4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.