4 ms·

There's plenty of affordable housing in America where people do want to live as well: "According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, lightly-regulated Houston

by sien 7y ago

There's plenty of affordable housing in America where people do want to live as well: "According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, lightly-regulated Houston has seen its civilian labor force grow by 20 percent in the last decade, compared to the San Francisco metro area's 16 percent. Some 21 Fortune 500 companies have their headquarters in Houston. What's more, for every job the Houston metro area has added, it's also permitted another unit of housing. As a result, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $841, and home prices are below the national average." From here : https://reason.com/2019/11/05/bernie-sanders-blames-apple-fo.. https://reason.com/2019/11/05/bernie-sanders-blames-apple-fo.... It's not rocket science. If you want affordable housing make it easy for people to build and increase supply. It's remarkable how Silicon Valley is all about solving big problems for the world but demonstrates with Bay Area housing that some problems don't need technology, they just need reasonable government and if you don't have that, well, things don't work. To be fair, this problem is global. Many places that are doing well that haven't allowed enough construction like London, Sydney, Stockholm, Melbourne, Paris and other places demonstrate the same failure to enable enough housing construction. Posted the same comment earlier this week. The Economist's take on housing this week isn't up to their usual standard. They ignore the parts of the US where houses are still cheap and there is economic growth like Texas, Atlanta and other places. The special is worth reading though, there are interesting facts about how around the world supply has kept up with demand. Home ownership is compatible with cheaper housing. It's just that rules need to be made to ensure that you can keep supply going. That means rezoning things on a regular basis to keep housing affordable. Also probably a land value tax would help.

alwayslearning0 7y ago
It's also because those cities were complete dumpster fires a decade ago. Ever walked in downtown Atlanta? Every other street is a row of abandoned delapidated houses. It's easy to get local government to build new homes when half hour cityscape is homes that are falling apart. The bay area suffers from having 2/3 of their growing direction be water. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
hurricanetc 7y ago
Have you ever looked at Houston on a map? I’m not trying to be sarcastic. It’s enormous and the sprawl is incredible. The metro area dwarfs the size of every major city in California, combined. People drive an hour to work each direction on one of many 12 lane highways. The “special thing” that Houston has done is have virtually infinite land, a giant ocean port, and absolutely zero care or concern for the climate or the future.
- kweinber 7y ago
  The job market is also depressed in Houston.... companies are moving out as people are tired of getting hit by hurricanes and having the land periodically returned to swampland.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    It's depressed because oil prices are low. When they're high Houston does better than the national average, when they're low it does worse. https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?ty... https://realestate.usnews.com/places/texas/houston/jobs https://realestate.usnews.com/places/texas/houston/jobs
- mrep 7y ago
  Greater LA: 33,954 sq mi [0] Greater Houston: 10,062 sq mi [1] For the combined statistical area population / metro area, houston is actually even more dense than LA at 715 versus 553 people per square mile. Not disagreeing with your main point though especially in regards to the bay area. There's just no land left to sprawl there and people don't want to build up so it'll forever remain unaffordable. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston
  - CuriouslyC 7y ago
    Greater LA includes a lot of stuff like Ventura/Oxnard/Riverside/San Bernadino that while on the fringes of the LA metro area, shouldn't fairly be considered LA proper. This skews the square milage of LA up, and the density down, where in reality if you take a more realistic view of "Los Angeles" it's definitely more dense and concentrated than Houston. I say this as a former resident of both places.
bakuninsbart 7y ago
Stockholm, London, Paris and Bay Area literally have now way to expand. You can easily find examples for well-functioning libertarian housing markets, but just as easily find examples to the contrary. Economists usually also have a very narrow view of what constitutes good living. Letting the market decide in areas with low supply leads to ghettoization.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  If you're in the bay area looking left and right, there's no more room. Look up.
afinlayson 7y ago
... Not rocket science ... You reduced a complex problem to a simple short term solution. Too many people act like we have infinite land, Earth isn't getting any bigger. There are also consequences to policies that assume you can always build out further and further. By building on more farm land, you might reduce the amount of grown food and produce more chemical food. This leads to obesity. Which means people need more room... etc. Living further from your job means your commute is longer, meaning we need to get more foreign oil. If America has 2 Billion people in 100 years, building a little further away won't work, it doesn't scale. Cities need to build better cities that allow people to have the space they need and get to the jobs they have. Where they don't need to be commuting 2 hours each way.
- sien 7y ago
  It's not short term. The US, like most developing countries, will probably follow Japan with population decrease in the next 50-60 years. Fertility is below replacement in most developed countries and as other countries get richer immigration is likely to decline. The earth's population is probably going to peak this century and start declining. In addition the increase depends on massive increases in Africa which may not happen due to technology like mobile phones and better education for women.
charwalker 7y ago
Personally I'd say they ignore the areas of the country I won't move to anyway. I'm already in a large liberal city with a good job. This company can't move locations unless 1+ million members decide to move to the same place as well. If that was Georgia or Texas, the political landscape would change dramatically though I'd rather show up 10 years later than right now. Neither are appealing states.

by sien 7y ago

alwayslearning0 7y ago

It's also because those cities were complete dumpster fires a decade ago. Ever walked in downtown Atlanta? Every other street is a row of abandoned delapidated houses. It's easy to get local government to build new homes when half hour cityscape is homes that are falling apart. The bay area suffers from having 2/3 of their growing direction be water. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

hurricanetc 7y ago

Have you ever looked at Houston on a map? I’m not trying to be sarcastic. It’s enormous and the sprawl is incredible. The metro area dwarfs the size of every major city in California, combined. People drive an hour to work each direction on one of many 12 lane highways. The “special thing” that Houston has done is have virtually infinite land, a giant ocean port, and absolutely zero care or concern for the climate or the future.

kweinber 7y ago
The job market is also depressed in Houston.... companies are moving out as people are tired of getting hit by hurricanes and having the land periodically returned to swampland.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  It's depressed because oil prices are low. When they're high Houston does better than the national average, when they're low it does worse. https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?ty... https://realestate.usnews.com/places/texas/houston/jobs https://realestate.usnews.com/places/texas/houston/jobs
mrep 7y ago
Greater LA: 33,954 sq mi [0] Greater Houston: 10,062 sq mi [1] For the combined statistical area population / metro area, houston is actually even more dense than LA at 715 versus 553 people per square mile. Not disagreeing with your main point though especially in regards to the bay area. There's just no land left to sprawl there and people don't want to build up so it'll forever remain unaffordable. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston
- CuriouslyC 7y ago
  Greater LA includes a lot of stuff like Ventura/Oxnard/Riverside/San Bernadino that while on the fringes of the LA metro area, shouldn't fairly be considered LA proper. This skews the square milage of LA up, and the density down, where in reality if you take a more realistic view of "Los Angeles" it's definitely more dense and concentrated than Houston. I say this as a former resident of both places.

bakuninsbart 7y ago

Stockholm, London, Paris and Bay Area literally have now way to expand. You can easily find examples for well-functioning libertarian housing markets, but just as easily find examples to the contrary. Economists usually also have a very narrow view of what constitutes good living. Letting the market decide in areas with low supply leads to ghettoization.

i_am_proteus 7y ago
If you're in the bay area looking left and right, there's no more room. Look up.

afinlayson 7y ago

... Not rocket science ... You reduced a complex problem to a simple short term solution. Too many people act like we have infinite land, Earth isn't getting any bigger. There are also consequences to policies that assume you can always build out further and further. By building on more farm land, you might reduce the amount of grown food and produce more chemical food. This leads to obesity. Which means people need more room... etc. Living further from your job means your commute is longer, meaning we need to get more foreign oil. If America has 2 Billion people in 100 years, building a little further away won't work, it doesn't scale. Cities need to build better cities that allow people to have the space they need and get to the jobs they have. Where they don't need to be commuting 2 hours each way.

sien 7y ago
It's not short term. The US, like most developing countries, will probably follow Japan with population decrease in the next 50-60 years. Fertility is below replacement in most developed countries and as other countries get richer immigration is likely to decline. The earth's population is probably going to peak this century and start declining. In addition the increase depends on massive increases in Africa which may not happen due to technology like mobile phones and better education for women.

charwalker 7y ago

Personally I'd say they ignore the areas of the country I won't move to anyway. I'm already in a large liberal city with a good job. This company can't move locations unless 1+ million members decide to move to the same place as well. If that was Georgia or Texas, the political landscape would change dramatically though I'd rather show up 10 years later than right now. Neither are appealing states.