to high productivity areas[1]. The tl;dr is that if only NYC, SF, and San Jose adopted the land uses restrictions of a median US city, GDP would be about 9% higher (about $8,775 per worker assuming the labor share of GDP and number of workers doesn't change). [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154.pdf
- grandmczeb 8y ago
  Take a look at this paper[1] for actual data on different cities respond to demand (table VI). Bay Area cities are all in the top 10 of least elastic, but there are a number of other cities with a similar level (the authors specifically call out NYC, Boston, and LA as examples of low elasticities translating into higher prices). [1] http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_Turner/ec2410/readings/Saiz_QJE_2010.pdf http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_T...

tropo 8y ago

No amount will ever be enough if we all try to cram into the most fancy spot. Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades.

carlmr 8y ago
>Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades. But the empty towns also don't have jobs. It's not fine even now.
- burfog 8y ago
  They did have jobs. What happened? Undo that. It should be even easier now, given that a little remote office can be easily connected to the rest of the world.
  - volkl48 8y ago
    Their jobs were based in industries which no longer exist or which have been automated into requiring far fewer workers. Similarly, you have the problem that a lot of people lived there by necessity rather than by choice. There are absolutely people who enjoy a rural lifestyle. But there's plenty of rural places not particularly enjoyable to anyone over other rural places with better scenery, less difficulty to getting to a store, etc. They have/had a town because at one time, there was a farm, or a factory, or whatever there that needed people and it the next closest town was too far of a commute for the time period.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > What happened? Undo that. 1. the construction of interstates and airports that routed around old railroad/highway towns. 2. The green revolution. Agriculture became much more efficient, productive, centralized, and automated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_Stat... 3. Resource extraction running its course. 4. Efficiency improvements in manufacturing and resource extraction. The amount of rural blight caused by the favority political demon of late (outsourcing of manufacturing) is relatively minor compared to the above items. Especially 1 and 2! (Seriously, if you come across a run-down main street away from any interstate, odds are better than even it used to be a railroad station.) IF we follow your advice in a way that's meaningful to most rural communities, we'd have to roll back the green revolution, bring back passenger rail, and magically refill coal veins/oil wells. Other favorite policy quick-fixes as of late (in particular, on-shoring manufacturing) might help a handful of communities but are a teeny, tiny fragment of the story for blighted rural america in general. The ~80% of small towns that never had a factory to begin with can't reasonably blame outsourcing for their woes. > It should be even easier now, given that a little remote office can be easily connected to the rest of the world. 1. Have you lived in rural America? Especially outside of "technically rural" locations such as university/college towns, good internet connections are sometimes available but usually not. And if not, convincing an ISP to dig is anything but "easy". 2. Most execs have no interest in building a big office in a remote location, both for personal reasons and for legitimate business reasons (proximity to a major airport is important in a lot of businesses). 3. Chicken-and-egg: People very reasonably won't move to most small towns due to lack of quality services (schools, hospitals, and entertainment). But those services can't be established without a critical mass of people moving into town.
    - burfog 8y ago
      You reasons mostly date to the era from 1910 to 1960. The era from 1960 to 2010 matters too, and that is more about outsourcing. The USA already subsidizes airport service for these locations. Increasing that might be worthwhile. The same goes for good internet connections and many other services. It's like the rural electrification done a century ago. The schools are sometimes better than the urban ones. Often there are pros and cons that could be considered to even out. We can expand Teach for America if need be, but I think things are mostly fine already.

mrep 8y ago

The only area that I am aware of that has that problem is the bay area. Yeah, you guys are fucked but every other city that I am aware of is aggressively building to supply demand for housing.

throwawayjava 8y ago
Boston, NYC, and DC are all similarly fucked. Not as bad, but not good... Part of the problem is that a lot of wage growth is concentrated in areas that are experiencing a housing crunch.
- grandmczeb 8y ago
  > Part of the problem is that a lot of wage growth is concentrated in areas that are experiencing a housing crunch. This is actually a really good point. There's actually a great paper that covers how much higher housing prices have hurt growth due to workers being discouraged from moving to high productivity areas[1]. The tl;dr is that if only NYC, SF, and San Jose adopted the land uses restrictions of a median US city, GDP would be about 9% higher (about $8,775 per worker assuming the labor share of GDP and number of workers doesn't change). [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154.pdf
grandmczeb 8y ago
Take a look at this paper[1] for actual data on different cities respond to demand (table VI). Bay Area cities are all in the top 10 of least elastic, but there are a number of other cities with a similar level (the authors specifically call out NYC, Boston, and LA as examples of low elasticities translating into higher prices). [1] http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_Turner/ec2410/readings/Saiz_QJE_2010.pdf http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_T...