4 ms·

No offense, but housing policy should focus on helping people at the bottom, which will eventually trickle up to the people at the top (where you are) Price con

No offense, but housing policy should focus on helping people at the bottom, which will eventually trickle up to the people at the top (where you are) Price control is an illusion and demand will outstrip supply for a long time But state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most (i.e. the homeless) and offer a surplus supply to perhaps not lower current prices for "nice houses" but at least contain them Bottom line, you're best off leaving CA because no matter what there won't be a solution for YOU in your lifetime. The sooner you do it the better (speaking from a similar experience)

shuckles 5y ago
In reality, the solution to the housing crisis isn’t either/or. The same construction productivity improvements and building reforms are necessary to allow for productive investment for housing at all income levels.
seryoiupfurds 5y ago
The state can invest billions of dollars into affordable housing, and simultaneously allow private developers to invest billions of their own dollars to meet demand from people at the top. Impeding the latter does nothing to help the former.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  Where do the extra billions come from?
  - epistasis 5y ago
    If people's rent went to producing more housing and paying for the labor and materials of that housing, and we simultaneously invested in the trades to make sure there was consistent and good pay and that there was enough labor, there would be more than enough money. If we try to take money from income taxes, it won't work. We need to stop transferring wealth to unproductive rentiers (landlords), and instead transfer it to labor which will produce what we need. The reason this doesn't happen is that the rentiers control the zoning boards.
  - baby 5y ago
    Can we pay more taxes please? I’m serious.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Yes, in many jurisdictions voluntary contributions are accepted. I assume you've already explored this option?
      - baby 5y ago
        I am not interested as I don’t think voluntary contributions can change anything. This argument goes both ways: why not lowering taxes since people can just donate instead? The next thing you know you don’t have hospitals, roads, police, firemen, army, education, healthcare, oops
        refurb 5y ago
        The relevant phrase is “put your money where your mouth is”.
        baby 5y ago
        Yes, which is in funding organizations and movements that aim at educating people (like you) about the benefits of social programs and taxes.
    - AdrianB1 5y ago
      It will be very difficult when total tax rate reaches 100%. It is already over 60-70% in some places, so people's lives are managed more by the government than by themselves, but when you reach 100% and the disposable income gets to be 0 it is hard to extract more tax. Also: if you are willing to pay more taxes don't even consider forcing others to do the same, that is rude.
epistasis 5y ago
We definitely need to produce healthy incentives and non-market rate housing, and IMHO housing is a human right (as the UN declared and the US signed on to last century). However, this is not the primary problem in California. The primary problem is that the wealthy are doing all they can to make sure that housing prices rise as much as possible. And because of the 5x leverage that a mortgage with a 20% down payment earns, any small shortage of housing greatly amplifies prices even further, accelerating asset price inflation for the landed class, giving them even greater gains. So we have two structural problems 1) the one you mention where wages are not enough to produce or maintain housing, and 2) those with the resources to build housing for themselves are not allowed to use those resources for more housing, instead transferring all wealth to the landed class instead of productive uses. If we don't solve 2), we will never have enough resources done 1) because the landlords will still take all the money of the working class.
- medium_burrito 5y ago
  I'm going to disagree the wealthy care very much. This is a giant political can which we are basically kicking down the road. The problem is middle class America has their entire net worth in the property, and it must appreciate. If that goes down, the entire middle class evaporates. China has the same problem except 100x worse. Canada and Australia too, to a lesser degree. What happens when the music stops? edit: mispellings, possibly due to poorly aged scotch
  - epistasis 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "the wealthy care very much." But perhaps it has something to do with the definition of "wealthy." I would say that anybody who owns a house free-and-clear in California, or another high-cost location such as Beijing of Vancouver, as "wealthy." But I also separate out this sort of wealth from, say, stocks or highly liquid wealth in a bank account. Land, and even structures themselves in a supply constrained location, act as a far more insidious form of capital than dollars or stocks. They are used to extract rents from people, just as monopolies are used to extract wealth, or capitalists with a monopsony on labor can extract the excess value of labor, far more than capital interest would normally demand. There's a solution to this, capture the excess value that real estate commands and redistribute it, either through taxation, or modified forms of limited ownership. This has two effects, the primary one being that it eliminates the motive to use housing as an appreciating asset. People can still use their homes as a store of value, meaning that they can put work into their homes to improve them to their liking, and not have it all taken away. But they do not take the value that comes merely from excluding people from access to the area, the increase in land values. (Though in places where there is not change in land use allowed, the homes themselves start to behave as land does, commanding excess rents merely due to the inability to let more people have access to an area.) The secondary effect is that these socially created land rents get distributed to all of society, who generate the value, rather than the person who is speculating. There are two end games to the bubble in land prices that we are currently seeing. A slow deflation, or a sudden pop. However, since so much of our wealth is predicated on housing values, and since so many of our banks are dependent on high valuations, there will always be a strong enough political coalition in the US to stop a pop. We need to build a coalition that prevents the growth of the bubble, committing it to steady deflation.
throwawayboise 5y ago
> state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most You might want to read the history of Chicago's ugly, tall, public housing projects. Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, Stateway Gardens, Henry Horner Homes, etc. That they've all been torn down will give you a clue how it ended. In short, they were horrible shitholes.

shuckles 5y ago

In reality, the solution to the housing crisis isn’t either/or. The same construction productivity improvements and building reforms are necessary to allow for productive investment for housing at all income levels.

seryoiupfurds 5y ago

The state can invest billions of dollars into affordable housing, and simultaneously allow private developers to invest billions of their own dollars to meet demand from people at the top. Impeding the latter does nothing to help the former.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
Where do the extra billions come from?
- epistasis 5y ago
  If people's rent went to producing more housing and paying for the labor and materials of that housing, and we simultaneously invested in the trades to make sure there was consistent and good pay and that there was enough labor, there would be more than enough money. If we try to take money from income taxes, it won't work. We need to stop transferring wealth to unproductive rentiers (landlords), and instead transfer it to labor which will produce what we need. The reason this doesn't happen is that the rentiers control the zoning boards.
- baby 5y ago
  Can we pay more taxes please? I’m serious.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Yes, in many jurisdictions voluntary contributions are accepted. I assume you've already explored this option?
    - baby 5y ago
      I am not interested as I don’t think voluntary contributions can change anything. This argument goes both ways: why not lowering taxes since people can just donate instead? The next thing you know you don’t have hospitals, roads, police, firemen, army, education, healthcare, oops
      - refurb 5y ago
        The relevant phrase is “put your money where your mouth is”.
        baby 5y ago
        Yes, which is in funding organizations and movements that aim at educating people (like you) about the benefits of social programs and taxes.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    It will be very difficult when total tax rate reaches 100%. It is already over 60-70% in some places, so people's lives are managed more by the government than by themselves, but when you reach 100% and the disposable income gets to be 0 it is hard to extract more tax. Also: if you are willing to pay more taxes don't even consider forcing others to do the same, that is rude.

epistasis 5y ago

We definitely need to produce healthy incentives and non-market rate housing, and IMHO housing is a human right (as the UN declared and the US signed on to last century). However, this is not the primary problem in California. The primary problem is that the wealthy are doing all they can to make sure that housing prices rise as much as possible. And because of the 5x leverage that a mortgage with a 20% down payment earns, any small shortage of housing greatly amplifies prices even further, accelerating asset price inflation for the landed class, giving them even greater gains. So we have two structural problems 1) the one you mention where wages are not enough to produce or maintain housing, and 2) those with the resources to build housing for themselves are not allowed to use those resources for more housing, instead transferring all wealth to the landed class instead of productive uses. If we don't solve 2), we will never have enough resources done 1) because the landlords will still take all the money of the working class.

medium_burrito 5y ago
I'm going to disagree the wealthy care very much. This is a giant political can which we are basically kicking down the road. The problem is middle class America has their entire net worth in the property, and it must appreciate. If that goes down, the entire middle class evaporates. China has the same problem except 100x worse. Canada and Australia too, to a lesser degree. What happens when the music stops? edit: mispellings, possibly due to poorly aged scotch
- epistasis 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "the wealthy care very much." But perhaps it has something to do with the definition of "wealthy." I would say that anybody who owns a house free-and-clear in California, or another high-cost location such as Beijing of Vancouver, as "wealthy." But I also separate out this sort of wealth from, say, stocks or highly liquid wealth in a bank account. Land, and even structures themselves in a supply constrained location, act as a far more insidious form of capital than dollars or stocks. They are used to extract rents from people, just as monopolies are used to extract wealth, or capitalists with a monopsony on labor can extract the excess value of labor, far more than capital interest would normally demand. There's a solution to this, capture the excess value that real estate commands and redistribute it, either through taxation, or modified forms of limited ownership. This has two effects, the primary one being that it eliminates the motive to use housing as an appreciating asset. People can still use their homes as a store of value, meaning that they can put work into their homes to improve them to their liking, and not have it all taken away. But they do not take the value that comes merely from excluding people from access to the area, the increase in land values. (Though in places where there is not change in land use allowed, the homes themselves start to behave as land does, commanding excess rents merely due to the inability to let more people have access to an area.) The secondary effect is that these socially created land rents get distributed to all of society, who generate the value, rather than the person who is speculating. There are two end games to the bubble in land prices that we are currently seeing. A slow deflation, or a sudden pop. However, since so much of our wealth is predicated on housing values, and since so many of our banks are dependent on high valuations, there will always be a strong enough political coalition in the US to stop a pop. We need to build a coalition that prevents the growth of the bubble, committing it to steady deflation.

throwawayboise 5y ago

> state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most You might want to read the history of Chicago's ugly, tall, public housing projects. Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, Stateway Gardens, Henry Horner Homes, etc. That they've all been torn down will give you a clue how it ended. In short, they were horrible shitholes.