3 ms·

Indeed, there are so many problems caused by the lack of housing construction (that is nationwide and codified in law) that many attribute to pretty much anythi

Indeed, there are so many problems caused by the lack of housing construction (that is nationwide and codified in law) that many attribute to pretty much anything but this readily identifiable trend. I also believe it is a significant input to the trend of younger people not "bothering" to work hard. From the perspective of someone very young, it may well appear that working 40+ hours per week does little to increase their actual standard of living. This is historically demonstrated to reduce entry into the workforce so long as people are otherwise able to meet their needs (e.g., not starve or go homeless), and in the U.S. an 18 year-old used to be able to get a full-time job then with one or two buddies afford their own apartment (and own room). In many places across the U.S., they will be sharing rooms in an apartment which may be a reduction in standard of living from "mom's basement". Both "mom's basement" and room sharing may be perceived as low class and undesirable, particularly for a young man, as status is one of the historically strong factors for attracting women.

beaconstudios 5y ago
True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty.
- paulnpace 5y ago
  > True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This is introducing some other topic into the discussion. The problem of housing price increases is unrelated to this, and more likely related to destruction of new-business formation. The American middle class has always been lead by small businesses, and new business formation has been steadily dropping for decades. Small businesses do not suffer the same issues as working in large corporations, so when large corporations make up larger and larger percentages of the workforce, they also shift other aspects related to employment and income. > This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty. The housing shortage is completely a regulatory problem where the supply is artificially constricted in ways it was never previously controlled. People often think of housing as somehow not falling into the same supply and demand price function problems as other products, but this simply isn't true. The "wealthy" could never hope to purchase all of the bread fast enough to make any real dent in the price because of how rapidly the production of bread would be increased with their artificial increase in demand. This scheme can only work with artificial constriction on supply that comes from the regulations on the construction of new residential units, because without these regulatory constrictions developers would build houses until either the investors run out of money or we are all working in the home construction industry.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    The blue collar middle class of the middle century was led by industrial scale manufacturing, which doesn't typically come from small companies. I know supply side restriction constrains the creation of new housing as well, but the wealthy buying up properties in cities and renting them out or leaving them unoccupied restricts access to property in areas where land for new building is limited. You can build suburbs all day out in the stix (theoretically) but nobody who works in a city wants a 2 hour commute each way. Depends on the city of course; I'm thinking Toronto, New York and London where empty houses are a big problem but I know that SF has a major issue with NIMBYism so YMMV.

beaconstudios 5y ago

True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty.

paulnpace 5y ago
> True, and I think with the stratospheric income inequality it's becoming more obvious to many that working hard does not lead to success when investors and executives are capturing more and more of the value of companies. Nobody wants to work hard to be paid nothing while their efforts just further enrich the already-rich. This is introducing some other topic into the discussion. The problem of housing price increases is unrelated to this, and more likely related to destruction of new-business formation. The American middle class has always been lead by small businesses, and new business formation has been steadily dropping for decades. Small businesses do not suffer the same issues as working in large corporations, so when large corporations make up larger and larger percentages of the workforce, they also shift other aspects related to employment and income. > This also contributes to the housing shortage as the wealthy buy up property as real estate investments and either rent them out, leaving renters with no equity to realise into deposits for better housing down the line, or leave them empty. The housing shortage is completely a regulatory problem where the supply is artificially constricted in ways it was never previously controlled. People often think of housing as somehow not falling into the same supply and demand price function problems as other products, but this simply isn't true. The "wealthy" could never hope to purchase all of the bread fast enough to make any real dent in the price because of how rapidly the production of bread would be increased with their artificial increase in demand. This scheme can only work with artificial constriction on supply that comes from the regulations on the construction of new residential units, because without these regulatory constrictions developers would build houses until either the investors run out of money or we are all working in the home construction industry.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The blue collar middle class of the middle century was led by industrial scale manufacturing, which doesn't typically come from small companies. I know supply side restriction constrains the creation of new housing as well, but the wealthy buying up properties in cities and renting them out or leaving them unoccupied restricts access to property in areas where land for new building is limited. You can build suburbs all day out in the stix (theoretically) but nobody who works in a city wants a 2 hour commute each way. Depends on the city of course; I'm thinking Toronto, New York and London where empty houses are a big problem but I know that SF has a major issue with NIMBYism so YMMV.