7 ms·

> I should mention that I've seen fairly convincing cross-sectional evidence that homelessness is more related to the housing market than mental illness This i

> I should mention that I've seen fairly convincing cross-sectional evidence that homelessness is more related to the housing market than mental illness This is absolutely the right diagnosis. For instance, SROs used to be very affordable.[1] Placing someone into housing was well within the means of local governments and non-profits. In Coppola's 1974 movie The Conversation, a large portion of the titular dialogue is about a homeless person Williams' character spots while walking around a crowded Union Square. That's how much homelessness stood out back then. [1] https://ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/ https://ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/

retrac 2y ago
Fifty years ago in Ontario, Canada if you were a single adult destitute with no income you would be eligible for general welfare which would pay about $180 a month, when the average rent on 1 bedroom apartment in Toronto was about $150 a month. Today, an adult in the same position gets about $800 while rent is $1300. It used to be possible to afford (slummy) housing at market rates, even for the very poor. Now it is not. It can be viewed either as a housing price issue or an income inadequacy issue.
- verelo 2y ago
  Fifty years ago Montreal was the business centre of Canada, now that’s Toronto. That $800 rate might actually be more affordable in a less business oriented city, or even Montreal itself since it’s seen a lot of decline in that time. Having said that, there’s zero debate rents are out of control. I own a triplex and every time a unit turns over and i do my research on rent i get a bit shocked. I’ve found myself legitimately concerned how someone can ask for full “market” rate when i know it’s simply not affordable.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    A business center doesn't have to be expensive. That’s made to happen because housing isn’t allowed to be built in sufficient quantity, not a necessary consequence of success.
    - SequoiaHope 2y ago
      I think quantity is a valid concern but I also think treating housing as a speculative asset is an issue. Housing serves as a valuable speculative asset precisely because quantity is restricted by a variety of factors, but actually using it as a speculative asset raises prices significantly.
      - friend_Fernando 2y ago
        Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't (there's a bit of slack with relocations, house sharing and spare bedrooms but it's largely inconsequential.) That means that supply (i.e. quantity) is enough. It's true that if it was impossible to speculate on housing, there would be less incentive to create artificial scarcity by e.g. lobbying for restrictive land use policies.
        SequoiaHope 2y ago
        > Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't This seems like an oversimplification. Speculation affects demand, so the amount of speculation is hidden within “relative scarcity”. If there is no speculation then demand is directly related to the needs and finances of potential occupants. If there is speculation then demand becomes connected to the buying power of the wealthy, and thus demand and prices are likely to be higher. In particular, the wealthy investing class collectively have way, way more money than the renting class, so the finances of the wealthy class distort housing prices upward in ways which dwarf the supply and demand effects from actual renters moving in and out of an area.
        mlsu 2y ago
        Yes, but this speculation is grounded on the possibility of extracting future rents. Which is an assumption about future relative scarcity. We’ve all decided that it’s totally fine to artificially limit the supply of real estate. Speculation is the market (correctly, in most cases) betting that that will continue.
  - squigz 2y ago
    I'd be shocked if you could find $800 rent in any city in Ontario, business-oriented or not.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Windsor? As a nicer Detroit, I thought they might at least benefit from weaker rents considering what’s available across the border. But that’s just a guess, I haven’t lived in that area since the 80s. Here is one source that says a 1 bedroom will set you back $1400: https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/windsor-on https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/windsor-on
      - squigz 2y ago
        Ha, I wish.
- throw5959 2y ago
  It can be viewed as a housing supply issue.
  - chgs 2y ago
    Doesn’t matter how much money in the system, if there are 100 homes and 110 people, ten will be homeless.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      "People per house" is not a fixed number.
- lumb63 2y ago
  I live near Boston. Part of the housing supply issue here is the mandate for a certain amount of “affordable housing” in all new developments (I forget the percentage, on the order of 10-20% of new units?). This results in either housing not being built, since the developer would not be able to earn enough on the sale of the building due to below-market rent payments, or the non-“affordable housing” units have to pay above-market rates to subsidize/offset the below-market-rate units. This drives me nuts, because the goal should be for 100% of housing to be affordable. Stifling development or shifting the unaffordability to different areas of the income distribution do not solve the problem. More housing has to get built. This is a supply-demand issue, as anyone with basic economic knowledge can tell you. There are two ways out: people relocate, or more housing gets built.
  - jimmydddd 2y ago
    ** "...the goal should be for 100% of housing to be affordable." In a world where everyone had housing, I wouldn't mind if Taylor Swift built a house for herself that wasn't "affordable."
hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
Ooh, as an American involved lightly in real estate who relocated to Suomi a few years ago I always love this topic. Let me ramble. It's worth pointing out that, on a country-wide level, Finnish housing prices have been remarkably stagnant for the last 20-30 years when compared to e.g. the United States or most other European countries. That is not true of the cities, obviously, and cities are where all the work is, but it is quite possible here to find very cheap housing in the "middle of nowhere". Government subsidies don't change that dramatically between these different areas, so it's entirely possible to rent e.g. a studio apartment someplace like Kemi or Vaasa for 500€/month or lower and then just coast if you are willing to put in some effort. If you're willing to live with roommates, who may well be running the same strategy you are, it becomes even easier. (The downside is you then have to live there. Many of these areas have record high unemployment rates, for much the same reasons 3000 person towns in the United States do. Having done something like that for a year, I can report it felt like living in cryostasis.) So there's arguably an oversupply of Finnish housing in these remote areas, and most of the country is correctly classified as remote (seriously, look at a map, Finland is huge for 5 million people). One interesting mechanism which might help curb that oversupply in the coming decades is the 15% inheritance tax - many people who live in these areas are older and don't want to hand down e.g. a $50,000 valuation home to their kids and then force them to somehow pony up 7.5k in liquid capital. That incentivizes them to sell sooner rather than later. The more interesting question: Has Finnish housing supply growth in areas like Helsinki, Tampere and Turku kept up with demand growth? I suspect that no matter which country we're looking at, the one which answers that correctly today for their largest cities will be the best place overall to live 10 or 20 years from now. Personally I'll always prefer Finland's massive concrete suburbs to the endless, pointless sea of single family homes I grew up in in the States, and I hope we keep building more of them!
- euroderf 2y ago
  > the "middle of nowhere". *"snow-where" That being said, yes Helsinki has been a magnet for employment at least since the Nokia boom years, but its population has ebbed at least once in lulls since then when rental demand cannot meet overpriced supply. Outlying regions do have a big overstock of housing. Even with low rents, I don't think you can keep any even moderately ambitious young person out in the sticks and away from Helsinki/Tampere/Oulu. Long ago one might think that maybe the country's policy of universal high-speed internet coverage might counter that tendency, but... no. FWIW some stats on population age by region here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/529458/average-age-of-population-by-region-finland/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/529458/average-age-of-po...

retrac 2y ago

Fifty years ago in Ontario, Canada if you were a single adult destitute with no income you would be eligible for general welfare which would pay about $180 a month, when the average rent on 1 bedroom apartment in Toronto was about $150 a month. Today, an adult in the same position gets about $800 while rent is $1300. It used to be possible to afford (slummy) housing at market rates, even for the very poor. Now it is not. It can be viewed either as a housing price issue or an income inadequacy issue.

verelo 2y ago
Fifty years ago Montreal was the business centre of Canada, now that’s Toronto. That $800 rate might actually be more affordable in a less business oriented city, or even Montreal itself since it’s seen a lot of decline in that time. Having said that, there’s zero debate rents are out of control. I own a triplex and every time a unit turns over and i do my research on rent i get a bit shocked. I’ve found myself legitimately concerned how someone can ask for full “market” rate when i know it’s simply not affordable.
- wat10000 2y ago
  A business center doesn't have to be expensive. That’s made to happen because housing isn’t allowed to be built in sufficient quantity, not a necessary consequence of success.
  - SequoiaHope 2y ago
    I think quantity is a valid concern but I also think treating housing as a speculative asset is an issue. Housing serves as a valuable speculative asset precisely because quantity is restricted by a variety of factors, but actually using it as a speculative asset raises prices significantly.
    - friend_Fernando 2y ago
      Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't (there's a bit of slack with relocations, house sharing and spare bedrooms but it's largely inconsequential.) That means that supply (i.e. quantity) is enough. It's true that if it was impossible to speculate on housing, there would be less incentive to create artificial scarcity by e.g. lobbying for restrictive land use policies.
      - SequoiaHope 2y ago
        > Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't This seems like an oversimplification. Speculation affects demand, so the amount of speculation is hidden within “relative scarcity”. If there is no speculation then demand is directly related to the needs and finances of potential occupants. If there is speculation then demand becomes connected to the buying power of the wealthy, and thus demand and prices are likely to be higher. In particular, the wealthy investing class collectively have way, way more money than the renting class, so the finances of the wealthy class distort housing prices upward in ways which dwarf the supply and demand effects from actual renters moving in and out of an area.
        mlsu 2y ago
        Yes, but this speculation is grounded on the possibility of extracting future rents. Which is an assumption about future relative scarcity. We’ve all decided that it’s totally fine to artificially limit the supply of real estate. Speculation is the market (correctly, in most cases) betting that that will continue.
- squigz 2y ago
  I'd be shocked if you could find $800 rent in any city in Ontario, business-oriented or not.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Windsor? As a nicer Detroit, I thought they might at least benefit from weaker rents considering what’s available across the border. But that’s just a guess, I haven’t lived in that area since the 80s. Here is one source that says a 1 bedroom will set you back $1400: https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/windsor-on https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/windsor-on
    - squigz 2y ago
      Ha, I wish.
throw5959 2y ago
It can be viewed as a housing supply issue.
- chgs 2y ago
  Doesn’t matter how much money in the system, if there are 100 homes and 110 people, ten will be homeless.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    "People per house" is not a fixed number.
lumb63 2y ago
I live near Boston. Part of the housing supply issue here is the mandate for a certain amount of “affordable housing” in all new developments (I forget the percentage, on the order of 10-20% of new units?). This results in either housing not being built, since the developer would not be able to earn enough on the sale of the building due to below-market rent payments, or the non-“affordable housing” units have to pay above-market rates to subsidize/offset the below-market-rate units. This drives me nuts, because the goal should be for 100% of housing to be affordable. Stifling development or shifting the unaffordability to different areas of the income distribution do not solve the problem. More housing has to get built. This is a supply-demand issue, as anyone with basic economic knowledge can tell you. There are two ways out: people relocate, or more housing gets built.
- jimmydddd 2y ago
  ** "...the goal should be for 100% of housing to be affordable." In a world where everyone had housing, I wouldn't mind if Taylor Swift built a house for herself that wasn't "affordable."

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago

Ooh, as an American involved lightly in real estate who relocated to Suomi a few years ago I always love this topic. Let me ramble. It's worth pointing out that, on a country-wide level, Finnish housing prices have been remarkably stagnant for the last 20-30 years when compared to e.g. the United States or most other European countries. That is not true of the cities, obviously, and cities are where all the work is, but it is quite possible here to find very cheap housing in the "middle of nowhere". Government subsidies don't change that dramatically between these different areas, so it's entirely possible to rent e.g. a studio apartment someplace like Kemi or Vaasa for 500€/month or lower and then just coast if you are willing to put in some effort. If you're willing to live with roommates, who may well be running the same strategy you are, it becomes even easier. (The downside is you then have to live there. Many of these areas have record high unemployment rates, for much the same reasons 3000 person towns in the United States do. Having done something like that for a year, I can report it felt like living in cryostasis.) So there's arguably an oversupply of Finnish housing in these remote areas, and most of the country is correctly classified as remote (seriously, look at a map, Finland is huge for 5 million people). One interesting mechanism which might help curb that oversupply in the coming decades is the 15% inheritance tax - many people who live in these areas are older and don't want to hand down e.g. a $50,000 valuation home to their kids and then force them to somehow pony up 7.5k in liquid capital. That incentivizes them to sell sooner rather than later. The more interesting question: Has Finnish housing supply growth in areas like Helsinki, Tampere and Turku kept up with demand growth? I suspect that no matter which country we're looking at, the one which answers that correctly today for their largest cities will be the best place overall to live 10 or 20 years from now. Personally I'll always prefer Finland's massive concrete suburbs to the endless, pointless sea of single family homes I grew up in in the States, and I hope we keep building more of them!

euroderf 2y ago
> the "middle of nowhere". *"snow-where" That being said, yes Helsinki has been a magnet for employment at least since the Nokia boom years, but its population has ebbed at least once in lulls since then when rental demand cannot meet overpriced supply. Outlying regions do have a big overstock of housing. Even with low rents, I don't think you can keep any even moderately ambitious young person out in the sticks and away from Helsinki/Tampere/Oulu. Long ago one might think that maybe the country's policy of universal high-speed internet coverage might counter that tendency, but... no. FWIW some stats on population age by region here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/529458/average-age-of-population-by-region-finland/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/529458/average-age-of-po...