3 ms·

Or, if you adjusted demand, prices you fall. The 30 yr mortgage was supposed to make homes more affordable. Instead, like higher edu, cheap and easy loans have

Or, if you adjusted demand, prices you fall. The 30 yr mortgage was supposed to make homes more affordable. Instead, like higher edu, cheap and easy loans have driven prices up, up, up. I'm not sure what the solution is at this point. But it seems to be a bit of both...more inventory, and less demand.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 3y ago
You will get less demand if any of: * More people per house * People leaving the state * More homeless * Long term: lower the birth rate * Increased death rate None of which are desirable. The first might be OK because it might bring families together and make people more social.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  You also decrease demand by making mortgages less easy to get. Again, look what cheap and easy loans did to the cost of higher edu. The market was manipulated and it responded in kind. The current system is leading to sociopolitical situations that are also undesirable. And yet our only answer is, "Thank you sirs and madames, can we have another?" That's not sustainable. p.s. Prices can also be lowered by building smaller homes. The problem there is, the larger the home the more furnishings, etc. Larger homes help increase consumption which is good for the status quo.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    That doesn't decrease human demand. It will change the price point though. It might make it cheaper and encourage less debt, which is a good thing. But if there is a town with 4 houses and 5 families, then the price of a house could be $100 or $1bn, but there are still 4 houses, and 5 families. Building smaller homes is good. If you make the small, and put them close together, and sometimes on top of each other you can increase the chance of having a walkable city rather than a drive-only one.
- beretguy 3y ago
  I don’t want to live in the same house with my abusive parents.
- coffeesque 3y ago
  [flagged]
- patrick451 3y ago
  You left out * Stopping illegal immigration and repatriating all illegal residents within the U.S. which is highly desirable.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    This would actually be economically devastating both in the short and long term. Lets say you could Thanos snap them out of existence. millions of jobs would go unfilled instantly and for a very long term. Industries and companies relying on such labor in whole or in part collapse. The economic ripples of collapsing demand make up for the lack of jobs as we dip into a depression. Contrary to what people imagine such individuals both create economic value and create demand for goods. They also render tenable things like social security which work best with a slowly expanding population and completely implode with a collapsing population which we would in fact have at present birth rate. It's also foolhardy to imagine that America is somehow "full" when our population density is actually a tiny fraction of actually densely populated countries.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      What you are saying is that without a lot of activity that the USA has made illegal, the USA cannot function properly. Like there is a shadow economy that you cannot live without. Is there a partially blinded eye turned to this by the government then?
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        I don't know a nice way to say "no shit". Since we actually benefit I see no reason not to make it easier for people to become Americans
        quickthrower2 3y ago
        But if you did that… does the minimum wage have to go?
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  More people per house can often be a clusterfuck. Even people who are very amenable to each other are liable to develop friction in a small space. Then then there are people's inherently divergent plans depending on family, life, and jobs. The need for people who you would share space with to also pass credit/background checks. Then there is the increasing chance of economic challenges that comes from combining what would normally be multiple households. Instead of the stereotypical 50s where you worry about one person losing a relatively stable job you now have 4-5 unstable incomes where the lose of one may endanger the economic stability of the household. Like a raid0 with increasing number of drives. A famous trope in comedic premises is the friction between in-laws and spouse but this has absolutely obvious deep roots in real dynamics. Life is infinitely easier when your family and spouse just have to care about one another not live with each-other day to day. Furthermore most of the apartment stocks aren't suitable in size for such arrangements and most of the single family housing is presently owner occupied or very expensive and or disinterested in renting to a crowd. This doesn't seem on net a very tenable direction logistically or culturally in the US.
danielmarkbruce 3y ago
You can't really reduce housing demand in any way that would be good. People would effectively need to be poorer. It's always been a supply issue. It's always been hard to solve because the supply is controlled locally and no single area can put a dent in the actual problem. It's the reverse of the tragedy of the commons. And it can't be solved until zoning is done at a state/national level.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Well, you can't really increase demand in a way that's good either. We're seeing that. But the only way to fix the Ponzi Scheme is...more Ponzi Scheme? 40 year mortgages? 50 year mortgages? The promise that these make homes more affordable is a lie. The root problem is, "leadership" (i.e., politicians and financial institutions) have sold people the idea that a home is an investment first, and a place to live second. When you buy into this paradigm - and *many* have - then the system is all but obligated to act in ways to drive up prices. If we *really* want "affordable housing", we're not going to get that from the current lie. What part of this insanity don't people understand?
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    Everyone being richer is a way that is good. Imagine everyone woke up tomorrow 50% more productive. Think through the bundle of goods people tend to buy, which ones are quite elastic over a reasonable amount of time (and those that are quite inelastic), and you'll come to the conclusion it's better, overall.
- mostlylurks 3y ago
  > You can't really reduce housing demand in any way that would be good. You can, especially locally. For instance, if you normalize remote work in society to the extent that a significant portion of people won't feel any strong need to cram into massive metropolises just to be able to get a job with which to support themselves, you'll reduce the housing demand in those metropolises somewhat and distribute that demand over the nearly endless rural areas and small towns of $YOUR_COUNTRY instead, where the supply of land on which to build on massively overshadows that of metropolises.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

quickthrower2 3y ago

You will get less demand if any of: * More people per house * People leaving the state * More homeless * Long term: lower the birth rate * Increased death rate None of which are desirable. The first might be OK because it might bring families together and make people more social.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
You also decrease demand by making mortgages less easy to get. Again, look what cheap and easy loans did to the cost of higher edu. The market was manipulated and it responded in kind. The current system is leading to sociopolitical situations that are also undesirable. And yet our only answer is, "Thank you sirs and madames, can we have another?" That's not sustainable. p.s. Prices can also be lowered by building smaller homes. The problem there is, the larger the home the more furnishings, etc. Larger homes help increase consumption which is good for the status quo.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  That doesn't decrease human demand. It will change the price point though. It might make it cheaper and encourage less debt, which is a good thing. But if there is a town with 4 houses and 5 families, then the price of a house could be $100 or $1bn, but there are still 4 houses, and 5 families. Building smaller homes is good. If you make the small, and put them close together, and sometimes on top of each other you can increase the chance of having a walkable city rather than a drive-only one.
beretguy 3y ago
I don’t want to live in the same house with my abusive parents.
coffeesque 3y ago
[flagged]
patrick451 3y ago
You left out * Stopping illegal immigration and repatriating all illegal residents within the U.S. which is highly desirable.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  This would actually be economically devastating both in the short and long term. Lets say you could Thanos snap them out of existence. millions of jobs would go unfilled instantly and for a very long term. Industries and companies relying on such labor in whole or in part collapse. The economic ripples of collapsing demand make up for the lack of jobs as we dip into a depression. Contrary to what people imagine such individuals both create economic value and create demand for goods. They also render tenable things like social security which work best with a slowly expanding population and completely implode with a collapsing population which we would in fact have at present birth rate. It's also foolhardy to imagine that America is somehow "full" when our population density is actually a tiny fraction of actually densely populated countries.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    What you are saying is that without a lot of activity that the USA has made illegal, the USA cannot function properly. Like there is a shadow economy that you cannot live without. Is there a partially blinded eye turned to this by the government then?
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      I don't know a nice way to say "no shit". Since we actually benefit I see no reason not to make it easier for people to become Americans
      - quickthrower2 3y ago
        But if you did that… does the minimum wage have to go?
michaelmrose 3y ago
More people per house can often be a clusterfuck. Even people who are very amenable to each other are liable to develop friction in a small space. Then then there are people's inherently divergent plans depending on family, life, and jobs. The need for people who you would share space with to also pass credit/background checks. Then there is the increasing chance of economic challenges that comes from combining what would normally be multiple households. Instead of the stereotypical 50s where you worry about one person losing a relatively stable job you now have 4-5 unstable incomes where the lose of one may endanger the economic stability of the household. Like a raid0 with increasing number of drives. A famous trope in comedic premises is the friction between in-laws and spouse but this has absolutely obvious deep roots in real dynamics. Life is infinitely easier when your family and spouse just have to care about one another not live with each-other day to day. Furthermore most of the apartment stocks aren't suitable in size for such arrangements and most of the single family housing is presently owner occupied or very expensive and or disinterested in renting to a crowd. This doesn't seem on net a very tenable direction logistically or culturally in the US.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago

You can't really reduce housing demand in any way that would be good. People would effectively need to be poorer. It's always been a supply issue. It's always been hard to solve because the supply is controlled locally and no single area can put a dent in the actual problem. It's the reverse of the tragedy of the commons. And it can't be solved until zoning is done at a state/national level.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Well, you can't really increase demand in a way that's good either. We're seeing that. But the only way to fix the Ponzi Scheme is...more Ponzi Scheme? 40 year mortgages? 50 year mortgages? The promise that these make homes more affordable is a lie. The root problem is, "leadership" (i.e., politicians and financial institutions) have sold people the idea that a home is an investment first, and a place to live second. When you buy into this paradigm - and *many* have - then the system is all but obligated to act in ways to drive up prices. If we *really* want "affordable housing", we're not going to get that from the current lie. What part of this insanity don't people understand?
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Everyone being richer is a way that is good. Imagine everyone woke up tomorrow 50% more productive. Think through the bundle of goods people tend to buy, which ones are quite elastic over a reasonable amount of time (and those that are quite inelastic), and you'll come to the conclusion it's better, overall.
mostlylurks 3y ago
> You can't really reduce housing demand in any way that would be good. You can, especially locally. For instance, if you normalize remote work in society to the extent that a significant portion of people won't feel any strong need to cram into massive metropolises just to be able to get a job with which to support themselves, you'll reduce the housing demand in those metropolises somewhat and distribute that demand over the nearly endless rural areas and small towns of $YOUR_COUNTRY instead, where the supply of land on which to build on massively overshadows that of metropolises.