4 ms·

> This emphasis on single-family homes in their data sources affects the generalizability of their conclusions about the impact of supply constraints across dif

> This emphasis on single-family homes in their data sources affects the generalizability of their conclusions about the impact of supply constraints across different types of housing markets, especially in dense urban areas where multi-family units and rentals are more prevalent. But that's what people are typically complaining the most about, so fair enough that they focus on it. > They also only go as far back as 1980. The difference between supply constraints between 1980 and 2025 is very small compared to the difference between 1965 and 1980. Take Los Angeles as an example [1]. The zoned capacity of many metro areas was dramatically reduced by the mid 1970s. That' supports their point though, if the supply constraints differences have been small between 1980 and 2025, but the house price increase has been large, then supply constrains can't really explain house price increase? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

jlhawn 2y ago
From the abstract: > These results challenge the prevailing view of local housing and labor markets and suggest that easing housing supply constraints may not yield the anticipated improvements in housing affordability. If their finding is that increases in incomes leads to increases in demand which then increases prices, that’s not surprising. But their claim is that reducing artificial constraints (onerous land use regulation, discretionary entitlement and permitting, etc) would not have any impact on the supply curve. That’s highly suspect. To make a plainly true statement which sounds similar to the paper title, "Increasing Incomes Coupled With Supply Constraints Explain House Price and Quantity Growth Across U.S. Cities." Spot the difference.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway545673 2y ago
  No, it just means that removing supply constraints doesn't increase supply (enough) relative to demand.

jlhawn 2y ago

From the abstract: > These results challenge the prevailing view of local housing and labor markets and suggest that easing housing supply constraints may not yield the anticipated improvements in housing affordability. If their finding is that increases in incomes leads to increases in demand which then increases prices, that’s not surprising. But their claim is that reducing artificial constraints (onerous land use regulation, discretionary entitlement and permitting, etc) would not have any impact on the supply curve. That’s highly suspect. To make a plainly true statement which sounds similar to the paper title, "Increasing Incomes Coupled With Supply Constraints Explain House Price and Quantity Growth Across U.S. Cities." Spot the difference.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway545673 2y ago
No, it just means that removing supply constraints doesn't increase supply (enough) relative to demand.