4 ms·

I don't understand this argument. _Quality_ housing seems to me, to be a normal good, because when income increases the demand for such housing increases. Even

I don't understand this argument. _Quality_ housing seems to me, to be a normal good, because when income increases the demand for such housing increases. Even crappy places in SF seem to be quality housing. Whether or not there are class issues, or your house is sentimental is irrelevant. Edit: typo

wpietri 12y ago
Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.
- cwyers 12y ago
  Words have meanings. In the context of a discussion of economic activity, you really have "no idea" why someone would assume you were using the economic meaning of "normal good?
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Yes, because that reading obviously conflicts with what I wrote. Words do have meanings, but they have multiple meanings. If one reading makes no sense, skilled readers will try another.
- Kalium 12y ago
  What you're talking about is the idea that economics shouldn't apply because there are a lot more emotions involved in house than in most other markets. Do I need to point out that that is silly, or is it sufficiently self-evident that economics applies anyway? The real answer tends to be building enough housing for everyone. That also tends to be politically unpalatable, because the people with all the emotional attachments want their neighborhoods frozen in amber. So low-income people get pushed out by increasing rent and high-income people move in. Pick your poison, really.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I wonder if economics could in some way factor in emotions besides greed.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      It does. When you choose to pay a price or not, every emotion you feel is factored in. Is a place "home" to you? You're probably willing to pay for it. Don't like a place much? You'll be less willing to spend. This runs out after a point, though. Warm fuzzies are great, but I can't eat them, wear them, or sleep under them. I also can't trade warm fuzzies for any things I can do those with.
  - glesica 12y ago
    Economics is not value-free. Actually, economics already has a way of dealing with exactly the problem GP cites: externalities. Taking away someone's home involves potentially massive negative externalities (emotional and otherwise). Therefore, if you want to maintain the political theater that says capitalism is designed to benefit everyone, you have to accept that it may be preferable, optimal in fact, to incur some deadweight loss. Rent control is one strategy that does just that: as long as a person lives in a place, the rent can't go up. Is it naively optimal? Nope. But it is (or can be, if you get the implementation right) actually optimal. It is a guarantee that a house can be a home, if the tenant so chooses, and it could be used to balance the aforementioned negative externalities. Does it? Who knows, maybe, I'm not familiar enough with San Francisco's housing laws. Just because they implemented it poorly doesn't mean the concept is unsound or irrational and it doesn't mean that anyone in favor of the concept is "silly" or deserves to be condescended.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Rent control wouldn't be such a problem in SF if it didn't also lead to NIMBY-ism preventing the addition of more housing. I didn't call anyone silly. I said the idea that economics cease to apply because strong emotions and italic fonts are involved is silly.
- zem 12y ago
  i actually read it that way too at first, and got briefly confused, because the phrase "normal good" screams jargon to me.
- growupkids 12y ago
  I don't follow, privately owned housing is a normal good. It's a Textbook case, as average living standards rise, the total demand for housing expands, as does the demand for more expensive properties as people look to move "up market". I am misunderstanding your point? Edit: I think I understand, my degrees in economics so I assumed you were using the term as its used in economics. Apparently you were not.
- nightpool 12y ago
  to be fair I was confused to, because you were making an economics argument so I would presume you were using economics terms. Not saying that you should have or whatever, it's completely realistic that you wouldn't have heard of it, but it is something some people are going to bring in as context, so its understandable why they're confused.

wpietri 12y ago

Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.

cwyers 12y ago
Words have meanings. In the context of a discussion of economic activity, you really have "no idea" why someone would assume you were using the economic meaning of "normal good?
- wpietri 12y ago
  Yes, because that reading obviously conflicts with what I wrote. Words do have meanings, but they have multiple meanings. If one reading makes no sense, skilled readers will try another.
Kalium 12y ago
What you're talking about is the idea that economics shouldn't apply because there are a lot more emotions involved in house than in most other markets. Do I need to point out that that is silly, or is it sufficiently self-evident that economics applies anyway? The real answer tends to be building enough housing for everyone. That also tends to be politically unpalatable, because the people with all the emotional attachments want their neighborhoods frozen in amber. So low-income people get pushed out by increasing rent and high-income people move in. Pick your poison, really.
- Frondo 12y ago
  I wonder if economics could in some way factor in emotions besides greed.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    It does. When you choose to pay a price or not, every emotion you feel is factored in. Is a place "home" to you? You're probably willing to pay for it. Don't like a place much? You'll be less willing to spend. This runs out after a point, though. Warm fuzzies are great, but I can't eat them, wear them, or sleep under them. I also can't trade warm fuzzies for any things I can do those with.
- glesica 12y ago
  Economics is not value-free. Actually, economics already has a way of dealing with exactly the problem GP cites: externalities. Taking away someone's home involves potentially massive negative externalities (emotional and otherwise). Therefore, if you want to maintain the political theater that says capitalism is designed to benefit everyone, you have to accept that it may be preferable, optimal in fact, to incur some deadweight loss. Rent control is one strategy that does just that: as long as a person lives in a place, the rent can't go up. Is it naively optimal? Nope. But it is (or can be, if you get the implementation right) actually optimal. It is a guarantee that a house can be a home, if the tenant so chooses, and it could be used to balance the aforementioned negative externalities. Does it? Who knows, maybe, I'm not familiar enough with San Francisco's housing laws. Just because they implemented it poorly doesn't mean the concept is unsound or irrational and it doesn't mean that anyone in favor of the concept is "silly" or deserves to be condescended.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Rent control wouldn't be such a problem in SF if it didn't also lead to NIMBY-ism preventing the addition of more housing. I didn't call anyone silly. I said the idea that economics cease to apply because strong emotions and italic fonts are involved is silly.
zem 12y ago
i actually read it that way too at first, and got briefly confused, because the phrase "normal good" screams jargon to me.
growupkids 12y ago
I don't follow, privately owned housing is a normal good. It's a Textbook case, as average living standards rise, the total demand for housing expands, as does the demand for more expensive properties as people look to move "up market". I am misunderstanding your point? Edit: I think I understand, my degrees in economics so I assumed you were using the term as its used in economics. Apparently you were not.
nightpool 12y ago
to be fair I was confused to, because you were making an economics argument so I would presume you were using economics terms. Not saying that you should have or whatever, it's completely realistic that you wouldn't have heard of it, but it is something some people are going to bring in as context, so its understandable why they're confused.