4 ms·

The answer is "no". That's because WE DO NOT HAVE a housing crisis. And yes, I'm not crazy. We have 1.1 housing units per family right _now_. We likely will h

by cyberax 6mo ago

The answer is "no". That's because WE DO NOT HAVE a housing crisis. And yes, I'm not crazy. We have 1.1 housing units per family right _now_. We likely will have the record number of housing units per capita within about 2 years just due to the current pipeline of new housing. These numbers are easy to verify. Why are we talking about housing then? That's because we have a JOBS crisis. The only available good jobs are concentrated in a dwindling number of dense areas. And making it easier to build makes the jobs crisis even worse. Don't believe me? Look at Vancouver, BC. They did everything: automated transit, soul-crushingly depressive high rises near transit stations, (de-fact) prohibited foreign ownership of housing, streamlined permitting. Guess what happened? If your guess is "plentiful cheap housing" then make another guess.

cman1444 6mo ago
This is the first time I've heard of this locational jobs crisis. Where did you learn about this? I would like to read more about it
- cyberax 6mo ago
  There is not a lot of good literature, actually. I'm not saying anything even remotely factually controversial. Housing units per household: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv It's also not controversial that major job density increases are happening in a few select metros: https://www.route-fifty.com/workforce/2019/06/job-density-report-brookings/157862/ https://www.route-fifty.com/workforce/2019/06/job-density-re... or if you look more broadly, that smaller cities in the US are dying out. I simply arrived at a different conclusion: we don't need to continue deepening this death spiral by "building more".
  - cman1444 6mo ago
    That st louis fed link doesn't seem to show any clear trend to me. Looks like we're actually on a downturn after a peak. Regardless, I don't understand what your proposed solution to this supposed "jobs crisis" is.
    - cyberax 6mo ago
      It's a bit misleading because the Y axis is not starting at 0. > Regardless, I don't understand what your proposed solution to this supposed "jobs crisis" is. Tax the dense office space, or do cap&trade. Incentivize remote work. Treat commute time as work time. Prohibit dense housing except in special cases (university campuses, military bases, senior living, etc.). Promote and subsidize self-driving cars.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> making it easier to build makes the jobs crisis even worse Why?
- cyberax 6mo ago
  It creates for companies more incentives to move to these areas, as they have easier access to a larger talent pool. Which in turn makes housing there even more expensive.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    You’re describing clusters of productivity and economies of scale. It sounds like your solution to the housing crisis is people should be poorer?
    - cyberax 6mo ago
      This is not "economy of scale", this is more of a "pollution death spiral" and "unpriced externalities". A factory that dumps raw waste into rivers is more efficient and can produce widgets more cheaply than a factory that takes care to clean up the waste. A firm in a dense city core can get talent more easily, and it'll have advantage (on average, in the long run) over a firm that has a fully remote workforce. The negative externalities (living in poor conditions in an expensive city) are offloaded onto the workers. E.g. the housing square footage keeps decreasing: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-growing-gap-between-u-s-home-size-and-price/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-growing-gap-bet...
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > negative externalities (living in poor conditions in an expensive city) are offloaded onto the workers Cities are more efficient in practically every way than subsidized rural developments. It’s really weird to flip that around as an externality. (Disclaimer: I moved from New York to Wyoming. Thanks for your subsidies, I guess.) There absolutely are jobs in remote places. But the people there aren’t as valuable as someone who will bump into like-minded colleagues and cultural expression as part of their existence in a cluster.

by cyberax 6mo ago

cman1444 6mo ago

This is the first time I've heard of this locational jobs crisis. Where did you learn about this? I would like to read more about it

cyberax 6mo ago
There is not a lot of good literature, actually. I'm not saying anything even remotely factually controversial. Housing units per household: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv It's also not controversial that major job density increases are happening in a few select metros: https://www.route-fifty.com/workforce/2019/06/job-density-report-brookings/157862/ https://www.route-fifty.com/workforce/2019/06/job-density-re... or if you look more broadly, that smaller cities in the US are dying out. I simply arrived at a different conclusion: we don't need to continue deepening this death spiral by "building more".
- cman1444 6mo ago
  That st louis fed link doesn't seem to show any clear trend to me. Looks like we're actually on a downturn after a peak. Regardless, I don't understand what your proposed solution to this supposed "jobs crisis" is.
  - cyberax 6mo ago
    It's a bit misleading because the Y axis is not starting at 0. > Regardless, I don't understand what your proposed solution to this supposed "jobs crisis" is. Tax the dense office space, or do cap&trade. Incentivize remote work. Treat commute time as work time. Prohibit dense housing except in special cases (university campuses, military bases, senior living, etc.). Promote and subsidize self-driving cars.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> making it easier to build makes the jobs crisis even worse Why?

cyberax 6mo ago
It creates for companies more incentives to move to these areas, as they have easier access to a larger talent pool. Which in turn makes housing there even more expensive.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  You’re describing clusters of productivity and economies of scale. It sounds like your solution to the housing crisis is people should be poorer?
  - cyberax 6mo ago
    This is not "economy of scale", this is more of a "pollution death spiral" and "unpriced externalities". A factory that dumps raw waste into rivers is more efficient and can produce widgets more cheaply than a factory that takes care to clean up the waste. A firm in a dense city core can get talent more easily, and it'll have advantage (on average, in the long run) over a firm that has a fully remote workforce. The negative externalities (living in poor conditions in an expensive city) are offloaded onto the workers. E.g. the housing square footage keeps decreasing: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-growing-gap-between-u-s-home-size-and-price/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-growing-gap-bet...
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > negative externalities (living in poor conditions in an expensive city) are offloaded onto the workers Cities are more efficient in practically every way than subsidized rural developments. It’s really weird to flip that around as an externality. (Disclaimer: I moved from New York to Wyoming. Thanks for your subsidies, I guess.) There absolutely are jobs in remote places. But the people there aren’t as valuable as someone who will bump into like-minded colleagues and cultural expression as part of their existence in a cluster.