7 ms·

1000%. I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in

1000%. I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in the United States for every single homeless person on the street (https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/ https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/). There is not, nor has there ever been, anything resembling a "housing shortage". We live in a post-scarcity world as far as housing is concerned, and have for centuries. There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed. The entire framing of the issue as a false NIMBY/YIMBY dichotomy is a distraction from the reality that there is not and has never been a supply issue. The only issue is artificial demand from speculators who choose to withhold and deny a basic human right in the hope that it might magically raise in value for no reason instead of depreciate like every other asset.

linguae 2y ago
I’m curious about how these empty homes are distributed? Take California for example, where there are 19 empty homes per homeless person according to the link provided. But where are these empty homes in California? If they are disproportionately located in areas far from employment opportunities, then this suggests that we still need to build more housing near employment centers. But if there are plenty of vacancies in areas close to job centers, then this is definitely something that needs to be looked into more closely.
aegypti 2y ago
A surplus of housing in Madison, WI is irrelevant to someone living and working in NYC, which has a severe housing shortage. We are still subject to space time.
- nradov 2y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. Nothing prevents people from moving to Madison. And let's not have any spurious claims that there are no good jobs in Madison: the unemployment rate is significantly lower in WI than in NY.
jayski 2y ago
so could this be resolved by having a high tax (~50%) on second/rental/investment homes?
- Plasmoid 2y ago
  So... where would renters live?
  - adolph 2y ago
    Rent controlled public housing. These could be mass produced and stacked like legos so that rents would be less than 1/3 of UBI. With the addition of municipal broadband there would be plentiful jobs for teleworkers in virtual call centers to provide a back end for no-checkout stores and providing teaching assistance to students using MOOCs.
    - canadianfella 2y ago
      [dead]
  - Wool2662 2y ago
    In their own houses. That's what cooperatives are for. Also prices would drop once speculation on housing is no longer profitable.
    - Plasmoid 2y ago
      How much do you think prices would drop? Sure a lot of supply is now on the market, but for buyers it's "20% down or your sleeping in your corolla". What about people living in an area temporarily? People who just moved? Honestly, these ideas come across as you personally being ready to buy but wanting a lower price rather than wanting a more sustainable housing market.
      - Panzer04 2y ago
        This is 90% of internet suggestions. Lots of people want to buy and don't really think through the second order of their consequences (which largely fall on renters, in the end)
dicudbxbwv 2y ago
Are you ”teaching” that because some 2% of housing units are empty we don’t have a shortage? Because I don’t think any of economy, capitalist or not can reasonably obtain 100% use of any resource. 98% is pretty dang efficient and I think is actually a counterpoint to what you’re trying to argue.
aeyes 2y ago
If this was true you should be able to build a new house for much less than the asking price for existing houses but unfortunately that is not the case either.
WalterBright 2y ago
A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell. Nobody is going to want homeless people living in it in the meantime. Houses are also "empty" while they are undergoing renovation.
- tmnvix 2y ago
  Definitely true. Probably also worth considering that during a speculative boom there is a lot more turnover which will increase the proportion of properties sitting empty while they are on the market (not sure how significant this would be but another example of how a booming market can lead to a decrease in properties used as a permanent residence).
- joecool1029 2y ago
  > A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell. A thought: Disincentivize having them for sale for too long, tax a % of the listing price every year it's on the market. That way gougers get penalized for crazy asking prices and there's some additional negative price pressure.
  - iteria 2y ago
    All that would result in is less transparency. People wouldn't put their house openly for sale anyone and you'd just create informal market places. Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.
    - joecool1029 2y ago
      > All that would result in is less transparency. Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved. > Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals. This is done already? Still an improvement over leaving them empty indefinitley.
j7ake 2y ago
Your statement aggregates across cities with different job opportunities and economic outputs. You need to look at specific cities with housing problems, and ask whether building more houses in that specific city would alleviate housing shortages.
sunshowers 2y ago
This is simply not correct once you account for the fact that people do not like to be uprooted from the communities they're part of. We are simply not in a post-scarcity situation for housing, and YIMBYism is essentially correct. Homelessness is the most visible sign of a much larger systemic problem. For example, it's quite likely that many homes today are overcrowded, and people don't have as much space to live as they desire. This is bad! Not as bad as homelessness, but depending on the specifics still quite bad. The good news is that building vertically permits more private space per person, so we don't just have to accept things getting worse.
Redoubts 2y ago
> I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in the United States for every single homeless person on the street Are you suggesting we deport homeless people from cities with low vacancy rates, to cities with high vacancy rates? > There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed. I suspect your answer to the question above will reveal a barrier.
- downrightmike 2y ago
  Red states bus homeless to blue states, then blue states buss them right back until the problem is solved or one of them (the red state) runs out of money.
anon291 2y ago
[flagged]

linguae 2y ago

I’m curious about how these empty homes are distributed? Take California for example, where there are 19 empty homes per homeless person according to the link provided. But where are these empty homes in California? If they are disproportionately located in areas far from employment opportunities, then this suggests that we still need to build more housing near employment centers. But if there are plenty of vacancies in areas close to job centers, then this is definitely something that needs to be looked into more closely.

aegypti 2y ago

A surplus of housing in Madison, WI is irrelevant to someone living and working in NYC, which has a severe housing shortage. We are still subject to space time.

nradov 2y ago
I don't understand what you mean. Nothing prevents people from moving to Madison. And let's not have any spurious claims that there are no good jobs in Madison: the unemployment rate is significantly lower in WI than in NY.

jayski 2y ago

so could this be resolved by having a high tax (~50%) on second/rental/investment homes?

Plasmoid 2y ago
So... where would renters live?
- adolph 2y ago
  Rent controlled public housing. These could be mass produced and stacked like legos so that rents would be less than 1/3 of UBI. With the addition of municipal broadband there would be plentiful jobs for teleworkers in virtual call centers to provide a back end for no-checkout stores and providing teaching assistance to students using MOOCs.
  - canadianfella 2y ago
    [dead]
- Wool2662 2y ago
  In their own houses. That's what cooperatives are for. Also prices would drop once speculation on housing is no longer profitable.
  - Plasmoid 2y ago
    How much do you think prices would drop? Sure a lot of supply is now on the market, but for buyers it's "20% down or your sleeping in your corolla". What about people living in an area temporarily? People who just moved? Honestly, these ideas come across as you personally being ready to buy but wanting a lower price rather than wanting a more sustainable housing market.
    - Panzer04 2y ago
      This is 90% of internet suggestions. Lots of people want to buy and don't really think through the second order of their consequences (which largely fall on renters, in the end)

dicudbxbwv 2y ago

Are you ”teaching” that because some 2% of housing units are empty we don’t have a shortage? Because I don’t think any of economy, capitalist or not can reasonably obtain 100% use of any resource. 98% is pretty dang efficient and I think is actually a counterpoint to what you’re trying to argue.

aeyes 2y ago

If this was true you should be able to build a new house for much less than the asking price for existing houses but unfortunately that is not the case either.

WalterBright 2y ago

A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell. Nobody is going to want homeless people living in it in the meantime. Houses are also "empty" while they are undergoing renovation.

tmnvix 2y ago
Definitely true. Probably also worth considering that during a speculative boom there is a lot more turnover which will increase the proportion of properties sitting empty while they are on the market (not sure how significant this would be but another example of how a booming market can lead to a decrease in properties used as a permanent residence).
joecool1029 2y ago
> A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell. A thought: Disincentivize having them for sale for too long, tax a % of the listing price every year it's on the market. That way gougers get penalized for crazy asking prices and there's some additional negative price pressure.
- iteria 2y ago
  All that would result in is less transparency. People wouldn't put their house openly for sale anyone and you'd just create informal market places. Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.
  - joecool1029 2y ago
    > All that would result in is less transparency. Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved. > Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals. This is done already? Still an improvement over leaving them empty indefinitley.

j7ake 2y ago

Your statement aggregates across cities with different job opportunities and economic outputs. You need to look at specific cities with housing problems, and ask whether building more houses in that specific city would alleviate housing shortages.

sunshowers 2y ago

This is simply not correct once you account for the fact that people do not like to be uprooted from the communities they're part of. We are simply not in a post-scarcity situation for housing, and YIMBYism is essentially correct. Homelessness is the most visible sign of a much larger systemic problem. For example, it's quite likely that many homes today are overcrowded, and people don't have as much space to live as they desire. This is bad! Not as bad as homelessness, but depending on the specifics still quite bad. The good news is that building vertically permits more private space per person, so we don't just have to accept things getting worse.

Redoubts 2y ago

> I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in the United States for every single homeless person on the street Are you suggesting we deport homeless people from cities with low vacancy rates, to cities with high vacancy rates? > There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed. I suspect your answer to the question above will reveal a barrier.

downrightmike 2y ago
Red states bus homeless to blue states, then blue states buss them right back until the problem is solved or one of them (the red state) runs out of money.

anon291 2y ago

[flagged]