3 ms·

Remarkable that investor-owned multi-family housing is left out of these analyses. Surely that contributes to housing supply and should factor into any such ana

Remarkable that investor-owned multi-family housing is left out of these analyses. Surely that contributes to housing supply and should factor into any such analysis of pricing power among investors. For example, about 44% of California households rent. Additionally looking at national averages is misleading. Investor pricing power can exist in individual markets without being ubiquitous across the nation. The allegations made against RealPage are a notable example, if true. A more insidious issue besides just pricing power among investors is the direction of cash flow. When you rent, cash is paid to the owner. When you take out a mortgage, interest is paid to the bank. These are both mechanisms for rentier capitalists to extract cash from those with less - by paying for a basic need - essentially wealth redistribution in the wrong direction.

lanfeust6 1y ago
If investors aren't corporations, they're mom and pop. Since vacancy rates are very low in cities, this means they're renting out. If they didn't, you'd have even more shortage and rising rents. Californian cities like San Fransisco also have rent control which further constrains supply. It seems like your gripe about cash flow is that people pay anything at all. Nevermind that wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income (in various ways), and they also pay less. Fanciful ideas aside there's plenty of evidence that increasing supply of housing lowers prices
- grafmax 1y ago
  > wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income Wealth inequality continues to increase. These measures are insufficient. The best effect that YIMBY can have on housing is to put a slight downward pressure on prices. Prices can still go up, and often do, in locations where YIMBY is adopted. That’s because it’s a superficial measure that does not address the structural cause. Slightly lower prices cannot house the growing homeless population for example - slightly lower prices can never house people without money. “Abundance” makes a gesture toward the housing crisis without addressing the structural cause - wealth inequality. It’s appealing to its billionaire supporters for exactly this reason. We need effective public housing that the wealthy finance through their taxes.
  - lanfeust6 1y ago
    > Wealth inequality continues to increase. These measures are insufficient. The point of tax and spend/redistribute is to provide services and goods, not eliminate inequality. Inequality in itself is a moot point. > Slightly lower prices cannot house the growing homeless population for example - slightly lower prices can never house people without money. Homelessness scales directly with housing affordability. The data makes this clear. Not with drug-use rates or inequality. A large portion of the homeless population is transient and temporary, 80%+. Lower prices will lower the homeless population, full stop. For the chronically homeless you can weave in other interventions and try to offer geared-to-income or free spots (this is already a thing), but you can't force them to do anything. You can't force them to take medication, you can't force them to show up to appointments. If your big solution is to introduce involuntary confinement, that has nothing to do with housing, but conversely I don't think assigning a bedroom apt in itself addresses the core problems that ail them. Covered at length here https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-include-in https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-inc.... > The best effect that YIMBY can have on housing is to put a slight downward pressure on prices. Real-world examples suggest it's anything but "slight". See: housing affordability disparity between red and blue cities just for example. The last estimate for the total homeless population in Japan in 2024 was just 2820 people, in the country. That's 0.2 per 10k, the best rate in the world, in a country that is anything but equal. If your metric for an effective housing policy is decimating the rate of homelessness, clearly sound zoning and regulation is the first place to look. This is NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with having special interventions reserved for the chronically homeless who will never work, but these represent a fraction of the homeless.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      > The point of tax and spend/redistribute is to provide services and goods, not eliminate inequality. At a high level, reducing inequality reduces relative power differential among members of society. Wealth inequality is its own evil. In the housing market this can takes forms like investor pricing power and intensification of rentier capitalism, (furthering the parasitism of the working class by increasing cash outflows from workers to banks and rentiers). > Homelessness scales directly with housing affordability…not inequality. Housing is less affordable when people have less money to pay for housing. I get that slightly lower prices are can cause fewer people to succumb to homelessness. But again, how is someone without money supposed to buy a house - even at a lower price? > A large portion of the homeless population is transient and temporary, 80%+. Source? The closest thing I could find was one study - from the 1990s - for two cities only - limiting its study to the population of homeless people living in shelters only. > See: housing affordability disparity between red and blue cities just for example. Many factors feed in to different housing rates between red and blue cities such as typically wealthier workforces in blue cities. Look at YIMBYism’s adopters. Oregon’s statewide upzoning hasn’t reversed rising homelessness. Despite California’s ADU and zoning laws, affordability is near record lows. Even Austin’s rent drop hasn’t halted its homelessness growth. YIMBYism can have positive effects, sure. Yet often these effects are dwarfed by other factors. That’s because NIMBYism is a one fish in the sea of causation. Zooming out, the big picture is wealth inequality, the distribution of assets. More people can’t afford housing; those that can pay more for it. Meanwhile wealth of the wealthiest continues to grow, including investor housing stockpiles, instead of shifting assets into the hands of those who need it. YIMBYist supply tweaking is a bandaid for this. > The last estimate for the total homeless population in Japan in 2024 was just 2820 people, in the country. Right, and they have superior public housing policies for the homeless, tax-financed, providing the kind of effective safety net we need and lack.

lanfeust6 1y ago

If investors aren't corporations, they're mom and pop. Since vacancy rates are very low in cities, this means they're renting out. If they didn't, you'd have even more shortage and rising rents. Californian cities like San Fransisco also have rent control which further constrains supply. It seems like your gripe about cash flow is that people pay anything at all. Nevermind that wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income (in various ways), and they also pay less. Fanciful ideas aside there's plenty of evidence that increasing supply of housing lowers prices

grafmax 1y ago
> wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income Wealth inequality continues to increase. These measures are insufficient. The best effect that YIMBY can have on housing is to put a slight downward pressure on prices. Prices can still go up, and often do, in locations where YIMBY is adopted. That’s because it’s a superficial measure that does not address the structural cause. Slightly lower prices cannot house the growing homeless population for example - slightly lower prices can never house people without money. “Abundance” makes a gesture toward the housing crisis without addressing the structural cause - wealth inequality. It’s appealing to its billionaire supporters for exactly this reason. We need effective public housing that the wealthy finance through their taxes.
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  > Wealth inequality continues to increase. These measures are insufficient. The point of tax and spend/redistribute is to provide services and goods, not eliminate inequality. Inequality in itself is a moot point. > Slightly lower prices cannot house the growing homeless population for example - slightly lower prices can never house people without money. Homelessness scales directly with housing affordability. The data makes this clear. Not with drug-use rates or inequality. A large portion of the homeless population is transient and temporary, 80%+. Lower prices will lower the homeless population, full stop. For the chronically homeless you can weave in other interventions and try to offer geared-to-income or free spots (this is already a thing), but you can't force them to do anything. You can't force them to take medication, you can't force them to show up to appointments. If your big solution is to introduce involuntary confinement, that has nothing to do with housing, but conversely I don't think assigning a bedroom apt in itself addresses the core problems that ail them. Covered at length here https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-include-in https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-inc.... > The best effect that YIMBY can have on housing is to put a slight downward pressure on prices. Real-world examples suggest it's anything but "slight". See: housing affordability disparity between red and blue cities just for example. The last estimate for the total homeless population in Japan in 2024 was just 2820 people, in the country. That's 0.2 per 10k, the best rate in the world, in a country that is anything but equal. If your metric for an effective housing policy is decimating the rate of homelessness, clearly sound zoning and regulation is the first place to look. This is NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with having special interventions reserved for the chronically homeless who will never work, but these represent a fraction of the homeless.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    > The point of tax and spend/redistribute is to provide services and goods, not eliminate inequality. At a high level, reducing inequality reduces relative power differential among members of society. Wealth inequality is its own evil. In the housing market this can takes forms like investor pricing power and intensification of rentier capitalism, (furthering the parasitism of the working class by increasing cash outflows from workers to banks and rentiers). > Homelessness scales directly with housing affordability…not inequality. Housing is less affordable when people have less money to pay for housing. I get that slightly lower prices are can cause fewer people to succumb to homelessness. But again, how is someone without money supposed to buy a house - even at a lower price? > A large portion of the homeless population is transient and temporary, 80%+. Source? The closest thing I could find was one study - from the 1990s - for two cities only - limiting its study to the population of homeless people living in shelters only. > See: housing affordability disparity between red and blue cities just for example. Many factors feed in to different housing rates between red and blue cities such as typically wealthier workforces in blue cities. Look at YIMBYism’s adopters. Oregon’s statewide upzoning hasn’t reversed rising homelessness. Despite California’s ADU and zoning laws, affordability is near record lows. Even Austin’s rent drop hasn’t halted its homelessness growth. YIMBYism can have positive effects, sure. Yet often these effects are dwarfed by other factors. That’s because NIMBYism is a one fish in the sea of causation. Zooming out, the big picture is wealth inequality, the distribution of assets. More people can’t afford housing; those that can pay more for it. Meanwhile wealth of the wealthiest continues to grow, including investor housing stockpiles, instead of shifting assets into the hands of those who need it. YIMBYist supply tweaking is a bandaid for this. > The last estimate for the total homeless population in Japan in 2024 was just 2820 people, in the country. Right, and they have superior public housing policies for the homeless, tax-financed, providing the kind of effective safety net we need and lack.