9 ms·

All government interference—significantly restricting supply and then doling out free money/tax-breaks to pay for whats left. As if govt leaders never took an

All government interference—significantly restricting supply and then doling out free money/tax-breaks to pay for whats left. As if govt leaders never took an econ 101 class.

cyberax 2y ago
There is no supply restriction. We're close to the record-high number of housing units per capita, it's only a bit lower than in 2007, and we're likely to surpass it by 2026.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  This is not the right calculation. Housing units per household makes more sense, as the number of people per housing unit has been shrinking since we started collecting data as peoples preferences change. From what I can tell it peaked in 2011 at 1.17 and has declined to 1.12 since, and considering that we expect some vacancy from moving, condemned units, and people prefer certain areas and dont like many others, the trend does not support that we have enough housing. Not to mention the prices clearly show demand is there
- sir0010010 2y ago
  The calculation changes if you only include adults in the denominator - there is a lot more adults relative to children compared to the past. The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions - see: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/the-shortage-of-housing-and-the-rising-numbers-of-houses-per-capita.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/th... and https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/household-size-and-the-housing-stock?r=18smg1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/household-size-and-the-h... which goes into more detail
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > The calculation changes Nope. It becomes slightly further from the record high numbers, but still better than at any time before 90-s. At this point, the misery caucus is just grasping at straws. In a couple of years, the housing inventory will make even that metric irrelevant, but the price of housing will still be going up. > The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions Nope. The solution is the opposite: preserve the SFH at all costs and shut down the misery caucus. Build new cities, not new density. Create jobs outside of dense hellscapes. Because the reality is that NOT A SINGLE CITY has lowered the housing sale prices by increasing the density of existing areas. Not a single one in the US, Europe, or Japan.
    - mixmastamyk 2y ago
      “Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think. Govt interference propping housing prices through various means was previously mentioned as well.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > “Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think. Yeah, can you then point out an example of a city where densification worked to decrease the housing sale prices? Tokyo? Nope. Seattle? Definitely nope, even though its housing inventory grew by 25% within 12 years. Moscow? Nope. If it's so "round Earth", then there must be some early metrics that can indicate the success of densification railroading in places where it's been tried? For example, Minneapolis went full cookoo nuts by abolishing parking requirements and the SFH zoning in 2019. They gave out the city to be screwed up by developers. How's it faring now? Oh, the price growth not only not slowed down, it ACCELERATED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS33460Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS33460Q Do you know Mark Twain's definition of "insanity"?
        mixmastamyk 2y ago
        I said nothing about "densification." This whole diatribe is in your mind. My original point was about there being a well-documented shortage of housing across the country. You can argue against it if you like but just look foolish. You point at few absolute price decreases which is true but don't take into account multiple variables (like population increases, inflation, tax policy) or understand higher order derivatives. In which case you've got no business arguing in these threads.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > My original point was about there being a well-documented shortage of housing across the country. Can you point out the shortage on this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1koDH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1koDH ? We do NOT have a housing crisis. Not even close. Housing is more affordable and of better quality than ever. We have a DENSITY crisis. People are forced by economic forces to move to relatively few unaffordable locations. > You point at few absolute price decreases which is true but don't take into account multiple variables (like population increases, inflation, tax policy) or understand higher order derivatives. In which case you've got no business arguing in these threads. What "higher order derivatives"? I read most of the new research on urbanist policy. And so far everything I've seen confirms what I said.
tehjoker 2y ago
They did take econ 101. They simply know whose interests they serve: people who already own property.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I just think people who say this are very funny and weird. I took an econ 101 class, but drawing supply demand curves to talk about wide ranging governmental policy is just a bad methodology.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Right, using arithmetic to set a budget is bad methodology. Might want to rethink your statement.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Where exactly did I say you should run a deficit? The words that I said were “wide ranging governmental policy.” I was thinking of examples like the minimum wage, where people often try to use econ 101 reasoning to definitively prove that raising the minimum wage must produce significant unemployment, when the real world literature turns out extremely muddy and contentious, ie the effect is much less than expected for a variety of complicated reasons that a supply and demand curve do not capture.
rurp 2y ago
Perhaps economic issues at the scale of a modern country can be more complicated than would be covered by an econ 101 lesson.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Perhaps not, to a first approximation.
  - watwut 2y ago
    They certainly are. This is a case of people with little knowledge and a lot of confidence being the most dangerous.
    - mixmastamyk 2y ago
      If you don’t understand the basics, you don’t understand anything.

All government interference—significantly restricting supply and then doling out free money/tax-breaks to pay for whats left. As if govt leaders never took an econ 101 class.

cyberax 2y ago

There is no supply restriction. We're close to the record-high number of housing units per capita, it's only a bit lower than in 2007, and we're likely to surpass it by 2026.

daedrdev 2y ago
This is not the right calculation. Housing units per household makes more sense, as the number of people per housing unit has been shrinking since we started collecting data as peoples preferences change. From what I can tell it peaked in 2011 at 1.17 and has declined to 1.12 since, and considering that we expect some vacancy from moving, condemned units, and people prefer certain areas and dont like many others, the trend does not support that we have enough housing. Not to mention the prices clearly show demand is there
sir0010010 2y ago
The calculation changes if you only include adults in the denominator - there is a lot more adults relative to children compared to the past. The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions - see: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/the-shortage-of-housing-and-the-rising-numbers-of-houses-per-capita.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/th... and https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/household-size-and-the-housing-stock?r=18smg1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/household-size-and-the-h... which goes into more detail
- cyberax 2y ago
  > The calculation changes Nope. It becomes slightly further from the record high numbers, but still better than at any time before 90-s. At this point, the misery caucus is just grasping at straws. In a couple of years, the housing inventory will make even that metric irrelevant, but the price of housing will still be going up. > The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions Nope. The solution is the opposite: preserve the SFH at all costs and shut down the misery caucus. Build new cities, not new density. Create jobs outside of dense hellscapes. Because the reality is that NOT A SINGLE CITY has lowered the housing sale prices by increasing the density of existing areas. Not a single one in the US, Europe, or Japan.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    “Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think. Govt interference propping housing prices through various means was previously mentioned as well.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > “Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think. Yeah, can you then point out an example of a city where densification worked to decrease the housing sale prices? Tokyo? Nope. Seattle? Definitely nope, even though its housing inventory grew by 25% within 12 years. Moscow? Nope. If it's so "round Earth", then there must be some early metrics that can indicate the success of densification railroading in places where it's been tried? For example, Minneapolis went full cookoo nuts by abolishing parking requirements and the SFH zoning in 2019. They gave out the city to be screwed up by developers. How's it faring now? Oh, the price growth not only not slowed down, it ACCELERATED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS33460Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS33460Q Do you know Mark Twain's definition of "insanity"?
      - mixmastamyk 2y ago
        I said nothing about "densification." This whole diatribe is in your mind. My original point was about there being a well-documented shortage of housing across the country. You can argue against it if you like but just look foolish. You point at few absolute price decreases which is true but don't take into account multiple variables (like population increases, inflation, tax policy) or understand higher order derivatives. In which case you've got no business arguing in these threads.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > My original point was about there being a well-documented shortage of housing across the country. Can you point out the shortage on this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1koDH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1koDH ? We do NOT have a housing crisis. Not even close. Housing is more affordable and of better quality than ever. We have a DENSITY crisis. People are forced by economic forces to move to relatively few unaffordable locations. > You point at few absolute price decreases which is true but don't take into account multiple variables (like population increases, inflation, tax policy) or understand higher order derivatives. In which case you've got no business arguing in these threads. What "higher order derivatives"? I read most of the new research on urbanist policy. And so far everything I've seen confirms what I said.

tehjoker 2y ago

They did take econ 101. They simply know whose interests they serve: people who already own property.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

I just think people who say this are very funny and weird. I took an econ 101 class, but drawing supply demand curves to talk about wide ranging governmental policy is just a bad methodology.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
Right, using arithmetic to set a budget is bad methodology. Might want to rethink your statement.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Where exactly did I say you should run a deficit? The words that I said were “wide ranging governmental policy.” I was thinking of examples like the minimum wage, where people often try to use econ 101 reasoning to definitively prove that raising the minimum wage must produce significant unemployment, when the real world literature turns out extremely muddy and contentious, ie the effect is much less than expected for a variety of complicated reasons that a supply and demand curve do not capture.

rurp 2y ago

Perhaps economic issues at the scale of a modern country can be more complicated than would be covered by an econ 101 lesson.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
Perhaps not, to a first approximation.
- watwut 2y ago
  They certainly are. This is a case of people with little knowledge and a lot of confidence being the most dangerous.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    If you don’t understand the basics, you don’t understand anything.