4 ms·
Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing? Due to inflation, the stickiness of prices and the time
by Aloisius 2y ago
Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing?
Due to inflation, the stickiness of prices and the time it takes to build, it's hard to lower the nominal price city-wide. The latter, meanwhile, isn't plain to see.
Making this more complicated to see is that new construction happens tends to happen more during shortages when rents are already going on.
Induced demand is something that happens with things that have zero price to use, like highways, not housing. Research shows quite the opposite. When new construction creates more vacancies, rents in surrounding area come down.
- cyberax 2y ago> Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing? Two can play this game. Let's compare the rapidly enshittifying Seattle and SF. Seattle has increased the amount of housing units by 25% over the last 12 years. SF by 3%. Yet prices grew FASTER in Seattle than in SF. Just imagine how better Seattle would have been if it hasn't built all those residential towers?
- buttercraft 2y agoI guess the math seems easy when you ignore most of the variables...
- cyberax 2y agoWhich ones I'm ignoring?
- mixmastamyk 2y agoPopulation growth is the major one, and time-frame, behind on building for decades. Tons of pent up demand and a nationwide problem, so people move when they can. Inflation already mentioned, govt subsidies. Honestly, if you can't think four-dimensionally and/or understand derivatives you have no business arguing in a housing thread. Not to mention what arguing against econ 101 makes you look like. Econ-denier is the new flat-earther.