Under-building of new homes, high construction cost perpetuate housing shortage(redfin.com)
redfin.com
Under-building of new homes, high construction cost perpetuate housing shortage
https://www.redfin.com/blog/2017/10/heres-the-1-reason-its-so-hard-to-find-an-affordable-home.html
71 comments
The first part of the solution is to completely eliminate mortgage subsidies and mortgage interest deductions. These do not increase the supply of housing, they only subsidize demand for more expensive houses and increase indebtedness, and increase the flow of capital into non-productive areas of the economy such as mortgage lending and mortgage backed assets.
The second part of the solution is to convert all property taxes into Land Value Taxes, so that idle and vacant land is taxed at exactly the same rate as land containing well maintained houses. Local governments would no longer get higher payouts for zoning for high end housing, they would only get higher payouts if they raised the net desirability of all land within the borders of their city as a whole.
The land value tax would also free up vacant, idle and underutilized land for actual use and improvement, by making land unattractive as an asset for investment or speculation. This would greatly increase the competitiveness of the housing market, because if it is no longer profitable to hold onto a vacant building, a parking lot, or a strip mall in a high demand area after the carrying cost applied by the land value tax, the vacant lot might be split up and sold to smaller owner-operators, the parking lot might be replaced by several smaller town houses, and the strip mall might be replaced by a mixed used development with additional housing units builtin above the shops, increasing average quantity of housing units per city block or per area unit measure.
> How willing are banks to issue loans at the lower end?
Focusing on banks and subsidizing loans is what is fueling this problem. The solution is not to make loans easier to get, it is to drastically lower the price of land and increase the efficiency at which land is used. When the price for land is cheaper and closer to a market price rather than a monopoly price, far fewer people will have to bother with loans or mortgages in the first place. Lower end housing can be made substantially more affordable even if all mortgage assistance schemes are eliminated.
The second part of the solution is to convert all property taxes into Land Value Taxes, so that idle and vacant land is taxed at exactly the same rate as land containing well maintained houses. Local governments would no longer get higher payouts for zoning for high end housing, they would only get higher payouts if they raised the net desirability of all land within the borders of their city as a whole.
The land value tax would also free up vacant, idle and underutilized land for actual use and improvement, by making land unattractive as an asset for investment or speculation. This would greatly increase the competitiveness of the housing market, because if it is no longer profitable to hold onto a vacant building, a parking lot, or a strip mall in a high demand area after the carrying cost applied by the land value tax, the vacant lot might be split up and sold to smaller owner-operators, the parking lot might be replaced by several smaller town houses, and the strip mall might be replaced by a mixed used development with additional housing units builtin above the shops, increasing average quantity of housing units per city block or per area unit measure.
> How willing are banks to issue loans at the lower end?
Focusing on banks and subsidizing loans is what is fueling this problem. The solution is not to make loans easier to get, it is to drastically lower the price of land and increase the efficiency at which land is used. When the price for land is cheaper and closer to a market price rather than a monopoly price, far fewer people will have to bother with loans or mortgages in the first place. Lower end housing can be made substantially more affordable even if all mortgage assistance schemes are eliminated.
You're putting the poor in an awfully tight position there. Between no tax deduction for a mortgage and paying the same property tax (what you call land value tax) for their trailer as the mansion next door, they're kind of getting screwed.
And what about old people that have owned their own house for decades? If the local economy goes up, increasing the land value tax, they either leave or go bankrupt. And the kicker is that their investment into their home is now worth a lot less.
And what about old people that have owned their own house for decades? If the local economy goes up, increasing the land value tax, they either leave or go bankrupt. And the kicker is that their investment into their home is now worth a lot less.
You're putting the poor in an awfully tight position there. Between no tax deduction for a mortgage and paying the same property tax (what you call land value tax) for their trailer as the mansion next door, they're kind of getting screwed.
Poor people don’t benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. With todays low interest rate, you have to have a mortgage of over $300,000 to have more than the $120000 standard deduction in interest.
With the median household income being $60,000 a year, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a scenario where many would itemize deductions after mortgage interest, state taxes and property taxes.
Poor people don’t benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. With todays low interest rate, you have to have a mortgage of over $300,000 to have more than the $120000 standard deduction in interest.
With the median household income being $60,000 a year, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a scenario where many would itemize deductions after mortgage interest, state taxes and property taxes.
People with trailers are not benefiting from the mortgage interest deduction.
The mortgage interest deduction overwhelmingly benefits households earning over $100,000 per year. Only one in five tax filers take the mortgage interest deduction, the extreme majority are in that $100k+ income bracket.
The substantially increased standard deduction is far more important than the MID for the middle class. Cutting the MID tax break for the top 1/3 of earners, is what will help pay for raising the standard deduction that is a huge benefit to the bottom 2/3 of earners.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/31/that-beloved-mortgage-deduct...
"Mortgage Interest Deduction Saves Middle Class Taxpayers All Of $51/Month"
"Most of the MID 2012 tax benefits went to people making six figures or more. Households earning over $100,000 in 2012 claimed 77.3 percent of the total MID tax savings, essentially the same as in 2010. And just looking at those making $200,000 or more, we found the very top earners claimed 34.6 percent of the total MID benefits and saved $5,021 on average for 2012."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/18/mortgage-in...
The mortgage interest deduction overwhelmingly benefits households earning over $100,000 per year. Only one in five tax filers take the mortgage interest deduction, the extreme majority are in that $100k+ income bracket.
The substantially increased standard deduction is far more important than the MID for the middle class. Cutting the MID tax break for the top 1/3 of earners, is what will help pay for raising the standard deduction that is a huge benefit to the bottom 2/3 of earners.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/31/that-beloved-mortgage-deduct...
"Mortgage Interest Deduction Saves Middle Class Taxpayers All Of $51/Month"
"Most of the MID 2012 tax benefits went to people making six figures or more. Households earning over $100,000 in 2012 claimed 77.3 percent of the total MID tax savings, essentially the same as in 2010. And just looking at those making $200,000 or more, we found the very top earners claimed 34.6 percent of the total MID benefits and saved $5,021 on average for 2012."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/18/mortgage-in...
When an area gets better economically, it becomes more desirable, so home prices (and land prices) go up. Outside of California, property taxes go up too, and retired owners often do the math and cash out.
I think the counter argument is that housing prices will fall and be closer to free market. I can't really get much worse for the poor, the status quo clearly isn't helping them.
You do have a point, but there seems to be another side as well.
You do have a point, but there seems to be another side as well.
If your poor the tax deduction doesn't mean much since it's based on a lower tax bracket.
Another issue is the labor. I haven't personally looked into what the underlying reasons might be, but in Quebec, construction workers have all the power. If they don't show up, come late, under-deliver or do sloppy work, there's not much recourse, there's no one else. Given that these jobs are some of the highest paying relative to education level, there must be some artificial constraint that perpetuates this. If you are a general contractor, it's nearly impossible to provide consistent, high quality service, because they simply have little control over their workers.
Agreed. The subsidies(tax breaks) help drive up prices (just as student loans have inflated higher edu cost). Unfortunately, in the case of housing, as mentioned, property taxes come into play. It seem unlikely gov is going to cut off its own revenue stream.
My point about the banks was, we can't expect low end houses to be built if they can't be sold (because banks are less likely to finance them.) I'm not suggesting artficial support. I'm curious to know if the void in this segment in housing is fed by a void in bank support.
My point about the banks was, we can't expect low end houses to be built if they can't be sold (because banks are less likely to finance them.) I'm not suggesting artficial support. I'm curious to know if the void in this segment in housing is fed by a void in bank support.
How would this affect farmland?
Pennsylvania has a "Clean and Green" act [1] that "bases property taxes on use values rather than fair market values" for farmland. Must have at least 10 acres or produce $2,000 in annual revenue off the land. For me, this cuts my property taxes substantially. If farmland is pulled out of Clean and Green (perhaps to sell it for building houses?) the landowner owes back taxes of 7 years.
I would think that other states have similar programs.
1- http://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Encourage/farmland/clean/Pages...
I would think that other states have similar programs.
1- http://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Encourage/farmland/clean/Pages...
the article has some nice graphs, but doesn't really string it's central tenet together very well: that high construction costs is the #1 reason we don't have starter homes being built.
> "That sums it up."
i'm sure one of a bunch of secondary reasons is that construction cost is high (while also sub-linear relative to sales price), so it's more profitable to build larger homes, as the quote alludes to and you pinpoint here. (regulatory distortions, e.g., mortgage interest deduction and zoning laws, are other secondary issues exacerbating the problem, which i'd suggest have more direct culpability than higher construction cost.)
and the other side of that circular argument (or vicious/virtuous cycle, if you prefer) is that construction cost is high because sales prices are high, and general contractors see an opportunity to take more of the profit pie. combine that with construction labor being tight, and you get a seller's market (for contractors). thus leading developers to seek out more profitable, higher-end homes to overcome the higher construction cost.
but because development costs (e.g., construction cost and cost to acquire) are relatively predictable parts of real estate development, i don't buy the argument that it's the driver of the shift to higher-priced homes. my back-of-the-napkin intuition tells me that develoeprs are simply taking bigger risks, probably because money is cheap and plentiful. so they're going after the big fish and ignoring the small fry, especially since tight housing markets mean that higher prices are more likely to get choked down the throats of buyers who have no better alternatives. that seems much more likely as the "#1 reason why it's so hard to find an affordable home", rather than construction costs.
> "That sums it up."
i'm sure one of a bunch of secondary reasons is that construction cost is high (while also sub-linear relative to sales price), so it's more profitable to build larger homes, as the quote alludes to and you pinpoint here. (regulatory distortions, e.g., mortgage interest deduction and zoning laws, are other secondary issues exacerbating the problem, which i'd suggest have more direct culpability than higher construction cost.)
and the other side of that circular argument (or vicious/virtuous cycle, if you prefer) is that construction cost is high because sales prices are high, and general contractors see an opportunity to take more of the profit pie. combine that with construction labor being tight, and you get a seller's market (for contractors). thus leading developers to seek out more profitable, higher-end homes to overcome the higher construction cost.
but because development costs (e.g., construction cost and cost to acquire) are relatively predictable parts of real estate development, i don't buy the argument that it's the driver of the shift to higher-priced homes. my back-of-the-napkin intuition tells me that develoeprs are simply taking bigger risks, probably because money is cheap and plentiful. so they're going after the big fish and ignoring the small fry, especially since tight housing markets mean that higher prices are more likely to get choked down the throats of buyers who have no better alternatives. that seems much more likely as the "#1 reason why it's so hard to find an affordable home", rather than construction costs.
Building high end units does help the housing market for low incomes. This article explains it pretty well.
http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-new-rental-hou...
http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-new-rental-hou...
The quote in that linked article, "As new housing ages, it depreciates, and prices and rents decline, relative to newer houses" links to another article they wrote[1]. That article just shows a graph showing rental price vs age of a home. Its already established now housing is typically built for mid/upper class--where else would everyone else go? It doesn't show that lower class housing is being properly addressed, it's just using circular logic to prove itself right.
[1] http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/
[1] http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/
I am not sure if banks care about lower loan balance vs high. Sure, high is more lucrative, but there are a number of government-backed loan programs that could make up for it.
As for cities, yes. They like the house pricing go up. It helps with school budgets, particularly. Then it goes into positive feedback loop with better schools raising house prices, too.
For cities like seattle, it's not hard to see houses in different price bands (single tech earner, couple tech earner) and so on. Hard to find a solution, unless the big employers diversify their locations.
As for cities, yes. They like the house pricing go up. It helps with school budgets, particularly. Then it goes into positive feedback loop with better schools raising house prices, too.
For cities like seattle, it's not hard to see houses in different price bands (single tech earner, couple tech earner) and so on. Hard to find a solution, unless the big employers diversify their locations.
This is one reason why the per-square-foot cost metric is lousy. Making a house bigger with the same quality level reduces the square-foot cost substantially. This is because the cost of walls goes up linearly while the square footage goes up as the square (!), and most of the cost is in the walls.
Construction price, yes, but i think it kind of scales semi-linearly with the sale price. When average sqft price is 1000$, a 2500sqft house goes for 2.5M even though construction was much much smaller.
> Finally, it would help to know about financing. How willing are banks to issue loans at the lower end?
Which kind of reveals that you think this is a conversation about people below the poverty line buying homes. Which it isn't. It's people not affording homes starting at $1 mil.
[deleted]
I hear an argument a lot, "housing in the Bay Area is expensive because because labor cost is so high." According to this report in San Francisco it costs $269,000 to build a new housing unit. With the median home sale price over $1,000,000 it seems fair to say that the labor component isn't the primary driver of the high costs, it's probably related to the inability to legalize enough housing.
Labor is definitely not the main driver.
Often quoted construction price is about 300$/sqft around where i live. If you were to build new, you would spend 750k-850k. Now, you cant buy land for less than 1.8 in mountain view that can hold 2500sqft home. And sale price would be close to 3m anyways.
Often quoted construction price is about 300$/sqft around where i live. If you were to build new, you would spend 750k-850k. Now, you cant buy land for less than 1.8 in mountain view that can hold 2500sqft home. And sale price would be close to 3m anyways.
Maybe one of the issues is the expected sizes of homes in the US - 2500 sq ft is about 250 sq m - which is pretty darn big. The average home in the uk is about 85 sq m...
No, this doesn't have to do with construction costs (which are about linear with square footage), it's other factors. For example, even if someone wanted to build a tiny home (i.e. less than 500 square feet), it's illegal in many places because of minimum square footage requirements. The problem comes from bad land use planning, not because "dumb" Americans don't understand a larger house costs more money.
True that. There's the other side of the coin though. South bay (excepting San Jose) is what you'd call suburbs. People who choose to live low density areas. Part of it is because of the employers. I, for one, do not like a lot of people around me, and I grew up in a city of > 15M. I like the low density.
I think it goes both ways. companies in the bay area choose to headquarter in low density areas (so they can grow).
I think it goes both ways. companies in the bay area choose to headquarter in low density areas (so they can grow).
I wasn’t talking about construction costs, I was talking about density. You can fit more 800sqft houses in a fixed area than you can 2500sqft houses
No, the #1 reason it's so hard to find an affordable home is that potential buyers can get huge loans at very low rates. Since buyers compete with each other, prices go up.
I guarantee that if interest rates were allowed to creep up, and the government stopped guaranteeing loans made by the banks, we'd have cheaper homes almost immediately.
I guarantee that if interest rates were allowed to creep up, and the government stopped guaranteeing loans made by the banks, we'd have cheaper homes almost immediately.
Not really... these days 20% downpayments are the norm. I know several people holding off purchases because they simply don't have downpayment. Higher home prices reduces number of potential customers but right now we have so many of them that reduction doesn't matter and margines are much higher on higher end.
That isn't even remotely true here in the Midwest, in my experience. Nobody I know has needed 20% down - most have been 5% or so. I got a conventional with 5% down with no problems. It's even easier if you go the FHA first time home buyer route.
FHA loans are easy to get and the down payment required is 3.5%. Even with mortgages that don’t qualify for FHA it’s relatively easy to get 5% down payment loans.
They generally require PMI, so still an extra payment out of pocket, are usually hard-capped at 30% of buyer’s current income, and take looong time to close compared to strong cash offers with conventional loans, so sellers view them as last-resort. It’s possible, but not very realistic for an FHA applicant to outbid everyone else on price.
You can get prequalified for an FHA loan just like any other loan. Everyone doesn't live in SV where houses go so fast you're constantly having to outbid people.
taprun's comment was describing a competitive market "potential buyers can get huge loans at very low rates. Since buyers compete with each other, prices go up".
80-10-10 loans are quite popular right now from talking with friends.
Cheaper house, sure, but does that also mean less monthly payments? Or would i still pay the same monthly, but most would go to interest.
Alternatively in the bay area there are a lot of wealthy people. I dont know how it would affect them
Alternatively in the bay area there are a lot of wealthy people. I dont know how it would affect them
Even if the monthly payment for a 30 yr fixed were to stay the same the buyer would be better off with a lower price. American mortgages have no prepayment penalty, so the buyer has the possibility of refinancing at a lower rate sometime over the payback period or even just making extra principal payments.
Maybe in general? I don't have numbers, but over the past few years a lot of the competition I've seen seems to be all-cash buyers. At least on the west coast (Vancouver, Seattle, LA). Low interest rates elsewhere in the market could be freeing up the cash, but I don't see it being the primary driver for getting mortgages.
Do you have a source for this? Huge loans at very low rates? The current is about 3.85% even for an FHA loan. Even then they won't loan you huge amounts unless you have the income to justify it. Even if interest rates were allowed to "creep up" the government will not stop guaranteeing loans, and banks won't stop lending. They'll find some other way to offset. With higher interest comes higher payments which means only higher income people will be able to afford that housing. That will horribly exacerbate the problem. Now the middle and low income people don't even have a prayer of owning a home. Is that your intention?
It turns out people buy generally the most home they can afford, and this is in terms of monthly payment. As interest rates increase, demand falls for higher priced homes and the new equilibrium price ends up hitting just about the same monthly payment as you had before.
Low interest rates have the same effect in reverse. Prices adjust so that regardless of interest rate your monthly payment is about the same, but low rates do transfer huge wealth to existing homeowners.
As down payments have come down over time this is only more pronounced. From 50% down with a 5 year term in the early 1900s to peak-mortgage 5% down 50 year terms a few years ago.
Low interest rates have the same effect in reverse. Prices adjust so that regardless of interest rate your monthly payment is about the same, but low rates do transfer huge wealth to existing homeowners.
As down payments have come down over time this is only more pronounced. From 50% down with a 5 year term in the early 1900s to peak-mortgage 5% down 50 year terms a few years ago.
It would not really work that way. People buy houses based on payment. If rates went up, the price would go down, but people would still compete on who can pay more each month.
If rates went up, the homes may be cheaper, but you'd then be paying more on your monthly mortgage, and more money would be just going to the banks. I'm not a finance expert, but this doesn't sound like a good solution.
Nominally cheaper, sure, but not more affordable, since ability to pay would fall proportionally.
Agreed. There'd be some howling from the mortgage and real estate industries though.
I have often thought that the mortgage interest deduction is actually a subsidy to banks (because if you pay cash you get no deduction) and existing homeowners (because it supports existing prices).
I have often thought that the mortgage interest deduction is actually a subsidy to banks (because if you pay cash you get no deduction) and existing homeowners (because it supports existing prices).
We would love to build more affordable starter homes, but when high-end homes cost the same to build and are far more profitable, we lose the incentive to build smaller units
This is a major reason why prices are so out of control. Land prices aside, there is no reason somebody couldn't build a nice ~1000sqf house for under $100k. But without literally doing the work yourself, these places just don't get built.
This is a major reason why prices are so out of control. Land prices aside, there is no reason somebody couldn't build a nice ~1000sqf house for under $100k. But without literally doing the work yourself, these places just don't get built.
As a data point, a couple of months ago we bought a 1500 square foot home for $114,000. It's a modular home, but still classified as stick built/custom by the zoning authority. https://www.rochesterhomesinc.com/tiptown
The site work, however, is almost another $200,000.
The site work, however, is almost another $200,000.
Can't you contract the building part if you have a suitable piece of land?
Sure, but that's going to cost a lot more, as it is now a "custom home". Economies of scale apply strongly to houses.
Not necessarily the case - my sister just had a home built on land in Dallas and the cost was not much more than new home cost ($129/living sq ft), before that my father built the home we grew up in nearby himself. There's a reason Dallas, Houston, and Austin are at the top of the new home construction numbers - low regulatory overhead make every scale of home building manageable, including self-starting new home construction. Meanwhile the benchmark for new construction starts in SF is 3-5 years just to navigate the intial regulatory approval for construction. Try navigating that as an individual just trying to get a home built for yourself. It's basically impossible.
How much more? Is it $300,000 versus $200,000? But now you still get an affordable house that you wanted.
I don't think economies of scale rule in house building. I can see how you would out-compete mass production because you a) care, b) pay attention.
I don't think economies of scale rule in house building. I can see how you would out-compete mass production because you a) care, b) pay attention.
Not necessarily. There are a range of builders between fully custom and track. There are at least 5 builders in my area that have a sets of plans that you can tweak and then get built.
Or you can build larger homes and make profit.
What if you are building your own home?
Construction pricing is definitely out of control. Part of the problem is that the entire industry is funded with low interest purchase and equity loans and not cash. Another problem seems to be that a lot of construction entities went offline in during the crisis and never came back. Any construction quote easily runs into the $100,000s for even a tiny addition to a house. It's way out of control.
If there would exist a construction company that would have upfront pricing, not insanely expensive, and can get most jobs done within several weeks, they would get a huge amount of business. Instead it's always months out, pricing 5x what it should be, and often just impossible to find anybody.
If there would exist a construction company that would have upfront pricing, not insanely expensive, and can get most jobs done within several weeks, they would get a huge amount of business. Instead it's always months out, pricing 5x what it should be, and often just impossible to find anybody.
You don't seem to understand what you're talking about. The reason for those months out is because everyone is overbooked, and the pricing reflects demand vs supply.
Exactly. It is a market out of whack.
This is also because of mass migration to urban centers in recent times. Every major urban center in US is currently facing massive number of incoming people. When everybody wants to live in same little place, prices are obviously going to shoot up. This should also explain why there are no too many new homes being built - because urban centers have little room to expand. This is current phenomenon in much of the world. Even if you go to 3rd world countries and look at prices in core urban centers, you will see exact same trend as in 1st world countries. This always had been a trend through out history but in recent times curves have crossed the knee and has taken a vertical leap.
Urban centers can grow vertically. 80% of SF is single story construction.
Here in the Kansas City area, it seems most of the new housing is mixed use; commercial on the bottom and apartments on top. Not many single family homes. Maybe it is because millennial not wanting/affording a house, and prefer dense urban living.
Though that is beginning to change as they have kids, and are now moving to suburbs. So they now build little cities within the suburbs.
Though that is beginning to change as they have kids, and are now moving to suburbs. So they now build little cities within the suburbs.
In the northland, at least, there are tons of new boring ol’ suburban houses going up. Construction slowed for a couple years after the crash, but came back fast and now they’re putting up new houses and plotting new neighborhoods as fast as they can.
Tldr: new homes cost too much due to labor. And building affordable housing doesn't make sense when the costs to build a larger, luxury home are not radically more, but the profits are.
I wish they'd talked about the problem in a more systemic manner.
They didn't address:
* Commuting
* Land prices
* Price to rent ratios
* Density
* Economic opportunity where housing is cheaper
I wish they'd talked about the problem in a more systemic manner.
They didn't address:
* Commuting
* Land prices
* Price to rent ratios
* Density
* Economic opportunity where housing is cheaper
Funny to read this after all the articles about China's "ghost cities" and the follies of central planning.
Why isn't there a tech company trying to disrupt home construction?
People speak of Uber being worth so much because of the giant market it's going after and transportation is big being the second largest consumer expenditure at 17% of wallet share. However housing is first at nearly 30% of wallet share and the biggest dent you can make in that figure is lowering the upfront cost which is several years of income for the average buyer.
People speak of Uber being worth so much because of the giant market it's going after and transportation is big being the second largest consumer expenditure at 17% of wallet share. However housing is first at nearly 30% of wallet share and the biggest dent you can make in that figure is lowering the upfront cost which is several years of income for the average buyer.
Because the cost is labor, materials, land acquisition and permits, none of which can really be “disrupted”.
labor has been disrupted through automation.
materials can be disrupted through better manufacturing and or new materials.
permits can be disrupted by removing or streamlining the process through regulatory changes or personal changes/increases at the Department Of Building(s).
There are plenty of companies bringing technology to building.
It just doesn't speed it up all that much. But there are all sorts of new building techniques (new foundation systems, new wall systems, new roofing systems, modular, etc).
Or just things like nail guns.
It just doesn't speed it up all that much. But there are all sorts of new building techniques (new foundation systems, new wall systems, new roofing systems, modular, etc).
Or just things like nail guns.
My belief is that radical changes are needed. Much smaller plots, truly mixed use areas, for starters. The tiny villages concept I have shown at http://tinyvillages.org takes it to an extreme, but even 2 or 3 uses for the old plot size would make a dramatic difference.
I think that this idea will be better in many cases than building condos everywhere.
I think that this idea will be better in many cases than building condos everywhere.
There seems to be a lot of articles posted on HN purporting to explain the housing crisis from companies that profit from it.
Bearing that in mind, it's not so surprising to see "labor shortages" get the blame while untaxed land, low interest rates and wealth inequality/property hoarding go unmentioned.
Bearing that in mind, it's not so surprising to see "labor shortages" get the blame while untaxed land, low interest rates and wealth inequality/property hoarding go unmentioned.
That sums it up.
Plus, more expensive homes means more property tax revenue, so there's little incentive for state/local gov to encourage lower end housing.
Finally, it would help to know about financing. How willing are banks to issue loans at the lower end?
The whole system is "tuned" for larger more expensive houses. It works for those it works for, and doesn't for those with little to none socio-political clout.