4 ms·

> Young people are freaking out about the job market, the house market Maybe it's finally time we admit markets are a horrible way of allocating resources unle

> Young people are freaking out about the job market, the house market Maybe it's finally time we admit markets are a horrible way of allocating resources unless you want to create a system in which some have endless riches without effort and others have endless effort without riches? Meritocracy claims have always been propaganda to distract from this simple fact.

lurking_swe 1y ago
free markets are just fine. The problem is the housing market in the US isn’t a proper free market AT ALL. The housing “market” here has a long history of problems. - strict zoning laws (and nimby attitudes) prevent the free market from functioning as intended. Housing is expensive because we make it hard to build more housing. - Read up on RealPage, software for landlords thats been accused of inflating rents. There’s a major lawsuit underway, focusing on the issues with its algorithmic pricing. Is that a free market? When the majority of landlords are (effectively) using the same 3rd party software to price-fix? - the US had a few decades of very racist housing policy, which made it difficult for blacks to get housing. I say this as a white man that’s studied this. Fun fact - the US govt used to mark black neighborhoods as “high risk”, meaning banks wouldn’t loan money money to blacks for buying a house. At one point in US history it was also legal to have HOA’s with bylaws preventing blacks from buying property in the neighborhood. I could continue to list many examples of how blacks got screwed, but that’s not the point. The point is whites had a HUGE advantage for decades, even after slavery was abolished. The government made sure blacks couldn’t compete for the desirable homes, for decades. So whites got nice cheap housing. Today the children of those white families enjoy the benefits their parents received, via unethical housing policy. Me included. Is that how a free market is supposed to work? Temporarily reducing competition in desirable communities, letting whites buy, and then reverting the law decades later after prices doubled? Definition of pulling the ladder up behind you if you ask me. I could go on, but i’ll spare you. :) I have receipts: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history... https://longislandadvocate.com/decades-after-redlining-l-i-still-struggles-with-housing-disparities/ https://longislandadvocate.com/decades-after-redlining-l-i-s...
- orwin 1y ago
  When free-market housing have to compete with non-market housing (public or associative) in multiple segments (not only social housing), it works really well as a free market. For that, you need between 20 and 40% of the available housing to be non-market though.
  - lurking_swe 1y ago
    i’d like to learn more about this specifically. Can you recommend reading material on this? Or do you have any specific countries or cities in mind?
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      Look at the Vienna model! https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-soc...
      - lurking_swe 1y ago
        thank you, added to my reading list.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      Singapore, especially, has very intentionally set many laws and regulations, specifically to promote the idea that their people have a place to live, with the vast majority of people living in government provided housing.
      - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        > with the vast majority of people living in government provided housing. Citizens you mean. If you are an expat or migrant worker, your choices are a lot different. 3.64 million citizens in Singapore vs a population of 6 million.
  - 1y ago
Kon5ole 1y ago
>Maybe it's finally time we admit markets are a horrible way of allocating resources We need to distribute fish from fishermen and potatoes from potato farmers to hairdressers and carpenters and so on. What mechanism do you suggest we use instead of markets?
- harimau777 1y ago
  I think it's likely going to be more complex than a one size fits all solution. For comodities like potatoes a mixed economy seems to work pretty well. For healthcare it seems like single payer is the best option. For housing perhaps we should implement something similar to the Works Progress Administration to massively increase building. Perhaps internet should be a public utility. More generally, a combination of private industry and a strong welfare state seems to work well in much of the world.
  - Kon5ole 1y ago
    Maybe so but none of those things replace the concept of a market, they are different ways to control a market, which is absolutely required and woefully neglected in many countries and many areas. But I don't understand the idea that markets themselves are the problem. If you are a doctor and you want to practice medicine to get money to pay for fish, you are engaging with a market even if that market is single payer (ie the government). If the single payer pays too little to get fish, you will start fishing instead of practicing medicine. If the single payer pays a lot the fishermen will start wondering why you get so much when they are the ones actually catching the fish. And they will increase the price of fish, forcing your one payer to pay more. A very simplified view of things of course but my point is that it's still a market. I seriously can't imagine a mechanism better than a market so I was curious what the GP had in mind. The problem with housing isn't markets, it's the lack of a proper market. The economic system in many countries is tied to mortgages in a way that various cogs in the financial machine can't under any circumstance allow housing to depreciate over time. Homeowners don't own their homes, they pay the banks. And the bank is valued based on the assets it has in the form of home loans. So the value of homes has to go up. It's important for politicians, it's important for banks, it's important for existing homeowners. Which makes it a massive problem for non-homeowners. If this was a proper market, houses would be built to meet demand. But as things are now, that would trigger a massive depression. We saw a glimpse of it in 2008.
boppo1 1y ago
>markets You gotta look into Quantitative Easing. We haven't allocated resources with markets for a long long time.

lurking_swe 1y ago

free markets are just fine. The problem is the housing market in the US isn’t a proper free market AT ALL. The housing “market” here has a long history of problems. - strict zoning laws (and nimby attitudes) prevent the free market from functioning as intended. Housing is expensive because we make it hard to build more housing. - Read up on RealPage, software for landlords thats been accused of inflating rents. There’s a major lawsuit underway, focusing on the issues with its algorithmic pricing. Is that a free market? When the majority of landlords are (effectively) using the same 3rd party software to price-fix? - the US had a few decades of very racist housing policy, which made it difficult for blacks to get housing. I say this as a white man that’s studied this. Fun fact - the US govt used to mark black neighborhoods as “high risk”, meaning banks wouldn’t loan money money to blacks for buying a house. At one point in US history it was also legal to have HOA’s with bylaws preventing blacks from buying property in the neighborhood. I could continue to list many examples of how blacks got screwed, but that’s not the point. The point is whites had a HUGE advantage for decades, even after slavery was abolished. The government made sure blacks couldn’t compete for the desirable homes, for decades. So whites got nice cheap housing. Today the children of those white families enjoy the benefits their parents received, via unethical housing policy. Me included. Is that how a free market is supposed to work? Temporarily reducing competition in desirable communities, letting whites buy, and then reverting the law decades later after prices doubled? Definition of pulling the ladder up behind you if you ask me. I could go on, but i’ll spare you. :) I have receipts: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history... https://longislandadvocate.com/decades-after-redlining-l-i-still-struggles-with-housing-disparities/ https://longislandadvocate.com/decades-after-redlining-l-i-s...

orwin 1y ago
When free-market housing have to compete with non-market housing (public or associative) in multiple segments (not only social housing), it works really well as a free market. For that, you need between 20 and 40% of the available housing to be non-market though.
- lurking_swe 1y ago
  i’d like to learn more about this specifically. Can you recommend reading material on this? Or do you have any specific countries or cities in mind?
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    Look at the Vienna model! https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-soc...
    - lurking_swe 1y ago
      thank you, added to my reading list.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Singapore, especially, has very intentionally set many laws and regulations, specifically to promote the idea that their people have a place to live, with the vast majority of people living in government provided housing.
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      > with the vast majority of people living in government provided housing. Citizens you mean. If you are an expat or migrant worker, your choices are a lot different. 3.64 million citizens in Singapore vs a population of 6 million.
- 1y ago

Kon5ole 1y ago

>Maybe it's finally time we admit markets are a horrible way of allocating resources We need to distribute fish from fishermen and potatoes from potato farmers to hairdressers and carpenters and so on. What mechanism do you suggest we use instead of markets?

harimau777 1y ago
I think it's likely going to be more complex than a one size fits all solution. For comodities like potatoes a mixed economy seems to work pretty well. For healthcare it seems like single payer is the best option. For housing perhaps we should implement something similar to the Works Progress Administration to massively increase building. Perhaps internet should be a public utility. More generally, a combination of private industry and a strong welfare state seems to work well in much of the world.
- Kon5ole 1y ago
  Maybe so but none of those things replace the concept of a market, they are different ways to control a market, which is absolutely required and woefully neglected in many countries and many areas. But I don't understand the idea that markets themselves are the problem. If you are a doctor and you want to practice medicine to get money to pay for fish, you are engaging with a market even if that market is single payer (ie the government). If the single payer pays too little to get fish, you will start fishing instead of practicing medicine. If the single payer pays a lot the fishermen will start wondering why you get so much when they are the ones actually catching the fish. And they will increase the price of fish, forcing your one payer to pay more. A very simplified view of things of course but my point is that it's still a market. I seriously can't imagine a mechanism better than a market so I was curious what the GP had in mind. The problem with housing isn't markets, it's the lack of a proper market. The economic system in many countries is tied to mortgages in a way that various cogs in the financial machine can't under any circumstance allow housing to depreciate over time. Homeowners don't own their homes, they pay the banks. And the bank is valued based on the assets it has in the form of home loans. So the value of homes has to go up. It's important for politicians, it's important for banks, it's important for existing homeowners. Which makes it a massive problem for non-homeowners. If this was a proper market, houses would be built to meet demand. But as things are now, that would trigger a massive depression. We saw a glimpse of it in 2008.

boppo1 1y ago

>markets You gotta look into Quantitative Easing. We haven't allocated resources with markets for a long long time.