5 ms·

There is loads of cheap housing in USA and Canada - just not in popular places. Anyone moaning about the price of real estate should check to make sure they are

There is loads of cheap housing in USA and Canada - just not in popular places. Anyone moaning about the price of real estate should check to make sure they aren't trying to live in one of the most desirable places to live on the planet.

Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago
How far should people be expected to commute from these less diserable locations to their place of employment? Localities with an abundance of cheap housing tend to have significantly higher unemployment rates[1], [1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-research/is-local-unemployment-related-to-local-housing-prices https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-rese...
- pdimitar 7y ago
  Let's include pressure to work remotely in the whole equation. I see no reason why humanity must crowd trample each other in tiny metropolitan areas when there are so many affordable -- and likely more beautiful -- places to live in. Have basic infrastructure in place, internet excluded, and the problem is solved.
  - ajmurmann 7y ago
    The have been several studies that showed that cities foster innovation and living in larger cities leads to faster increase in income. It's also cheaper for society as a whole to provide good infrastructure in one place rather than spreading it out. Unfortunately we are currently hiding that cost and people living in cities are subsidizing the costs of roads and other infrastructure for people in low density areas.
    - pdimitar 7y ago
      I would seriously question those studies. You should probably add the increased stress and the lack of leisure time that make people mentally unhealthy. I am also seriously not okay with the implication that the cities support all other areas. That's extremely questionable. Lastly, don't forget there have been studies proving fat is bad and sugar is good. Never discount the vested interests that know how to convince people. Apparently you have been influenced by a study. Not saying you shouldn't believe anything, but maintain a healthy skepticism, please. I live in the only true big city in my country and truthfully, people are in general happier everywhere else in the country. At least they say so and sound like it.
      - Aeolun 7y ago
        I don’t think the fact that cities support the surrounding countryside has been very controversial since the 1500’s. It kind of makes sense. If 10% of the surface area needs 90% of the resources, they are going to be easier to provide than for the remaining 90% of the area (mainly because spreading things like doctors, hospitals and supermarkets around to serve a few hundred people is not easy).
        ajmurmann 7y ago
        Just utilities and roads alone are a massive cost that makes spread out living enormously costly and I pay as much for it living in a high rise building without owning a car as I do living somewhere in the suburbs or the country side with utilities and roads running very far to reach my lot. strongtowns.com is full of information on how we subsidize suburbs and rural living.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    > I see no reason why humanity must crowd trample each other in tiny metropolitan areas when there are so many affordable -- and likely more beautiful -- places to live in. This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. You use "must" as if the opposing side is the one forcing people to live a certain way, but it's actually your side that pushes for strong regulations limiting population density even when people do want to live in a big city. Nobody's suggesting banning living in rural areas or small towns. But regulations as they currently exist work to push people from living in big metros where the good jobs are. That's not the market, that's incumbents using government power to dictate lifestyles for their neighbors and potential immigrants.
    - pdimitar 7y ago
      Well to be fair, I have no "side" in this. I am saying that there are a lot of incentives for people to crowd in metropolitan areas. As a resident of a country that only has one big city -- the capital -- I see this all the time: people just have no future elsewhere and come here even though they sacrifice quite a lot and the overall gain might not outpace all the negatives. Not sure what's the way out, to be honest.
      - TulliusCicero 7y ago
        I mean, there's a reason the good jobs tend to come out of those big metro areas: bigger populations make for stronger ecosystem/network effects. If you push policies deflecting people elsewhere, you're not just spreading out the prosperity, you're also reducing it in total. And I don't think big cities have to be bad to live in. Vienna gets extremely high livability marks despite being the one big city Austria has. I currently live in Munich, and though our yard here is very small compared to the US standard, having a couple of parks within a block and a half (+ other nearby green space) makes up for it, even with a kid.
        pdimitar 7y ago
        Big cities don't have to be bad to live in... but they often are. Sofia isn't anything special but it has quite beautiful neighborhoods which are of course quite expensive to live in. Back yard? You only have that if you live in villages with like 2000 people. Our capital is so crowded that the real estate agents feel really proud to advertise 68m2 apartments with two small rooms and a tiny kitchen, it's that bad. Good views? Forget about it. (I am considering moving out of Bulgaria to Vienna/Austria exactly by the way; but I'm for the moment too scared to do it.)
mistermann 7y ago
Cheap is a relative term. What does the affordability ratio (price vs local available incomes) look like compared to historical norms? Are these places cheap on that basis, or only when compared to the insane prices in desirable places?
ajmurmann 7y ago
It still seems less than ideal to have people live in places that require long commutes or result in lower income jobs (likely meaning they could be more productive elsewhere) so that someone can accumulate investment properties in the more desirable areas? To me this seems like someone complaining that prices of vegetables and meat going up due to speculation and someone pointing out that rice and bread are still cheap.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
Another way of putting this is: there's lots of cheap housing where there's only cheap jobs to match. It's a pick your poison situation, and it doesn't have to be. Singapore and Vienna are good examples of public housing programs, Tokyo is a good example of the market providing reasonable rent relative to how desirable/big/rich the area is.

Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago

How far should people be expected to commute from these less diserable locations to their place of employment? Localities with an abundance of cheap housing tend to have significantly higher unemployment rates[1], [1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-research/is-local-unemployment-related-to-local-housing-prices https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-rese...

pdimitar 7y ago
Let's include pressure to work remotely in the whole equation. I see no reason why humanity must crowd trample each other in tiny metropolitan areas when there are so many affordable -- and likely more beautiful -- places to live in. Have basic infrastructure in place, internet excluded, and the problem is solved.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  The have been several studies that showed that cities foster innovation and living in larger cities leads to faster increase in income. It's also cheaper for society as a whole to provide good infrastructure in one place rather than spreading it out. Unfortunately we are currently hiding that cost and people living in cities are subsidizing the costs of roads and other infrastructure for people in low density areas.
  - pdimitar 7y ago
    I would seriously question those studies. You should probably add the increased stress and the lack of leisure time that make people mentally unhealthy. I am also seriously not okay with the implication that the cities support all other areas. That's extremely questionable. Lastly, don't forget there have been studies proving fat is bad and sugar is good. Never discount the vested interests that know how to convince people. Apparently you have been influenced by a study. Not saying you shouldn't believe anything, but maintain a healthy skepticism, please. I live in the only true big city in my country and truthfully, people are in general happier everywhere else in the country. At least they say so and sound like it.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      I don’t think the fact that cities support the surrounding countryside has been very controversial since the 1500’s. It kind of makes sense. If 10% of the surface area needs 90% of the resources, they are going to be easier to provide than for the remaining 90% of the area (mainly because spreading things like doctors, hospitals and supermarkets around to serve a few hundred people is not easy).
      - ajmurmann 7y ago
        Just utilities and roads alone are a massive cost that makes spread out living enormously costly and I pay as much for it living in a high rise building without owning a car as I do living somewhere in the suburbs or the country side with utilities and roads running very far to reach my lot. strongtowns.com is full of information on how we subsidize suburbs and rural living.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > I see no reason why humanity must crowd trample each other in tiny metropolitan areas when there are so many affordable -- and likely more beautiful -- places to live in. This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. You use "must" as if the opposing side is the one forcing people to live a certain way, but it's actually your side that pushes for strong regulations limiting population density even when people do want to live in a big city. Nobody's suggesting banning living in rural areas or small towns. But regulations as they currently exist work to push people from living in big metros where the good jobs are. That's not the market, that's incumbents using government power to dictate lifestyles for their neighbors and potential immigrants.
  - pdimitar 7y ago
    Well to be fair, I have no "side" in this. I am saying that there are a lot of incentives for people to crowd in metropolitan areas. As a resident of a country that only has one big city -- the capital -- I see this all the time: people just have no future elsewhere and come here even though they sacrifice quite a lot and the overall gain might not outpace all the negatives. Not sure what's the way out, to be honest.
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      I mean, there's a reason the good jobs tend to come out of those big metro areas: bigger populations make for stronger ecosystem/network effects. If you push policies deflecting people elsewhere, you're not just spreading out the prosperity, you're also reducing it in total. And I don't think big cities have to be bad to live in. Vienna gets extremely high livability marks despite being the one big city Austria has. I currently live in Munich, and though our yard here is very small compared to the US standard, having a couple of parks within a block and a half (+ other nearby green space) makes up for it, even with a kid.
      - pdimitar 7y ago
        Big cities don't have to be bad to live in... but they often are. Sofia isn't anything special but it has quite beautiful neighborhoods which are of course quite expensive to live in. Back yard? You only have that if you live in villages with like 2000 people. Our capital is so crowded that the real estate agents feel really proud to advertise 68m2 apartments with two small rooms and a tiny kitchen, it's that bad. Good views? Forget about it. (I am considering moving out of Bulgaria to Vienna/Austria exactly by the way; but I'm for the moment too scared to do it.)

mistermann 7y ago

Cheap is a relative term. What does the affordability ratio (price vs local available incomes) look like compared to historical norms? Are these places cheap on that basis, or only when compared to the insane prices in desirable places?

ajmurmann 7y ago

It still seems less than ideal to have people live in places that require long commutes or result in lower income jobs (likely meaning they could be more productive elsewhere) so that someone can accumulate investment properties in the more desirable areas? To me this seems like someone complaining that prices of vegetables and meat going up due to speculation and someone pointing out that rice and bread are still cheap.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

Another way of putting this is: there's lots of cheap housing where there's only cheap jobs to match. It's a pick your poison situation, and it doesn't have to be. Singapore and Vienna are good examples of public housing programs, Tokyo is a good example of the market providing reasonable rent relative to how desirable/big/rich the area is.