3 ms·
The problem is that American housing prices have very little to do with actual supply and demand, but are valued almost-exclusively by their proximity to densit
by maxsilver 5y ago
The problem is that American housing prices have very little to do with actual supply and demand, but are valued almost-exclusively by their proximity to density. (i.e, "location"). The density is the solution to the physics problem, but that same density is simultaneously the root cause of the cost problem. Americans can't just build empty cities and have people move into them, until America stops financially punishing people for moving into those buildings.
It's not a "woke fear" of gentrification. It's simple fact-of-life stuff. Most Americans are either poor, or are one-or-two minor mistakes away from becoming poor (the so-called 'middle class'). Regardless of whether they own or rent, they all rightfully fear the explosion in cost of living, and are doing anything they can to get the gross financialization of living away from their own lives.
And, as most policy exists in the US today, if you increase density anywhere in the US, all housing nearby instantly becomes more expensive (regardless of whether wages are rising or falling, regardless of whether the population is growing or shrinking, regardless of any actual human behaviour elsewhere). People, rightfully, are scared shitless this will happen to them.
And they can't directly fight it, because it's literally federal policy -- comparables are how all mortgages are underwritten, and comparables don't care who actually did what, and are trivial to game.
Oh, this building has rents that are completely unsustainable for the local population? Who cares, they're on the market, so they're part of the "market rate" now. Oh, some rich guy got mad that Americans got a trivial amount of emergency cash during the pandemic, and is now ranting about "Fiat Currencies" and "Hyper-inflation", so decided to convert his spare cash into property to sit on it? Guess Mom and Pop now have to compete against him when home shopping, that's "just the way things are". Oh, this building got purchased at 3x what it's actually worth, because an investment firm panicked over getting caught shorting GameStop stock earlier this year and has nowhere better to park it's spare cash with zero risk? Comparables don't give a shit, every real human has higher rents and higher housing prices, just to make those specific people happy.
In a neoliberal Econ-101-only world view, all that mess "counts as demand" and must be "serviced by supply", just as if they were all real people needing a real place to live.
So, someone who has only taken Econ 101, thinks the fix is always as simple as "build baby build, it's just supply and demand, duh". They usually get their way (in every place that's not SF/BayArea), and then they wonder incredulously why all the real people left and no one can afford to live there anymore.
"I don't understand why people making $36k/yr won't pay $2k/month for our studio micro-apartments. I guess we just didn't gentrify enough. We'll just keep ramping up the gentrification, because that's what Econ 101 theory says to do. ".
- majormajor 5y agoDensity increases prices for sure in much of the US - all you have to do is look at Manhattan, SF, or the denser parts of LA to see that - but it's wrong to say it has nothing to do with supply and demand. The expensive places that are dense also have lots of high-paying jobs, so people who get those jobs want to live close to those. But then it spirals: that concentrated pool of talent encourages the creation of more jobs which bring in more people which pushes prices up which impacts a wider and wider radius. That's not a problem that can be solved through increasing density alone, though.
- maxsilver 5y ago> The expensive places that are dense also have lots of high-paying jobs, Yes, this is true of some of the places, but definitely not all of them. Just look at most of the Midwest for an abundance of density-driven explosion in cost-of-living, but without any abundance of "high-paying jobs" to match. I get that most of Hacker News is experienced with major cities (NYC, Boston, DC, Phily, SF, LA, Seattle, Portland, etc). And so it's tempting to tie housing costs to the specifics of that cities economy. But that's not the scary part. The scary part is looking at cities with "boring"/"normal" economies, and seeing the exact same thing happening to CoL over there. Seattle can at least point to Amazon and say, "see, look, any random fresh grad can be making over $120k/yr at Amazon HQ!" to justify their insane housing prices. Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Louisville, and many more are increasingly getting up to similar prices, without any similar wages to justify it. This article, for example, is about Ketchum Idaho. The person interviewed works two jobs to make $60k/yr and still can't find housing, because (according to Zillow, anyway) today's average sale price is over half-a-million dollars each!. Surely, Ketchum did not suddenly get an abundance of "high-paying jobs" to justify these prices. And Ketchum's total population has been basically flat for 20 years now, and today's estimate is still lower than their peak population from the year 2000, so there's no magic huge influx of new residents to point to to justify the prices either.
- bluGill 5y agoWhat does someone who isn't a college grad get in Seattle? Those are the people make $60k in this story.