6 ms·

> Housing affordability plagued Germany of the early 20th century You gotta reach back to over a hundred years ago to find an example? > Can you list these ri

> Housing affordability plagued Germany of the early 20th century You gotta reach back to over a hundred years ago to find an example? > Can you list these rich countries with 'population explosion[s]'? What the hell are you talking about? The population in the US is the highest it's been in history. You're using a bullshit metric like growth rate which is a percentage of constantly increasing number? 1% of 100 is the same as 50% of 2. Of course the growth rate goes down as the population goes up. The natives to the country have a declining birthrate. This is the responsible thing to do. This decreases the population and returns the US to a stable population density. If the US wasn't flooding the country with over a million non-natives every year both population AND housing would stabilize and NOT be a problem. Population is the issue or more specifically non-native population.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Before you indulge in bargain bin Malthusianism and nativism, first consider the vacancy rates of housing in expensive metros. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-San-Francisco-16822916.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes... https://sfist.com/2022/02/01/report-10-of-san-franciscos-housing-stock-is-just-sitting-vacant-and-empty/ https://sfist.com/2022/02/01/report-10-of-san-franciscos-hou... Next, the housing shortages in other previously-afforded cities are being bought up by... other Americans, some moving from such expensive metros. That boom that happened during the pandemic might finally be reversing: https://fortune.com/2022/08/16/bubbly-housing-markets-are-shifting-historically-fast-austin-boise-las-vegas/ https://fortune.com/2022/08/16/bubbly-housing-markets-are-sh...
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  This isn't Malthusian. The world can support current population. Just the worlds entire populations wants to be in a small part of the world America or Europe for some reason. Which isn't sustainable and is destabilizing those places. The ultimate solution is to make other places desirable to live, which is confusing because the US and Europe are only a small portion of the worlds landmass.
namlem 4y ago
Then why did Japan face a massive housing bubble in the 1980s, despite low immigration? And why did their housing problem only go away when they reformed their zoning laws to allow people to build? Population is a negligible factor. Laws restricting land use are artificially constraining the supply of housing, and these laws have grown more common and more popular.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  Why not both supply and demand? The reason the laws are needed is because the land is being overrun by people. Lifting the laws ruins someones neighborhood, keeping the laws makes it unaffordable to live there. The solution is just to have less people who want the land.
  - namlem 4y ago
    Immigration is good for the economy.
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      What about Immigrants staying and benefiting their OWN countries economy? Things will never get better in their original countries if everyone want's to go to a few very small parts of the world. And things will eventually be undesirable in the places everyone is trying to immigrate to. Whatever happened with staying in one place and making it better?
      - namlem 4y ago
        This sounds like a bullshit post-hoc rationalization for xenophobia. There's no valid reason to deny entry to any and all immigrants who are willing to work and have clean criminal records. Which side of an imaginary line someone is born on shouldn't determine whether they are doomed to poverty and oppression.
        edmcnulty101 4y ago
QuarterReptile 4y ago
>Housing has never been this much of a problem up until the past decade or two. >You gotta reach back to over a hundred years ago to find an example? So, by 'never', you meant somewhere around 60 years? 75 years? I ask because you discount my 80 year-old example (chosen by availability because I'm reading an interesting book on the economics of Nazi Germany right now) as if it couldn't possibly be relevant because it's so long ago, while appealing to 'never' to attempt a weighty claim. >The population in the US is the highest it's been in history. And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard. >You're using a bullshit metric like growth rate which is a percentage of constantly increasing number? 1% of 100 is the same as 50% of 2. Of course the growth rate goes down as the population goes up. Yes, I'm using a percentage term for growth rate because it is appropriate for the comparison, unless you believe in some immutable constant carrying capacity for the US. Adding 1 million people to 10 million is not remotely similar to adding a million to 330 million, but that's the version you're arguing for. >The natives to the country have a declining birthrate. This is the responsible thing to do. Responsible to what? It's suicide by an entire species, not to mention dooming your descendants to lower standards of living as the viability of specialization gradually decays. I'm out of time to respond to this comment, but your remaining points are equally in need of correction.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  > And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard. I suspect you hope that continues because it benefits you and your agenda. Not because it's what's best for a country. If you don't understand basic science like carrying capacity of an area and stable population density...and how population's expand and contract to meet that stable density...if left without interference...then yeah, you're not going to understand my point. I suspect you have an agenda so it's not a productive conversation.

Apocryphon 4y ago

Before you indulge in bargain bin Malthusianism and nativism, first consider the vacancy rates of housing in expensive metros. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-San-Francisco-16822916.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes... https://sfist.com/2022/02/01/report-10-of-san-franciscos-housing-stock-is-just-sitting-vacant-and-empty/ https://sfist.com/2022/02/01/report-10-of-san-franciscos-hou... Next, the housing shortages in other previously-afforded cities are being bought up by... other Americans, some moving from such expensive metros. That boom that happened during the pandemic might finally be reversing: https://fortune.com/2022/08/16/bubbly-housing-markets-are-shifting-historically-fast-austin-boise-las-vegas/ https://fortune.com/2022/08/16/bubbly-housing-markets-are-sh...

edmcnulty101 4y ago
This isn't Malthusian. The world can support current population. Just the worlds entire populations wants to be in a small part of the world America or Europe for some reason. Which isn't sustainable and is destabilizing those places. The ultimate solution is to make other places desirable to live, which is confusing because the US and Europe are only a small portion of the worlds landmass.

namlem 4y ago

Then why did Japan face a massive housing bubble in the 1980s, despite low immigration? And why did their housing problem only go away when they reformed their zoning laws to allow people to build? Population is a negligible factor. Laws restricting land use are artificially constraining the supply of housing, and these laws have grown more common and more popular.

edmcnulty101 4y ago
Why not both supply and demand? The reason the laws are needed is because the land is being overrun by people. Lifting the laws ruins someones neighborhood, keeping the laws makes it unaffordable to live there. The solution is just to have less people who want the land.
- namlem 4y ago
  Immigration is good for the economy.
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    What about Immigrants staying and benefiting their OWN countries economy? Things will never get better in their original countries if everyone want's to go to a few very small parts of the world. And things will eventually be undesirable in the places everyone is trying to immigrate to. Whatever happened with staying in one place and making it better?
    - namlem 4y ago
      This sounds like a bullshit post-hoc rationalization for xenophobia. There's no valid reason to deny entry to any and all immigrants who are willing to work and have clean criminal records. Which side of an imaginary line someone is born on shouldn't determine whether they are doomed to poverty and oppression.
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago

QuarterReptile 4y ago

>Housing has never been this much of a problem up until the past decade or two. >You gotta reach back to over a hundred years ago to find an example? So, by 'never', you meant somewhere around 60 years? 75 years? I ask because you discount my 80 year-old example (chosen by availability because I'm reading an interesting book on the economics of Nazi Germany right now) as if it couldn't possibly be relevant because it's so long ago, while appealing to 'never' to attempt a weighty claim. >The population in the US is the highest it's been in history. And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard. >You're using a bullshit metric like growth rate which is a percentage of constantly increasing number? 1% of 100 is the same as 50% of 2. Of course the growth rate goes down as the population goes up. Yes, I'm using a percentage term for growth rate because it is appropriate for the comparison, unless you believe in some immutable constant carrying capacity for the US. Adding 1 million people to 10 million is not remotely similar to adding a million to 330 million, but that's the version you're arguing for. >The natives to the country have a declining birthrate. This is the responsible thing to do. Responsible to what? It's suicide by an entire species, not to mention dooming your descendants to lower standards of living as the viability of specialization gradually decays. I'm out of time to respond to this comment, but your remaining points are equally in need of correction.

edmcnulty101 4y ago
> And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard. I suspect you hope that continues because it benefits you and your agenda. Not because it's what's best for a country. If you don't understand basic science like carrying capacity of an area and stable population density...and how population's expand and contract to meet that stable density...if left without interference...then yeah, you're not going to understand my point. I suspect you have an agenda so it's not a productive conversation.