6 ms·

The broader problem is lack of housing that can be afforded by the non-wealthy, which is caused in significant part by zoning laws. If more housing was availabl

The broader problem is lack of housing that can be afforded by the non-wealthy, which is caused in significant part by zoning laws. If more housing was available, the increased supply would better match the demand.

mrktf 2y ago
That is broader problem to solve, not taking account any civil infrastructure the houses will be bought by corporate rent company and renters will be charged "fair price" - pretty same as now (not long ago the was article with discussion about rent price fixing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39575803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39575803 )
- readyman 2y ago
  Yeah, capital accumulation is an inherent quality of capitalism, and accumulated capital then controls the state making so-called regulation impossible. It's only a matter of time.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Only in certain regimes, like when labor competition is high. The challenge is houses are the product of both capital and labor, so even if real capital returns are negative, you get stuck with high prices for construction.
    - readyman 2y ago
      Nonsense. Capital simply regulates labor competition to be low. Whether it's by increasing migration of cheap labor, policing worker organizing, company towns, regressive taxes, or many other strategies. There was one single period in history when this changed for a brief moment and capital learned its lesson to always use its power to keep the workers down. It has done so ever since.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think it is more accurate to say that there is simply a larger supply of labor than demand for much of history, resulting in relatively lower wages, and favoring capital holders. You see much higher wages in sectors where demand for workers outstrips supply. AI architects and neurosurgeons don't need labor organization to capture high salaries.
        readyman 2y ago
        Also nonsense, but irrelevant regardless. By exactly your logic, technology has always increasingly displaced demand for labor. This isn't new at all. So-called "reskilling" is always outsourced to the responsibility of labor. The professions you describe are regulated into scarcity on an ongoing basis by capital. Any exception to this rule is simply that. In the aggregate, capital accumulates.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont understand your objection. Are you saying that captital regulates AI scientists and Surgeons into scarcity, and that by doing so, they make more profit than if they payed lower salary to those professions?
        readyman 2y ago
        For AI scientist, the data is not in and it's all financial speculation so a different conversation. For surgeons, yes. The American medial industry is uniquely exploitative so invests a tremendous amount of capital in backing up its claims of prividing the "best" medical care (only for wealthy people). Of course, the American Medical Association and American Association of Physicians play their parts in contributing to the scarcity by lobbying for extremely expensive education requirements that can only be afforded by those with inherited wealth (with a few exceptions only via charity). Just as the feudalist aristocracies, the capitalist bourgeoise pull up the ladders behind them. It only works when capital has an incentive. In the case of a few American industries like medical, those incentives are especially strong. However, such incentives do not exist in almost any other country, and salaries reflect this.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  The root cause is the state or local govt preventing new housing. If there were enough housing, rent fixing wouldn't even make a dent.
  - JaimeThompson 2y ago
    Then why are rents going up drastically all over texas, even in small towns where damn near anything can be built?
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      Sigh, it is always supply and demand. If demand is higher than supply, prices rise. It is a universal law of economics that people pretend doesn't apply to housing. In these towns, do you have evidence demand is stable and yet prices rise? https://scott-wiener.medium.com/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-housing-even-in-san-francisco-193c1b0c190f https://scott-wiener.medium.com/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-h...
      - JaimeThompson 2y ago
        Adam Smith would disagree.
        cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        Thanks for posting relevant data. I have changed my stance entirely.
        JaimeThompson 2y ago
        I would expect that someone discussing this topic would be familiar with the various things Adam Smith and others have said about collusion to increase prices and related topics.
    - gedy 2y ago
      Some/much of this may be just inflation and the devaluing of the dollar.
- dwheeler 2y ago
  More supply often helps that problem too. It's easier to engage in price-fixing when there are only a few items of supply that are controlled by only a few. Once there are more options, it's much harder to obtain or maintain monopoly control. It's also much harder to hide illegal price-fixing schemes when you need to have tens of thousands of co-conspirators.
- anonuser123456 2y ago
  Well, as long as builders aren’t colluding to fix supply, it doesn’t matter. Corporations can buy up all they want… but idle units are unprofitable. Between property taxes, borrowing costs and maintenance (which accrues whether units are empty or not), units need revenue or they are a drag on profits. Cartels fall apart very rapidly under these conditions. Right now demand outstrips supply by a wide margin. This makes it profitable to buy and rent it out. Build enough housing to put some slack in the market and that equation will rapidly reverse. TL;DR corporate ownership is a symptom, not a cause of housing supply issues.
dwheeler 2y ago
NB: Here's one of many articles about this: "The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing" https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-z...
buro9 2y ago
It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. This leads to the AirBnB culture, the landlord culture, and compounds inequality whilst driving unaffordability. I'm sure the idea is abhorrent to the USA, but perhaps removing incentives to be a landlord at every step should be considered... mortgages should be punitive on second properties, taxes exorbitant for rented properties, insurance should be unavailable, etc. Housing should experience disintermediation, those in the housing should be the ones owning the housing. On this site my karma will suffer for saying this out loud, but a persons fundamental right to shelter, food, health... are just not valued in the US above someone else's right to profit from depriving some of shelter, food and health... at every level it's wrong, but yet capitalism seems to demand it.
- miki123211 2y ago
  To be honest, the opposite is also bad. Communist Poland had no landlords, all housing was built either by the state or by the people who wanted to live there, and apartments were basically impossible to get. If private parties have no incentives or possibilities to build, you're left with government housing, and governments are prone to overpaying and underdelivering. The only way to ensure a right to food and shelter is by ensuring that there's enough food and shelter to be had in the first place, something which we've seen socialist systems struggle with. The only way is to build, build, build, and when the population density demands it, build tall and build small. Apartment complexes with 5-20 floors are a far better and far cheaper idea than sprawling suburbs.
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    Sorry, but housing shortages were common actually due to lack of supply as thousands of people were moving from rural areas to the cities. It was not caused by lack of will to build houses, but lack of construction capacity. Over time, the problem lessened and ultimately by late 70s it was almost unheard of to find a homeless person in a city. Even people with serious problems like alcoholism were housed almost always. Unfortunately this resulted in lots of gray cheap blocks of flats. Looks drab. Over time also got improved. Homeless people are around again and number is on the rise, shortage is around again. Very expensive "apartments" that are tinier and worse made than communist housing are sold for barely attainable sums now. They just look better on the outside.

mrktf 2y ago

That is broader problem to solve, not taking account any civil infrastructure the houses will be bought by corporate rent company and renters will be charged "fair price" - pretty same as now (not long ago the was article with discussion about rent price fixing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39575803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39575803 )

readyman 2y ago
Yeah, capital accumulation is an inherent quality of capitalism, and accumulated capital then controls the state making so-called regulation impossible. It's only a matter of time.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Only in certain regimes, like when labor competition is high. The challenge is houses are the product of both capital and labor, so even if real capital returns are negative, you get stuck with high prices for construction.
  - readyman 2y ago
    Nonsense. Capital simply regulates labor competition to be low. Whether it's by increasing migration of cheap labor, policing worker organizing, company towns, regressive taxes, or many other strategies. There was one single period in history when this changed for a brief moment and capital learned its lesson to always use its power to keep the workers down. It has done so ever since.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think it is more accurate to say that there is simply a larger supply of labor than demand for much of history, resulting in relatively lower wages, and favoring capital holders. You see much higher wages in sectors where demand for workers outstrips supply. AI architects and neurosurgeons don't need labor organization to capture high salaries.
      - readyman 2y ago
        Also nonsense, but irrelevant regardless. By exactly your logic, technology has always increasingly displaced demand for labor. This isn't new at all. So-called "reskilling" is always outsourced to the responsibility of labor. The professions you describe are regulated into scarcity on an ongoing basis by capital. Any exception to this rule is simply that. In the aggregate, capital accumulates.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont understand your objection. Are you saying that captital regulates AI scientists and Surgeons into scarcity, and that by doing so, they make more profit than if they payed lower salary to those professions?
        readyman 2y ago
        For AI scientist, the data is not in and it's all financial speculation so a different conversation. For surgeons, yes. The American medial industry is uniquely exploitative so invests a tremendous amount of capital in backing up its claims of prividing the "best" medical care (only for wealthy people). Of course, the American Medical Association and American Association of Physicians play their parts in contributing to the scarcity by lobbying for extremely expensive education requirements that can only be afforded by those with inherited wealth (with a few exceptions only via charity). Just as the feudalist aristocracies, the capitalist bourgeoise pull up the ladders behind them. It only works when capital has an incentive. In the case of a few American industries like medical, those incentives are especially strong. However, such incentives do not exist in almost any other country, and salaries reflect this.
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
The root cause is the state or local govt preventing new housing. If there were enough housing, rent fixing wouldn't even make a dent.
- JaimeThompson 2y ago
  Then why are rents going up drastically all over texas, even in small towns where damn near anything can be built?
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    Sigh, it is always supply and demand. If demand is higher than supply, prices rise. It is a universal law of economics that people pretend doesn't apply to housing. In these towns, do you have evidence demand is stable and yet prices rise? https://scott-wiener.medium.com/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-housing-even-in-san-francisco-193c1b0c190f https://scott-wiener.medium.com/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-h...
    - JaimeThompson 2y ago
      Adam Smith would disagree.
      - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        Thanks for posting relevant data. I have changed my stance entirely.
        JaimeThompson 2y ago
        I would expect that someone discussing this topic would be familiar with the various things Adam Smith and others have said about collusion to increase prices and related topics.
  - gedy 2y ago
    Some/much of this may be just inflation and the devaluing of the dollar.
dwheeler 2y ago
More supply often helps that problem too. It's easier to engage in price-fixing when there are only a few items of supply that are controlled by only a few. Once there are more options, it's much harder to obtain or maintain monopoly control. It's also much harder to hide illegal price-fixing schemes when you need to have tens of thousands of co-conspirators.
anonuser123456 2y ago
Well, as long as builders aren’t colluding to fix supply, it doesn’t matter. Corporations can buy up all they want… but idle units are unprofitable. Between property taxes, borrowing costs and maintenance (which accrues whether units are empty or not), units need revenue or they are a drag on profits. Cartels fall apart very rapidly under these conditions. Right now demand outstrips supply by a wide margin. This makes it profitable to buy and rent it out. Build enough housing to put some slack in the market and that equation will rapidly reverse. TL;DR corporate ownership is a symptom, not a cause of housing supply issues.

dwheeler 2y ago

NB: Here's one of many articles about this: "The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing" https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-z...

buro9 2y ago

It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. This leads to the AirBnB culture, the landlord culture, and compounds inequality whilst driving unaffordability. I'm sure the idea is abhorrent to the USA, but perhaps removing incentives to be a landlord at every step should be considered... mortgages should be punitive on second properties, taxes exorbitant for rented properties, insurance should be unavailable, etc. Housing should experience disintermediation, those in the housing should be the ones owning the housing. On this site my karma will suffer for saying this out loud, but a persons fundamental right to shelter, food, health... are just not valued in the US above someone else's right to profit from depriving some of shelter, food and health... at every level it's wrong, but yet capitalism seems to demand it.

miki123211 2y ago
To be honest, the opposite is also bad. Communist Poland had no landlords, all housing was built either by the state or by the people who wanted to live there, and apartments were basically impossible to get. If private parties have no incentives or possibilities to build, you're left with government housing, and governments are prone to overpaying and underdelivering. The only way to ensure a right to food and shelter is by ensuring that there's enough food and shelter to be had in the first place, something which we've seen socialist systems struggle with. The only way is to build, build, build, and when the population density demands it, build tall and build small. Apartment complexes with 5-20 floors are a far better and far cheaper idea than sprawling suburbs.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  Sorry, but housing shortages were common actually due to lack of supply as thousands of people were moving from rural areas to the cities. It was not caused by lack of will to build houses, but lack of construction capacity. Over time, the problem lessened and ultimately by late 70s it was almost unheard of to find a homeless person in a city. Even people with serious problems like alcoholism were housed almost always. Unfortunately this resulted in lots of gray cheap blocks of flats. Looks drab. Over time also got improved. Homeless people are around again and number is on the rise, shortage is around again. Very expensive "apartments" that are tinier and worse made than communist housing are sold for barely attainable sums now. They just look better on the outside.