11 ms·

> Lowering costs of construction is one way to get slightly more supply but it's mostly governments and NIMBYs preventing construction. In some places this is

> Lowering costs of construction is one way to get slightly more supply but it's mostly governments and NIMBYs preventing construction. In some places this is true. But in others it's just as true that builders would be happy to build but the people who need the houses can only leverage their 35k/year income in making that happen. And if you brought in some equity firm to then build the houses, they do so at market rates and want returns, which then prices out the people who can't pay the builder themselves.

hombre_fatal 5mo ago
That doesn't make sense. Developers don't wait around until you pool your money together with strangers to fund apartment construction. Density and supply explosion are what bring down prices.
- idiotsecant 5mo ago
  This is not universally true. There are vast swathes of the country where you can explode all the supply you want, the people who live there will be simply unable to afford them. As in they can not afford the cost of material and labor, even assuming supply drops profit to zero. Supply is not magic. It can't reduce the cost of something below the cost of material and labor.
  - bombcar 5mo ago
    > Supply is not magic. It can't reduce the cost of something below the cost of material and labor. I'll agree it's not magic, but supply can drop the cost of something below the cost of materials and labor, if you equivocate a bit. If new houses are going for $250k in your area, old, used, smaller houses should be going for less.
    - Paradigm2020 5mo ago
      Except for the fact that in high desired locations the property cost is 2/3 to 4/5 land and the rest the building on the top. In the case of a really old crappy building it might be 6/7 is land and 1/7 the building but in those high demand places from your 250k, 140-180k would be going just to the land leaving you with a paltry amount for the actual structure. What we need is LVT or better public transport to either give money back to the people who create the value (average citizens) or to create an increase in desirable places to live (as in can get in <30min to work, do shopping etc etc) or more remote jobs for more people so they can move to lcol areas Unfortunately the nimby's on average are most home owners (60%) and close to be home owners... ~ "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" ~ "everyone starts of libertarians and ends up conservative" aka first you fight for more housing then when you have it you become like the average homeowner...
socalgal2 5mo ago
That's not how supply and demand work. The builders make new, usually expensive housing, the people making enough to afford them move out of their older cheaper houses into the new ones, those older houses are now on the market, people who can afford those move in, freeing up cheaper ones, repeat, bottom of the market has new openings.

hombre_fatal 5mo ago

That doesn't make sense. Developers don't wait around until you pool your money together with strangers to fund apartment construction. Density and supply explosion are what bring down prices.

idiotsecant 5mo ago
This is not universally true. There are vast swathes of the country where you can explode all the supply you want, the people who live there will be simply unable to afford them. As in they can not afford the cost of material and labor, even assuming supply drops profit to zero. Supply is not magic. It can't reduce the cost of something below the cost of material and labor.
- bombcar 5mo ago
  > Supply is not magic. It can't reduce the cost of something below the cost of material and labor. I'll agree it's not magic, but supply can drop the cost of something below the cost of materials and labor, if you equivocate a bit. If new houses are going for $250k in your area, old, used, smaller houses should be going for less.
  - Paradigm2020 5mo ago
    Except for the fact that in high desired locations the property cost is 2/3 to 4/5 land and the rest the building on the top. In the case of a really old crappy building it might be 6/7 is land and 1/7 the building but in those high demand places from your 250k, 140-180k would be going just to the land leaving you with a paltry amount for the actual structure. What we need is LVT or better public transport to either give money back to the people who create the value (average citizens) or to create an increase in desirable places to live (as in can get in <30min to work, do shopping etc etc) or more remote jobs for more people so they can move to lcol areas Unfortunately the nimby's on average are most home owners (60%) and close to be home owners... ~ "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" ~ "everyone starts of libertarians and ends up conservative" aka first you fight for more housing then when you have it you become like the average homeowner...

socalgal2 5mo ago

That's not how supply and demand work. The builders make new, usually expensive housing, the people making enough to afford them move out of their older cheaper houses into the new ones, those older houses are now on the market, people who can afford those move in, freeing up cheaper ones, repeat, bottom of the market has new openings.