3 ms·

>Housing is already very cheap in places no one wants to live in. But this isn't a solution, it's a tautology. If people started moving there, they'd become ex

by scythe 5y ago

>Housing is already very cheap in places no one wants to live in. But this isn't a solution, it's a tautology. If people started moving there, they'd become expensive, too. The population level interpretation is that inflows should equal outflows everywhere, which is statistically impossible unless the government decides where you can live. Who wants that?

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The increase in prices depends on the amount of demand relative to supply. If all the demand for land in coastal California was redirected to the land in rural Midwest/Northeast, there is so much supply that it would cause a much smaller increase in price. And it very well maybe that there is no solution to the problem of people having to scrimp due to high real estate prices. People may inherently want to compete with each other and agglomerate into highly desirable areas.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  That would be true if the lot size were the same as the high cost locations and home inventory could be created overnight. In reality, as we are seeing in Idaho, despite large swaths of undeveloped land available, the homes are still skyrocketing in price due to lack of inventory.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. Of course all of the demand directed all at once without adequate supply will result in price increases. But people incorporate the fact that some places will never have enough supply simply due to lack of sufficient land. In that sense, a house in a popular part of Idaho will always be more than a house in Iowa.
    - scythe 5y ago
      > The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. This isn't a solution to the cost of living, and in fact it would make it much worse. If people were spread out evenly over Idaho, the cost of shipping goods and driving to work would explode, not to mention power transmission, broadband, sewers, etc. Ascribing the current situation to some "desire to be competitive" which somehow appeared in the past three decades and was absent in 1900, is not compatible with comparisons to our past or other countries' present. Paris has roughly five times the population density of Washington, DC. We're not out of space. We're using it badly. Meanwhile, there are parts of coastal California that aren't even expensive: https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/ https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/
      - bradlys 5y ago
        Yeah - the issue in the USA is that everyone here still thinks sprawl is sustainable. It’s not. Financially or climate wise - it’s not sustainable. It’s been cheap historically because the government subsidized it. It’s actually very expensive. (Roads and service lines cost a lot of money - go figure) Idk why people keep thinking it’s a cheaper way to do things when we know that it isn’t. It’s like no one here has read any of those strong towns articles.
endisneigh 5y ago
No one said it’s a solution, I’m simply describing reality, as you’ve also concluded. Also the rate of increase is not fixed. Areas with more propensity for development will see smaller price increases compared to areas with less propensity for development. It’s more complicated than simply supply and demand, though it does reduce down to that in the end
- scythe 5y ago
  >I’m simply describing reality That's clearly untrue. You're claiming there isn't a systemic problem, I'm claiming there is. >It’s more complicated than simply supply and demand It's never more complicated than supply and demand; it's just that supply and demand are, themselves, both very complicated. If housing was just determined by such factors as climate and price, everyone would move to Silver City, New Mexico. Despite fantastic weather, relatively low prices and a beautiful mountain setting, it has seen a sharp population decrease over the last decade. This isn't a matter of people being irrational, or "wanting" to live in "desirable" areas. It's a matter of people needing to live in productive areas. Denial won't make it go away.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I never said it’s not a problem, though. You’re basically addressing things I never claimed to begin with. >>>> Housing is already very cheap in places no one wants to live in. >>> But this isn't a solution, it's a tautology >> No one said it’s a solution, I’m simply describing reality, as you’ve also concluded. > That's clearly untrue. You're claiming there isn't a systemic problem, I'm claiming there is. I have no idea who you’re even responding to.
    - scythe 5y ago
      The problem is your use of the word "wants". When I moved to San Francisco in 2014, it wasn't because I wanted to. I liked it there; I think San Francisco is certainly a desirable place to live, but that doesn't actually matter. The fact is, in 2014, I was planning to move to Portland, which, in 2014, was much more affordable than it is today. But I found a job in San Francisco before I found anything in Portland. That didn't happen because I thought San Francisco was desirable, it happened because people, except for the very few who make a lot of money working remotely, do not move somewhere simply because they want to. Otherwise, I would have moved to Costa Rica. "Housing is already very cheap in places where there are few jobs, poor services and little infrastructure." See the difference?

by scythe 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

The increase in prices depends on the amount of demand relative to supply. If all the demand for land in coastal California was redirected to the land in rural Midwest/Northeast, there is so much supply that it would cause a much smaller increase in price. And it very well maybe that there is no solution to the problem of people having to scrimp due to high real estate prices. People may inherently want to compete with each other and agglomerate into highly desirable areas.

mrkstu 5y ago
That would be true if the lot size were the same as the high cost locations and home inventory could be created overnight. In reality, as we are seeing in Idaho, despite large swaths of undeveloped land available, the homes are still skyrocketing in price due to lack of inventory.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. Of course all of the demand directed all at once without adequate supply will result in price increases. But people incorporate the fact that some places will never have enough supply simply due to lack of sufficient land. In that sense, a house in a popular part of Idaho will always be more than a house in Iowa.
  - scythe 5y ago
    > The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. This isn't a solution to the cost of living, and in fact it would make it much worse. If people were spread out evenly over Idaho, the cost of shipping goods and driving to work would explode, not to mention power transmission, broadband, sewers, etc. Ascribing the current situation to some "desire to be competitive" which somehow appeared in the past three decades and was absent in 1900, is not compatible with comparisons to our past or other countries' present. Paris has roughly five times the population density of Washington, DC. We're not out of space. We're using it badly. Meanwhile, there are parts of coastal California that aren't even expensive: https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/ https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/
    - bradlys 5y ago
      Yeah - the issue in the USA is that everyone here still thinks sprawl is sustainable. It’s not. Financially or climate wise - it’s not sustainable. It’s been cheap historically because the government subsidized it. It’s actually very expensive. (Roads and service lines cost a lot of money - go figure) Idk why people keep thinking it’s a cheaper way to do things when we know that it isn’t. It’s like no one here has read any of those strong towns articles.

endisneigh 5y ago

No one said it’s a solution, I’m simply describing reality, as you’ve also concluded. Also the rate of increase is not fixed. Areas with more propensity for development will see smaller price increases compared to areas with less propensity for development. It’s more complicated than simply supply and demand, though it does reduce down to that in the end

scythe 5y ago
>I’m simply describing reality That's clearly untrue. You're claiming there isn't a systemic problem, I'm claiming there is. >It’s more complicated than simply supply and demand It's never more complicated than supply and demand; it's just that supply and demand are, themselves, both very complicated. If housing was just determined by such factors as climate and price, everyone would move to Silver City, New Mexico. Despite fantastic weather, relatively low prices and a beautiful mountain setting, it has seen a sharp population decrease over the last decade. This isn't a matter of people being irrational, or "wanting" to live in "desirable" areas. It's a matter of people needing to live in productive areas. Denial won't make it go away.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I never said it’s not a problem, though. You’re basically addressing things I never claimed to begin with. >>>> Housing is already very cheap in places no one wants to live in. >>> But this isn't a solution, it's a tautology >> No one said it’s a solution, I’m simply describing reality, as you’ve also concluded. > That's clearly untrue. You're claiming there isn't a systemic problem, I'm claiming there is. I have no idea who you’re even responding to.
  - scythe 5y ago
    The problem is your use of the word "wants". When I moved to San Francisco in 2014, it wasn't because I wanted to. I liked it there; I think San Francisco is certainly a desirable place to live, but that doesn't actually matter. The fact is, in 2014, I was planning to move to Portland, which, in 2014, was much more affordable than it is today. But I found a job in San Francisco before I found anything in Portland. That didn't happen because I thought San Francisco was desirable, it happened because people, except for the very few who make a lot of money working remotely, do not move somewhere simply because they want to. Otherwise, I would have moved to Costa Rica. "Housing is already very cheap in places where there are few jobs, poor services and little infrastructure." See the difference?