4 ms·

> In an ideal world house prices would increase 1:1 with wage growth from an affordable baseline. There's only one way to do that - a command economy, with all

> In an ideal world house prices would increase 1:1 with wage growth from an affordable baseline. There's only one way to do that - a command economy, with all housing owned and doled out by the government. That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever. You have to work very hard to ignore the fact that some places are more desirable than others to live in, and sometimes those desirable places change. Also, different people have different priorities, desires, and ability to afford both for their housing. How do you accommodate that pressure without 100% control over the entire real estate market?

bombcar 4y ago
It's a good question and how we "did" it in the past might need to be investigated. House prices and appreciation were basically the same throughout the US until something like the 1950s, when places like CA began to far outstrip other parts of the country. I don't think that CA became a desirable place to live suddenly in the 50s, but perhaps it did?
- californical 4y ago
  It became a lot easier to move across the country with the rise of cars and commercial flying, and CA is a really nice place (from a climate and natural beauty perspective, plus the thriving industries). So it may not be the only reason, but I think if prices were equal, many people would choose CA over Indiana for example, if they were looking to move somewhere new.
- falcolas 4y ago
  In the 50’s, the population of the U.S. was under half of what it is now. And lots of professionals (and their high wages) like to live, or must live, in urban areas driving prices up in those same areas. Supply and demand, combined with “rugged individualism” valued so highly in the states. That individualism is largely what drives NIMBY mentalities.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The relevant metric is did a place become far more desirable to far more people. Which seems obvious when information becomes more and more available, culminating with instant transmission of pictures and videos and forums that create lists of the most scenic or best weather or best beaches, etc. This is also ignoring sheer population growth, and the unrivaled economic behemoths that have come out of California since the 1950s and produced a ton of wealth for Californians.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Huge population growth without corresponding new home growth.
nemothekid 4y ago
>That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever. Except for Vienna.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Yes Vienna does an amazing job but nobody in other cities seems to notice :(
galaxyLogic 4y ago
You don't need to have "100% control" of the market. Government policies can help steer the situation in one direction or other. It's not like there must be either 100% or 0%. There are 50 shades of gray in between. Nobody's trying to realistically get to the "ideal world". What you want is an "improved world".
ItsMonkk 4y ago
> and doled out by the government Not necessary. A land value tax provides a market-based solution to this problem.
etc-hosts 4y ago
Singapore?
Willish42 4y ago
> a command economy, with all housing owned and doled out by the government. That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever. We need a shared definition of "working" then. There are plenty of ways to disincentivize low-density real estate development and incentivize high density and affordable housing, and all of them involve regulation and tax reform to control the market to some degree. This post apparently assumes any non-free-market structure that "doesn't work" would be a worse outcome than we have currently, where there are more vacant homes than homeless people.

bombcar 4y ago

It's a good question and how we "did" it in the past might need to be investigated. House prices and appreciation were basically the same throughout the US until something like the 1950s, when places like CA began to far outstrip other parts of the country. I don't think that CA became a desirable place to live suddenly in the 50s, but perhaps it did?

californical 4y ago
It became a lot easier to move across the country with the rise of cars and commercial flying, and CA is a really nice place (from a climate and natural beauty perspective, plus the thriving industries). So it may not be the only reason, but I think if prices were equal, many people would choose CA over Indiana for example, if they were looking to move somewhere new.
falcolas 4y ago
In the 50’s, the population of the U.S. was under half of what it is now. And lots of professionals (and their high wages) like to live, or must live, in urban areas driving prices up in those same areas. Supply and demand, combined with “rugged individualism” valued so highly in the states. That individualism is largely what drives NIMBY mentalities.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
The relevant metric is did a place become far more desirable to far more people. Which seems obvious when information becomes more and more available, culminating with instant transmission of pictures and videos and forums that create lists of the most scenic or best weather or best beaches, etc. This is also ignoring sheer population growth, and the unrivaled economic behemoths that have come out of California since the 1950s and produced a ton of wealth for Californians.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Huge population growth without corresponding new home growth.

nemothekid 4y ago

>That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever. Except for Vienna.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Yes Vienna does an amazing job but nobody in other cities seems to notice :(

galaxyLogic 4y ago

You don't need to have "100% control" of the market. Government policies can help steer the situation in one direction or other. It's not like there must be either 100% or 0%. There are 50 shades of gray in between. Nobody's trying to realistically get to the "ideal world". What you want is an "improved world".

ItsMonkk 4y ago

> and doled out by the government Not necessary. A land value tax provides a market-based solution to this problem.

etc-hosts 4y ago

Singapore?

Willish42 4y ago

> a command economy, with all housing owned and doled out by the government. That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever. We need a shared definition of "working" then. There are plenty of ways to disincentivize low-density real estate development and incentivize high density and affordable housing, and all of them involve regulation and tax reform to control the market to some degree. This post apparently assumes any non-free-market structure that "doesn't work" would be a worse outcome than we have currently, where there are more vacant homes than homeless people.