5 ms·

Demonizing single family houses seems rather dated in 2021. Single family home prices are surging in much of California too (while apartment prices and condo pr

Demonizing single family houses seems rather dated in 2021. Single family home prices are surging in much of California too (while apartment prices and condo prices... not so much!), it's not just "everyone is fleeing!" California was short on both types of housing - what has changed is that it is in even higher demand now! And if remote work continues after COVID, that will continue. Add to that more efficient electric cars + more self-driving capabilities, and I think the demand pendulum will continue to swing back towards sprawl. You also have a bunch of millennials still in child-bearing age ranges who are getting around to that. You won't fix a single family home demand surge by replacing single family homes with other things. "How will we make sprawl work better than it has in the past" seems a more useful question.

jeffbee 6y ago
People don't buy houses because they have children, they gather both children and houses because they are prosperous. Millenials (some of whom are now past their child-bearing years) and younger generations won't just get houses because of the inexorable march of time. First they'll need money.
- subpixel 6y ago
  Actually, there is an inverse relationship between prosperity and child-bearing.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Only if you make improper global comparisons. Within comparable American populations, wealth is positively associated with fertility. "Examining data from 1985 to 2007, Lovenheim and Mumford use short-run home price variation over time within cities as their shock to family wealth. They find that a $100,000 increase in the value of one’s home results in a 16% increase in the probability of having a child." https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00266 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_0026...
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      So, among the slice of the population wealthy enough to own a home and have a difference of +$100K in equity vs a control group, there's a modest positive correlation of having at least one child. That's not entirely rejecting that across Americans the curve could rise at the lower end of "prosperity" as well. Which, according to this study, it does and average number of children decreases almost perfectly steadily with increasing decile of lifetime earnings (see Table 2): https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Kids%20and%20Wealth.pdf https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Kids%20and%20Wealt...
    - subpixel 6y ago
      Here’s the data that shows the inverse relationship between wealth and child-bearing, in the US, circa 2017: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam... What happens when homeowners (a subset of Americans) come into an extra $100k is tangential.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Houses are linked to prosperity. I have doubts that children are overall linked to prosperity.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    If you believe that fertility is negatively associated with prosperity, then the idea that people will buy these houses because they have children is especially wrong.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      But will they want those houses, though... The crisis described here is that more people want them than can get them. So if the trend is that more people will want standalone houses specifically, versus just any sort of housing unit, proposed solutions that reduce the supply of them are bound to backfire for areas that implement them. Basically: is this the start of a different era in terms of demand profiles, driven by remote work, or is this just a short-term bubble?
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        But why are we treating fertility as exogenous, rather than as a choice? Fertility is not exogenous. Demographers are predicting a 15% decline in live births in 2021 in the US, because women are choosing against pregnancy. It is long-studied and well-known that unemployment also depresses fertility. The idea that people will have children and buy houses just because they turn 30 is silly. They will not have children and they will not buy houses unless the environment in which those appear to be rational choices is established.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I do believe that (see my other response to you). I don't believe that people buy houses because of children. I do believe they want to buy them because of children. I believe they actually buy them because/when they can afford them and prefer to live in a house they own over a rental. (Plenty of people have kids in rental housing, of course.)
Guest42 6y ago
From my observations it seems as though many houses and apartments are intentionally left empty and one possible approach towards improving housing availability is to disincentive this practice by increasing property taxes on those.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  Not necessarily California specific, but more in touristy spots: They're also being let out on AirBnB to short term tourists. It's done a huge number on available housing in many markets. Dublin, for instance, say the long-term rental supply double from August of 2019 to August of 2020 because of all the AirBnB residences looking to keep making money and thus returning to the long-term rental market. Hopefully they'll stay on that market (and more will follow), and AirBnB can disappear.
dionidium 6y ago
People may prefer single-family homes in a vacuum, all things being equal, but people don't live in vacuums and all things aren't equal. If high-demand cities were allowed to build more apartment buildings, then the value proposition would be undeniable. The very fact that many lots with single-family homes on them retain those homes by making the alternatives illegal should be seen as pretty strong evidence for this claim.

jeffbee 6y ago

People don't buy houses because they have children, they gather both children and houses because they are prosperous. Millenials (some of whom are now past their child-bearing years) and younger generations won't just get houses because of the inexorable march of time. First they'll need money.

subpixel 6y ago
Actually, there is an inverse relationship between prosperity and child-bearing.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Only if you make improper global comparisons. Within comparable American populations, wealth is positively associated with fertility. "Examining data from 1985 to 2007, Lovenheim and Mumford use short-run home price variation over time within cities as their shock to family wealth. They find that a $100,000 increase in the value of one’s home results in a 16% increase in the probability of having a child." https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00266 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_0026...
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    So, among the slice of the population wealthy enough to own a home and have a difference of +$100K in equity vs a control group, there's a modest positive correlation of having at least one child. That's not entirely rejecting that across Americans the curve could rise at the lower end of "prosperity" as well. Which, according to this study, it does and average number of children decreases almost perfectly steadily with increasing decile of lifetime earnings (see Table 2): https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Kids%20and%20Wealth.pdf https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Kids%20and%20Wealt...
  - subpixel 6y ago
    Here’s the data that shows the inverse relationship between wealth and child-bearing, in the US, circa 2017: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam... What happens when homeowners (a subset of Americans) come into an extra $100k is tangential.
sokoloff 6y ago
Houses are linked to prosperity. I have doubts that children are overall linked to prosperity.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  If you believe that fertility is negatively associated with prosperity, then the idea that people will buy these houses because they have children is especially wrong.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    But will they want those houses, though... The crisis described here is that more people want them than can get them. So if the trend is that more people will want standalone houses specifically, versus just any sort of housing unit, proposed solutions that reduce the supply of them are bound to backfire for areas that implement them. Basically: is this the start of a different era in terms of demand profiles, driven by remote work, or is this just a short-term bubble?
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      But why are we treating fertility as exogenous, rather than as a choice? Fertility is not exogenous. Demographers are predicting a 15% decline in live births in 2021 in the US, because women are choosing against pregnancy. It is long-studied and well-known that unemployment also depresses fertility. The idea that people will have children and buy houses just because they turn 30 is silly. They will not have children and they will not buy houses unless the environment in which those appear to be rational choices is established.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I do believe that (see my other response to you). I don't believe that people buy houses because of children. I do believe they want to buy them because of children. I believe they actually buy them because/when they can afford them and prefer to live in a house they own over a rental. (Plenty of people have kids in rental housing, of course.)

Guest42 6y ago

From my observations it seems as though many houses and apartments are intentionally left empty and one possible approach towards improving housing availability is to disincentive this practice by increasing property taxes on those.

dorchadas 6y ago
Not necessarily California specific, but more in touristy spots: They're also being let out on AirBnB to short term tourists. It's done a huge number on available housing in many markets. Dublin, for instance, say the long-term rental supply double from August of 2019 to August of 2020 because of all the AirBnB residences looking to keep making money and thus returning to the long-term rental market. Hopefully they'll stay on that market (and more will follow), and AirBnB can disappear.

dionidium 6y ago

People may prefer single-family homes in a vacuum, all things being equal, but people don't live in vacuums and all things aren't equal. If high-demand cities were allowed to build more apartment buildings, then the value proposition would be undeniable. The very fact that many lots with single-family homes on them retain those homes by making the alternatives illegal should be seen as pretty strong evidence for this claim.