4 ms·

There are two big problems with your statement: 1. You ignore the big problem that buying a house shouldn't be the only way of finding somewhere to live. Like,

by cletus 5y ago

There are two big problems with your statement: 1. You ignore the big problem that buying a house shouldn't be the only way of finding somewhere to live. Like, that's just not realistic. You're 18 and you want to move out of your parents' house. Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? 2. The idea that a market can be cornered like this is overly simplistic and history is littered with the bodies of those that have tried. Like anything, the pendulum swings back and forth on this. You only have to go back to 2008 to a time when the market was flooded with available units. What you have now is people who 100% have legitimate concerns that I support but tend to overstate the doom and gloom as being forever. Obviously that doesn't help them now but the idea that someone can forever lock people out of the housing market just doesn't hold water. Structural changes in the market will come along and change the equilibrium. IMHO one of the most damaging things to the housing market has actually been AirBnB.

danaris 5y ago
> Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? Why shouldn't there be houses—or apartments—you can afford to buy while working at Dairy Queen?
- civilized 5y ago
  Because NIMBY homeowners would prevent the construction of sufficient supply to drive prices to that level of affordability.
bradlys 5y ago
People are so fixed with the models of what has happened and won’t even consider what could be done. You know you could buy a home with 0% down. The government could back the loans and have very low interest rates on these loans. It’s all possible - but we’re stuck in such a strong capitalistic mindset that we ignore other possible ways of running the country and imagining home purchases. There’s also no reason we couldn’t have the government building beautiful and delightful buildings that are also attainable for everyday workers. It’s because we are stuck in our capitalistic mindset and so anti-government that we cannot imagine other ways of doing things.
- civilized 5y ago
  Government regulation, voted in by NIMBY homeowners, is the primary reason we have inadequate housing supply. So what do you think will happen when the government proposes building housing? Will the NIMBYs just roll over and take it if the government does it?
  - bradlys 5y ago
    You need a strong legislative body - which of course - we don't have. They're in the pockets of corporate interests and billionaires. They have no interest in addressing the needs of the people. But it's totally doable btw. See China. They use eminent domain like a mofo.
    - civilized 5y ago
      IMO, an important political heuristic is "don't expect more government intervention to solve problems that are caused by government in the first place". In this case, 1. We have expensive housing because we don't build enough. 2. We don't build enough because of anti-growth city regulations enacted by NIMBY politicians elected by NIMBY homeowners. Corporate interests and billionaires aren't the ones that keep anything from getting built. They're your homeowner neighbors with lawn signs that say "NO ON EVERYTHING" each election season. In a supply pinch, government subsidies just inflate home prices further, pouring more money into home sellers' pockets, the same way government-subsidized college tuition has poured more money into colleges' pockets. You can't solve a government-caused supply problem with government subsidies. Instead, you have to ask yourself the hard question - do I want much more housing? Do I want economically dynamic cities to grow, with all the problems that can bring? Most voters in these cities don't, and that's why we have the expensive cities we have. There's not enough to go around, so what supply there is goes to the highest bidder. Now, regarding China - it relies heavily on private developers. The CCP learned decades ago that people just aren't motivated to work unless they own the rewards. This led Deng Xiaoping to transform China into an effectively capitalist economy ruled by a one-party corporate technocratic autocracy. The end result is that China is still owned by rich people, they're just rich people in the Communist Party. If you think money and power are uncomfortably close in the US, wait until you learn about the CCP! If the US government had the power of the corrupt Chinese political elites, Jeff Bezos could be disappeared for months (or forever) without any explanation whatsoever from anyone, and everybody would have to take it in stride. They can build infrastructure, yes, but it comes at a heavy price. And most people are kept out of the cities by the hukou system, which is NIMBYism on steroids.

by cletus 5y ago

danaris 5y ago

> Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? Why shouldn't there be houses—or apartments—you can afford to buy while working at Dairy Queen?

civilized 5y ago
Because NIMBY homeowners would prevent the construction of sufficient supply to drive prices to that level of affordability.

bradlys 5y ago

People are so fixed with the models of what has happened and won’t even consider what could be done. You know you could buy a home with 0% down. The government could back the loans and have very low interest rates on these loans. It’s all possible - but we’re stuck in such a strong capitalistic mindset that we ignore other possible ways of running the country and imagining home purchases. There’s also no reason we couldn’t have the government building beautiful and delightful buildings that are also attainable for everyday workers. It’s because we are stuck in our capitalistic mindset and so anti-government that we cannot imagine other ways of doing things.

civilized 5y ago
Government regulation, voted in by NIMBY homeowners, is the primary reason we have inadequate housing supply. So what do you think will happen when the government proposes building housing? Will the NIMBYs just roll over and take it if the government does it?
- bradlys 5y ago
  You need a strong legislative body - which of course - we don't have. They're in the pockets of corporate interests and billionaires. They have no interest in addressing the needs of the people. But it's totally doable btw. See China. They use eminent domain like a mofo.
  - civilized 5y ago
    IMO, an important political heuristic is "don't expect more government intervention to solve problems that are caused by government in the first place". In this case, 1. We have expensive housing because we don't build enough. 2. We don't build enough because of anti-growth city regulations enacted by NIMBY politicians elected by NIMBY homeowners. Corporate interests and billionaires aren't the ones that keep anything from getting built. They're your homeowner neighbors with lawn signs that say "NO ON EVERYTHING" each election season. In a supply pinch, government subsidies just inflate home prices further, pouring more money into home sellers' pockets, the same way government-subsidized college tuition has poured more money into colleges' pockets. You can't solve a government-caused supply problem with government subsidies. Instead, you have to ask yourself the hard question - do I want much more housing? Do I want economically dynamic cities to grow, with all the problems that can bring? Most voters in these cities don't, and that's why we have the expensive cities we have. There's not enough to go around, so what supply there is goes to the highest bidder. Now, regarding China - it relies heavily on private developers. The CCP learned decades ago that people just aren't motivated to work unless they own the rewards. This led Deng Xiaoping to transform China into an effectively capitalist economy ruled by a one-party corporate technocratic autocracy. The end result is that China is still owned by rich people, they're just rich people in the Communist Party. If you think money and power are uncomfortably close in the US, wait until you learn about the CCP! If the US government had the power of the corrupt Chinese political elites, Jeff Bezos could be disappeared for months (or forever) without any explanation whatsoever from anyone, and everybody would have to take it in stride. They can build infrastructure, yes, but it comes at a heavy price. And most people are kept out of the cities by the hukou system, which is NIMBYism on steroids.