5 ms·

This piece verges on daft or disingenuous. The major problems are major cities (SF, NYC, Seattle, LA, and so on) that have artificially restricted housing since

This piece verges on daft or disingenuous. The major problems are major cities (SF, NYC, Seattle, LA, and so on) that have artificially restricted housing since the '70s (https://jakeseliger.com/2015/12/27/why-did-cities-freeze-in-the-1970s/ https://jakeseliger.com/2015/12/27/why-did-cities-freeze-in-...) and yet we've also seen increasing economic returns since then to those superstar cluster cities (The Triumph of the City is a good and readable description: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/books/review/Silver-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/books/review/Silver-t.htm...). So yeah, there's no housing crisis in Eastern Oregon, but there are also no jobs and none of the economic clustering and spillover effects that one gets from superstar cities. So you can try to live in cities and first-tier suburbs where the jobs are, but where exclusionary zoning has made housing ungodly expensive (https://www.vox.com/cards/affordable-housing-explained/exclusionary-zoning-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter https://www.vox.com/cards/affordable-housing-explained/exclu...), or you can live in the boonies where there are no jobs but (relatively) cheap housing. Those of you who are going to reply about remote work: remote work is lovely, but it doesn't generate knowledge spillovers and has a bunch of other problems as well. See again the Glaeser book. It is not a practical, mass solution, although I'm glad it works well for you. Part of this problem can and should be solved at the state level, but DC should also tell states and municipalities that, if they don't end exclusionary zoning, they're also not getting federal highway funding and other federal transit funding. That's the stick DC has.

curtis 7y ago
From the post: > Now, there’s no question that a few specific cities have seen big rises. The Bay Area is obviously one, Denver is one, and Seattle is another—though the market has responded recently in Seattle and housing development is now increasing. But if you look at big cities more broadly, there’s not even a generalized urban rent crisis. The author's contention isn't simply that there's no housing crisis in places like Eastern Oregon, but rather that there's no housing crisis anywhere outside of a few major cities. He's also got a bunch of numbers to back up the assertion. Now I'm inclined to think Drum's staked out a position that is too extreme in one direction (I live in one of those major cities!) but I feel like your position is too far in the other direction. I think we want to accurately characterize the problems we're trying to solve. Here in Seattle, housing supply is a big issue. But back in my hometown of Tulsa, I suspect housing is pretty cheap, and the problem is more likely a lack of good jobs.
- jadel 7y ago
  What the article largely says is that there isn't really a housing crisis if people make more money and pay more rent. Is it realistic to pay hundreds of dollars per month in rent when Microsoft pays hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in Seattle? Not from a market perspective. People paying what they can afford isn't really a housing crisis. That is essentially the market working, pricing valuable things highly. It might certainly be some other crisis however, like society favouring property over work.
jedharris 7y ago
The article cites well grounded aggregate statistics. Eastern Oregon doesn't affect the statistics because not enough people live there. So Eastern Oregon and all the other very low population places are a red herring. Please argue with the points presented not some other issue entirely. Drum specifically calls out the high cost cities. But the aggregate statistics show that these are exceptions to the general pattern. We should not argue from our personal experience when the statistics show it is not typical. This is policy relevant. If the Feds are going to intervene, it is very important that they intervene in the actual problem, not some misunderstood version of the problem where intervention would be at best a waste of resources and political capital, and at worst further proof that "government intervention is always bad." A question with potentially constructive answers: "What federal interventions would potentially be helpful given that the housing crisis is mainly in a few high-rent cities?"
- helen___keller 7y ago
  >The article cites well grounded aggregate statistics. That's the problem, it's in aggregate when the problem is very localized. The nation is producing a ton of high paying jobs but only in places where rent and property values are skyrocketing, which is in a tiny sliver of American cities. That's the problem and why aggregate statistics will never capture the problem. My wife works in biotech. I work in tech. A year back we asked ourselves if we wanted to move to the mid sized American city where my parents live. Homes are very affordable there and if we had children, we could raise them near my extended family. One factor in choosing not to move is that there's only one employer in the entire metropolitan region that hires in her specialty of biotech. I would have to take a pay cut or work remotely, which I'm okay with, but we might be totally ending her career altogether which we are less okay with. So instead we're now renting at 3500 a month (3 bedrooms) and saving up for the enormous downpay we will need in greater Boston >A question with potentially constructive answers: "What federal interventions would potentially be helpful given that the housing crisis is mainly in a few high-rent cities?" Parent already offers an answer, tell states to end exclusionary zoning or lose federal transit/highway funding. Exclusionary zoning is born out of a dark period of American policymaking (redlining) so personally I'm on board

curtis 7y ago

From the post: > Now, there’s no question that a few specific cities have seen big rises. The Bay Area is obviously one, Denver is one, and Seattle is another—though the market has responded recently in Seattle and housing development is now increasing. But if you look at big cities more broadly, there’s not even a generalized urban rent crisis. The author's contention isn't simply that there's no housing crisis in places like Eastern Oregon, but rather that there's no housing crisis anywhere outside of a few major cities. He's also got a bunch of numbers to back up the assertion. Now I'm inclined to think Drum's staked out a position that is too extreme in one direction (I live in one of those major cities!) but I feel like your position is too far in the other direction. I think we want to accurately characterize the problems we're trying to solve. Here in Seattle, housing supply is a big issue. But back in my hometown of Tulsa, I suspect housing is pretty cheap, and the problem is more likely a lack of good jobs.

jadel 7y ago
What the article largely says is that there isn't really a housing crisis if people make more money and pay more rent. Is it realistic to pay hundreds of dollars per month in rent when Microsoft pays hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in Seattle? Not from a market perspective. People paying what they can afford isn't really a housing crisis. That is essentially the market working, pricing valuable things highly. It might certainly be some other crisis however, like society favouring property over work.

jedharris 7y ago

The article cites well grounded aggregate statistics. Eastern Oregon doesn't affect the statistics because not enough people live there. So Eastern Oregon and all the other very low population places are a red herring. Please argue with the points presented not some other issue entirely. Drum specifically calls out the high cost cities. But the aggregate statistics show that these are exceptions to the general pattern. We should not argue from our personal experience when the statistics show it is not typical. This is policy relevant. If the Feds are going to intervene, it is very important that they intervene in the actual problem, not some misunderstood version of the problem where intervention would be at best a waste of resources and political capital, and at worst further proof that "government intervention is always bad." A question with potentially constructive answers: "What federal interventions would potentially be helpful given that the housing crisis is mainly in a few high-rent cities?"

helen___keller 7y ago
>The article cites well grounded aggregate statistics. That's the problem, it's in aggregate when the problem is very localized. The nation is producing a ton of high paying jobs but only in places where rent and property values are skyrocketing, which is in a tiny sliver of American cities. That's the problem and why aggregate statistics will never capture the problem. My wife works in biotech. I work in tech. A year back we asked ourselves if we wanted to move to the mid sized American city where my parents live. Homes are very affordable there and if we had children, we could raise them near my extended family. One factor in choosing not to move is that there's only one employer in the entire metropolitan region that hires in her specialty of biotech. I would have to take a pay cut or work remotely, which I'm okay with, but we might be totally ending her career altogether which we are less okay with. So instead we're now renting at 3500 a month (3 bedrooms) and saving up for the enormous downpay we will need in greater Boston >A question with potentially constructive answers: "What federal interventions would potentially be helpful given that the housing crisis is mainly in a few high-rent cities?" Parent already offers an answer, tell states to end exclusionary zoning or lose federal transit/highway funding. Exclusionary zoning is born out of a dark period of American policymaking (redlining) so personally I'm on board