4 ms·

> because there is actually sufficient supply Exactly! Build more housing! Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. Why is the Am

> because there is actually sufficient supply Exactly! Build more housing! Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about this? Well, because they are the landlords that benefits from all the price increases. They are the foxes guarding the hen house.

hannasanarion 6y ago
I think the more crucial part of the japanese example is > housing is generally a depreciating asset Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. In America, policymakers tend to prioritize real estate value over the ability of housing to actually house people. Homebuyers expect and demand that the values of their properties, including the rents that they generate, be constantly increasing. Supply and demand doesn't push prices down, because housing is inelastic: when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Before the housing market was commodified and public housing looted by private interests in the 70s and 80s, spending 20% of your income on housing was considered absurdly high. Now 50% is the norm, because landlords and speculators keep raising prices and you can't not live in a house.
- fomine3 6y ago
  I'm very curious why US housing price is still increasing despite of US' car culture and big land area.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    public transportation sucks and traffic doesn't scale well with single occupancy vehicles - at some point spending 6 hours per day in traffic just isn't worth it
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Private cars are a horribly inefficient way to move people. A lane of traffic can move about 1500 people per hour at most (traffic at full speed, every car totally full), in real life its more like 800 people per hour. Compare that to 10,000-25,000 people per hour on a commuter train. By focusing development around cars, American cities actually decrease the practical size of the metropolitan area.
    - blackrock 6y ago
      The problem is sitting next to an idiot on the train that refuses to wear a mask.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Don't forget debt. I think there's a comparison to be drawn with healthcare costs here.
maxsilver 6y ago
> Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about (supply vs demand) We're not clueless, but supply and demand is mostly meaningless in housing in the US. (I get that much of Hacker News is San Francisco based, and the Bay Area is an outlier in that it has an actual shortage of units). But except for a few very-specific cities (like SF), in most US cities the price of housing has absolutely nothing to do with supply nor demand. US housing prices are set by federal monetary policy, used as investment vehicles for banking and private equity, with some money laundering and scams thrown in, to create good-looking artificial economic indicators. Most housing can not depreciate in the US. This is intentional, explicit, federal policy. (Guaranteed and backed up by the full faith of the federal government). Macro-level depreciation at the urban level simply isn't allowed for any reason. (Seriously, this is not an exaggeration. We poisioned an entire cities drinking water and despite demand being practically zero, that city still hasn't lost meaningful values on it's housing). You can't build faster than the feds can raise prices, and even if you could, most cities are not short on houses. (Half of the top 40 major US cities literally already have more empty/abandoned homes than they have homeless people) If we pulled all that political monetary policy out of housing, then sure, our housing could be based on actual supply and demand (Japan-style). But politically, that will never happen in the US. Most Americans can't articulate all of the above clearly. But any American that has ever bought a house knows damn well that the price they paid is entirely political and has no basis in reality, and most Americans know that the primary way housing prices go up is through new construction, so most Americans aren't going to be swayed by an argument to "just build even more" > Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. I agree, but generally speaking, America does not. All housing is investment here. Unless your wealthy enough to DIY it yourself, houses literally don't get built here unless it's a "profitable investment". (Banks often won't even finance things that lower average housing costs) This is also why YIMBYism doesnt work here. The problem is too much investment in housing already. But new construction is assessed high, and all housing everywhere is assessed based on the closest comparable, so it becomes an infinite feedback loop until the bubble pops. You can't solve that with even more investment, the investment is causing the prices to rise in the first place!
fomine3 6y ago
Build more housing... then another problems pop up. Now nursery school shortage is serious problem in around Tokyo because housing regulation isn't planned well. Extremely crowded station/train is another example.
- presentation 6y ago
  Tiny problems in comparison to the straight up human rights violations happening in the USA every day, IMO.

hannasanarion 6y ago

I think the more crucial part of the japanese example is > housing is generally a depreciating asset Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. In America, policymakers tend to prioritize real estate value over the ability of housing to actually house people. Homebuyers expect and demand that the values of their properties, including the rents that they generate, be constantly increasing. Supply and demand doesn't push prices down, because housing is inelastic: when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Before the housing market was commodified and public housing looted by private interests in the 70s and 80s, spending 20% of your income on housing was considered absurdly high. Now 50% is the norm, because landlords and speculators keep raising prices and you can't not live in a house.

fomine3 6y ago
I'm very curious why US housing price is still increasing despite of US' car culture and big land area.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- andromeduck 6y ago
  public transportation sucks and traffic doesn't scale well with single occupancy vehicles - at some point spending 6 hours per day in traffic just isn't worth it
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  Private cars are a horribly inefficient way to move people. A lane of traffic can move about 1500 people per hour at most (traffic at full speed, every car totally full), in real life its more like 800 people per hour. Compare that to 10,000-25,000 people per hour on a commuter train. By focusing development around cars, American cities actually decrease the practical size of the metropolitan area.
  - blackrock 6y ago
    The problem is sitting next to an idiot on the train that refuses to wear a mask.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Don't forget debt. I think there's a comparison to be drawn with healthcare costs here.

maxsilver 6y ago

> Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about (supply vs demand) We're not clueless, but supply and demand is mostly meaningless in housing in the US. (I get that much of Hacker News is San Francisco based, and the Bay Area is an outlier in that it has an actual shortage of units). But except for a few very-specific cities (like SF), in most US cities the price of housing has absolutely nothing to do with supply nor demand. US housing prices are set by federal monetary policy, used as investment vehicles for banking and private equity, with some money laundering and scams thrown in, to create good-looking artificial economic indicators. Most housing can not depreciate in the US. This is intentional, explicit, federal policy. (Guaranteed and backed up by the full faith of the federal government). Macro-level depreciation at the urban level simply isn't allowed for any reason. (Seriously, this is not an exaggeration. We poisioned an entire cities drinking water and despite demand being practically zero, that city still hasn't lost meaningful values on it's housing). You can't build faster than the feds can raise prices, and even if you could, most cities are not short on houses. (Half of the top 40 major US cities literally already have more empty/abandoned homes than they have homeless people) If we pulled all that political monetary policy out of housing, then sure, our housing could be based on actual supply and demand (Japan-style). But politically, that will never happen in the US. Most Americans can't articulate all of the above clearly. But any American that has ever bought a house knows damn well that the price they paid is entirely political and has no basis in reality, and most Americans know that the primary way housing prices go up is through new construction, so most Americans aren't going to be swayed by an argument to "just build even more" > Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. I agree, but generally speaking, America does not. All housing is investment here. Unless your wealthy enough to DIY it yourself, houses literally don't get built here unless it's a "profitable investment". (Banks often won't even finance things that lower average housing costs) This is also why YIMBYism doesnt work here. The problem is too much investment in housing already. But new construction is assessed high, and all housing everywhere is assessed based on the closest comparable, so it becomes an infinite feedback loop until the bubble pops. You can't solve that with even more investment, the investment is causing the prices to rise in the first place!

fomine3 6y ago

Build more housing... then another problems pop up. Now nursery school shortage is serious problem in around Tokyo because housing regulation isn't planned well. Extremely crowded station/train is another example.

presentation 6y ago
Tiny problems in comparison to the straight up human rights violations happening in the USA every day, IMO.