3 ms·

I think this article is a great example of how technical people have become so intoxicated by the relatively few instances in which an advance in technology has

by advael 3y ago

I think this article is a great example of how technical people have become so intoxicated by the relatively few instances in which an advance in technology has genuinely solved an entrenched social or power problem by making a new thing possible or reducing costs that they basically only argue in those terms The fact is, the housing crisis is and always was a policy failure and a "distributional outcomes" issue, and and no amount of improving housing construction's speed, costs, or legality will fix it if we don't both change policy and reduce inequality There are tons of building that are or could be residential housing that are owned by massive investment firms as a speculative asset. The FTC's recently published brief mentioned that keeping units empty rather than lowering prices is common practice among landlords. Even among individuals, an incredible amount of older, wealthy people own multiple homes and view most of them as a source of passive income. When I talk to people in that category, if they are doing well, they are often thinking about buying more homes to generate more income directly from renters or as a speculative investment (IE to hold and sell later) As it stands, people are not homeless because there is nowhere they could live. Not even close. Increasing housing supply without making any significant dent in the financial and regulatory situation surrounding housing will more likely just put more real estate in the hands of the entrenched winners, who have already demonstrated the willingness and ability to hoard housing

nateglims 3y ago
Vacancy rates are misleading and includes things like being unoccupied briefly between owners or houses that are unlivable in areas with no buyers. The number of homes where people want them is quite low, there is simply a shortage. Houses as an asset is a major contributor for sure. It's long been a rival to stocks or exceeded it as an investment and makes a powerful political base. But it also includes a lot of people who view their primary residence as one and aren't landlording other properties. It's hard to find solutions to this that are politically and socially viable. To create more homes requires capital and doing so will lower the value of existing assets. I think people reach for easy solutions because they don't want to face some deep contradictions in our way of life.
- bombcar 3y ago
  And increasing housing is the surest way to "fight back" against these supposed "house hoarders" - because once these assets stop performing so incredibly well, they'll get dumped.
  - advael 3y ago
    I'll buy that, but still doubt that materials costs is anything close to a driving factor in shortages compared to, say, zoning/new construction policy
mortify 3y ago
I hope we can be better about addressing issues like this. Taxing empty houses, like most negative incentives, fails to address the existing incentives that cause the problem in the first place which will lead to different market imbalances. The biggest challenge we face is that the best way to protect wealth is to own assets and properties are assets we can live in. If wealth didn't naturally sublimate this would be less of an issue. Likewise if it were easier to protect wealth by doing something productive, it would happen.
closeparen 3y ago
Where to even start with this? Homes occupied by renters are not being "hoarded." At most this is a concern about homeownership rate, which is not nothing, but a distant second to whether people have places to live or not. Because rents are tethered to incomes, the rental market is a relief valve for speculative excesses in the ownership market. That's why it costs less than half as much to rent as to buy the same property in San Francisco right now. Landlords are not getting a return from collecting rent, they're getting a return from appreciation due to scarcity. And the more concerned voters get about capitalism and inequality, the surer a bet that scarcity becomes.

by advael 3y ago

nateglims 3y ago

Vacancy rates are misleading and includes things like being unoccupied briefly between owners or houses that are unlivable in areas with no buyers. The number of homes where people want them is quite low, there is simply a shortage. Houses as an asset is a major contributor for sure. It's long been a rival to stocks or exceeded it as an investment and makes a powerful political base. But it also includes a lot of people who view their primary residence as one and aren't landlording other properties. It's hard to find solutions to this that are politically and socially viable. To create more homes requires capital and doing so will lower the value of existing assets. I think people reach for easy solutions because they don't want to face some deep contradictions in our way of life.

bombcar 3y ago
And increasing housing is the surest way to "fight back" against these supposed "house hoarders" - because once these assets stop performing so incredibly well, they'll get dumped.
- advael 3y ago
  I'll buy that, but still doubt that materials costs is anything close to a driving factor in shortages compared to, say, zoning/new construction policy

mortify 3y ago

I hope we can be better about addressing issues like this. Taxing empty houses, like most negative incentives, fails to address the existing incentives that cause the problem in the first place which will lead to different market imbalances. The biggest challenge we face is that the best way to protect wealth is to own assets and properties are assets we can live in. If wealth didn't naturally sublimate this would be less of an issue. Likewise if it were easier to protect wealth by doing something productive, it would happen.

closeparen 3y ago

Where to even start with this? Homes occupied by renters are not being "hoarded." At most this is a concern about homeownership rate, which is not nothing, but a distant second to whether people have places to live or not. Because rents are tethered to incomes, the rental market is a relief valve for speculative excesses in the ownership market. That's why it costs less than half as much to rent as to buy the same property in San Francisco right now. Landlords are not getting a return from collecting rent, they're getting a return from appreciation due to scarcity. And the more concerned voters get about capitalism and inequality, the surer a bet that scarcity becomes.