4 ms·

The challenge with shelter is that it is fundamentally a positional good. Everyone wants to be within the x% most convenient, which is say, desirable, places to

The challenge with shelter is that it is fundamentally a positional good. Everyone wants to be within the x% most convenient, which is say, desirable, places to live. So as there are more and more people with more money to chase those limited "slots", they get more expensive. Making everyone worse off. The solution is to massively build many more new good places to live; but there are also enormous forces against that.

throw8383833jj 4y ago
Absolutely >>> The solution is to massively build many more new good places to live People underestimate the positive impact of this solution. It's not like we don't have the space. All that's lacking is the will.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Space is not just space. Space has qualities such as non humid climates, near mountains, beaches, access to potable water, and of course, political considerations. Also, people like more space than less space so incumbents will fight against others coming in, unless the others are bringing benefits such as money or labor for the incumbents.
onecommentman 4y ago
When I read “Everyone” in your post, bells went off on my head. It’s too broad a statement. You could offer me a 2M home in the Bay Area, and I’d auction it off to charity. A 5M condo in Manhattan and I’d do the same. You can only say there are enough people with enough money and determination to bid up property in certain areas. Two very wealthy people bidding on one property can take it to astronomical levels, but they are not “everyone”. There are more people who want to live in the Bay Area than there is affordable housing. The number of people who want to live in the Bay Area, though, is a fairly small percentage of the US population (ignoring the homeless who seem to love the Pacific Coast). Most places in the US are already “good” places to live, if you come with the right attitude, e.g. immigrants looking for a better life. After WWII, GIs dispersed themselves all over the country. They had seen (sometimes too much of) the world, and were open to, and happy with, anyplace in the US that gave them a job, a house and an ability to raise a family. They knew how bad it could be and counted on being able to improve wherever they moved to in the US. And they mostly did, thanks to a solid economy, a stable political system and pure moxie. Same with non-wealthy foreign immigrants. Making the most of what you have generally leads to a pretty nice life anywhere in the US. Even Canada :-). Internal mobility in the US has been on the decline in recent years, perhaps a sort of generational timidity combined with familial inertia has led to certain highly-populated areas experiencing irrationally high housing costs.

throw8383833jj 4y ago

Absolutely >>> The solution is to massively build many more new good places to live People underestimate the positive impact of this solution. It's not like we don't have the space. All that's lacking is the will.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Space is not just space. Space has qualities such as non humid climates, near mountains, beaches, access to potable water, and of course, political considerations. Also, people like more space than less space so incumbents will fight against others coming in, unless the others are bringing benefits such as money or labor for the incumbents.

onecommentman 4y ago

When I read “Everyone” in your post, bells went off on my head. It’s too broad a statement. You could offer me a 2M home in the Bay Area, and I’d auction it off to charity. A 5M condo in Manhattan and I’d do the same. You can only say there are enough people with enough money and determination to bid up property in certain areas. Two very wealthy people bidding on one property can take it to astronomical levels, but they are not “everyone”. There are more people who want to live in the Bay Area than there is affordable housing. The number of people who want to live in the Bay Area, though, is a fairly small percentage of the US population (ignoring the homeless who seem to love the Pacific Coast). Most places in the US are already “good” places to live, if you come with the right attitude, e.g. immigrants looking for a better life. After WWII, GIs dispersed themselves all over the country. They had seen (sometimes too much of) the world, and were open to, and happy with, anyplace in the US that gave them a job, a house and an ability to raise a family. They knew how bad it could be and counted on being able to improve wherever they moved to in the US. And they mostly did, thanks to a solid economy, a stable political system and pure moxie. Same with non-wealthy foreign immigrants. Making the most of what you have generally leads to a pretty nice life anywhere in the US. Even Canada :-). Internal mobility in the US has been on the decline in recent years, perhaps a sort of generational timidity combined with familial inertia has led to certain highly-populated areas experiencing irrationally high housing costs.