Is there a housing shortage or not?(constructionphysics.substack.com)
constructionphysics.substack.com
Is there a housing shortage or not?
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/is-there-a-housing-shortage-or-not
208 comments
The "household size" in that article is trending down, which suggests that, if more young adults are living with their parents, it's counterbalanced by more people in other age groups living alone?
People are delaying marriage and iirc more people are foregoing it entirely. People are having children later and having fewer children and living longer, so there are more empty-nesters. Empty-nesters may be a couple or single adult whose spouse has died.
There has been a decline in households with four or more people and a rise in households with one to three people, but our housing stock tends to be geared towards nuclear families with a breadwinner father, homemaker mother and 2.5 children.
Last I checked, average new homes post-2000 were more than twice the size of new homes in the 1950s and held one less person on average. So you are seeing couples with one child buy four bedroom homes and turn the extra bedrooms into an office and a playroom or hobby space.
Meanwhile, the poorest of the poor are often unable to find housing at all. We have a lot of homeless people.
There has been a decline in households with four or more people and a rise in households with one to three people, but our housing stock tends to be geared towards nuclear families with a breadwinner father, homemaker mother and 2.5 children.
Last I checked, average new homes post-2000 were more than twice the size of new homes in the 1950s and held one less person on average. So you are seeing couples with one child buy four bedroom homes and turn the extra bedrooms into an office and a playroom or hobby space.
Meanwhile, the poorest of the poor are often unable to find housing at all. We have a lot of homeless people.
I am guessing you know as well as I do (based on your previous posts) that one of the prime drivers of homelessness is a combination of the credit bureau scam and the "3x rent" income requirement. More than building new facilities I believe these factors play a much larger role. Even today now that I'm far more stable and my credit is decent, I still run into these issues when I have to move. I might even be homeless in a few months, again, despite being fully capable of affording the rent for my area. I don't know how to fix this.
the "3x rent" income requirement.
This would be much less of an issue if there were more affordable units. It's extremely hard to find units below $500 in the US. If you could readily find units for $400-$600, many people who currently can't afford housing would be fine.
This would be much less of an issue if there were more affordable units. It's extremely hard to find units below $500 in the US. If you could readily find units for $400-$600, many people who currently can't afford housing would be fine.
That's definitely a part of it, yeah. My place that currently costs 950 is increasing to 1230 in a few months, and I swear nothing about the unit has appreciated in value. My carpets, appliances, etc. have certainly not become more useful or cleaner in the past year. And the area around me which was once quiet and crime free now suffers from weekly gun violence and constant theft, thanks to... cultural changes that I'm not really allowed to talk about. I don't know that building more affordable housing would change things, and they definitely won't change them as fast as prices rise.
Agreed. 2x rent is a significantly worse policy as it encourages landlords to allow folks to live closer to the edge.
It's the price itself that is the issue.
It's the price itself that is the issue.
And I assume it's still the case that every adult on a lease needs to meet that 3x requirement, making roommates a less viable way to afford a place near jobs.
I’ve tried to rent out single family homes with rooms rented at the $500-$600 price point (boarding house) and was told “no flop houses, families only” by my local jurisdiction. When I told them I’d bulldoze and get zoned for a 4-plex, I was told my zoning request wouldn’t be approved. Sunbelt state, suburban area, older construction with no HOAs.
I’ve moved on to trying to buy an RV park or campground, or build one, and use tiny homes or Boxable for the structures. The purpose of a system is what it does, and it is not to get people into affordable housing. It is to protect property values and NIMBYs' desires, with a second order effect of disincentivizing density (even slight increases of it). Deeply disappointing for someone who works with the unhoused and is just trying to get them into housing that isn't a shelter or a tent behind the park.
I’ve moved on to trying to buy an RV park or campground, or build one, and use tiny homes or Boxable for the structures. The purpose of a system is what it does, and it is not to get people into affordable housing. It is to protect property values and NIMBYs' desires, with a second order effect of disincentivizing density (even slight increases of it). Deeply disappointing for someone who works with the unhoused and is just trying to get them into housing that isn't a shelter or a tent behind the park.
People act as if poverty is this unexplained phenomenon that one just can't get rid of, moments later they try to make it as expensive as possible to stay alive in a certain area.
Thank you for the work you are doing. I would love to hear more. If you ever wish to talk -- even just to vent -- do not hesitate to email me about this issue.
Highest praise. Your writings on HN and your mailing list were a contributor to my inspiration to work on this, and your perspective has been invaluable. I will reach out when time permits.
As a former landlord who had to evict someone and went through the long arduous eviction process, why shouldn’t landlords filter on ability to pay and history of being able to pay?
Don’t put the onus on the private sector. You want landlords to make it easier for people to rent? Either have the government have programs to guarantee rent or make it easier to evict people for non payment.
Don’t put the onus on the private sector. You want landlords to make it easier for people to rent? Either have the government have programs to guarantee rent or make it easier to evict people for non payment.
If my neighborhood is representative of the bigger picture, there are a whole lot of widows and empty-nesters living in 2000+ square feet homes. Out of the seven homes near me, two have been inhabited by widows for the last few years. Only two houses have more that two occupants. One of the widows finally sold a few months ago. The other I suspect is concerned that her adult son and grandchild might move back in someday. Otherwise, I can’t understand why she wants to live in a 2800 square feet house by herself. Maybe people just have a hard time moving on to the next stage of their lives until they are forced to.
I saw a discussion recently, I think on Reddit, where people talked about this. In many cases, if the house is paid for and they've lived there for years, it's cheaper and less hassle to stay than to sell and move elsewhere.
There's likely other factors.
There's likely other factors.
How do you have inexpensive housing near desired amenities? The people that need affordable housing will always be outbid by people with more money.
Allow construction of undesirable housing, like SROs.
Boarding houses need to make a comeback.
Thats a really interesting thought. I would guess there're are a lot of untapped ideas from the early 20th / 19th century that deserve reevaluation / resurrection. Like drinking more. I'm experimenting with that one. I'll let everyone know how it turns out on substack when I'm done.
They have, informally. There is a huge demographic of people in every major city who have never/rarely signed a lease, but simply sublet a room from an official lease-holder, often against the actual terms of the lease.
These people generally tend to file taxes as individual households, despite all sharing what is statistically a single unit of housing. I wonder how this plays with the data in the article.
These people generally tend to file taxes as individual households, despite all sharing what is statistically a single unit of housing. I wonder how this plays with the data in the article.
I was thinking the same thing. So many young people share houses in places like the Bay Area, but it doesn’t seem to be included in these numbers.
Georgists have known for a long time about the tendency for land prices to rise in a way that captures a sizeable percentage of the gains of labour (income). This tax on productivity is best solved through a land value tax.
I already think property taxes are immoral, in that they tax unrealized value in perpetuity.
I’m paying $2k more in property taxes this year because a bunch of very wealthy out-of-state home owners have decided they want to live here, and have driven up prices to an extreme.
I’m not going to be convinced that I should be ruinously taxed on the unrealized value of my land in order to force me to develop it according to the whims of whatever entity we entrust to socially engineer land-use.
I’m paying $2k more in property taxes this year because a bunch of very wealthy out-of-state home owners have decided they want to live here, and have driven up prices to an extreme.
I’m not going to be convinced that I should be ruinously taxed on the unrealized value of my land in order to force me to develop it according to the whims of whatever entity we entrust to socially engineer land-use.
I used to have this view. But I think in practice not taxing wealth (property) and taxing contributions to producing things of value (income) is bad. And especially in 2022 with how easy it is to borrow money based on your property not taxing it is especially bad for society.
Look at California. Everyone who bought here 40 years ago is super well off while those who moved more recently and are contributing a lot still can't get stability.
I realize property taxes go to plenty of local government ventures - but presumably the US government (and state government) does quite a bit to protect your property from outside forces and local thieves. It makes sense that the more value in property you have the more you should pay to protect that.
Look at California. Everyone who bought here 40 years ago is super well off while those who moved more recently and are contributing a lot still can't get stability.
I realize property taxes go to plenty of local government ventures - but presumably the US government (and state government) does quite a bit to protect your property from outside forces and local thieves. It makes sense that the more value in property you have the more you should pay to protect that.
Another option might be to tax all transactions. Such tax might come with certain services which the government can provide in exchange.
"But I think in practice not taxing wealth (property) and taxing contributions to producing things of value (income) is bad. "
That assumes taxes are there to raise money. They're not.
Taxes are there to raise armies, not money. Government doesn't need any more land to do its work. Nor does it need money, since it is the currency issuer. What it needs is manpower. That manpower has to be released from the private sector who would otherwise employ them.
Therefore the most effective taxation is one that leads to fewer job offers from the private sector of precisely the sort of people government needs to hire to do its work.
Land and property is the least effective taxation that requires a large amount of fungibility in the economy to deliver the people government needs to hire, and is the least countercyclical to the business cycle.
That assumes taxes are there to raise money. They're not.
Taxes are there to raise armies, not money. Government doesn't need any more land to do its work. Nor does it need money, since it is the currency issuer. What it needs is manpower. That manpower has to be released from the private sector who would otherwise employ them.
Therefore the most effective taxation is one that leads to fewer job offers from the private sector of precisely the sort of people government needs to hire to do its work.
Land and property is the least effective taxation that requires a large amount of fungibility in the economy to deliver the people government needs to hire, and is the least countercyclical to the business cycle.
> Taxes are there to raise armies, not money.
Perhaps that baseless assertion rings true in the US, where the dominant anti-state and anti-social policy political views create a vicious cycle of sabotaging public services followed by arguing public services should not be provided because they are badly managed.
In Europe, whose countries have been criticized by US politicians for spending under 2% of the national budget in their armed forces, money tends to be mainly spent on healthcare and social programs.
Perhaps that baseless assertion rings true in the US, where the dominant anti-state and anti-social policy political views create a vicious cycle of sabotaging public services followed by arguing public services should not be provided because they are badly managed.
In Europe, whose countries have been criticized by US politicians for spending under 2% of the national budget in their armed forces, money tends to be mainly spent on healthcare and social programs.
If you want a War on Poverty, you need an army to fight it.
It appears that allegory is a lost art in certain sections of the New World.
It's about manpower, not money
It appears that allegory is a lost art in certain sections of the New World.
It's about manpower, not money
> In Europe, whose countries have been criticized by US politicians for spending under 2% of the national budget in their armed forces
The criticism (whether I agree with it or not) is that Europeans largely live under the umbrella of US protection. The US contributed $73 billion to NATO in 2020 compared to Lithuania's $1 billion [0]. Who is more likely to drag the other one into a conflict with Russia?
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...
The criticism (whether I agree with it or not) is that Europeans largely live under the umbrella of US protection. The US contributed $73 billion to NATO in 2020 compared to Lithuania's $1 billion [0]. Who is more likely to drag the other one into a conflict with Russia?
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...
> The criticism (whether I agree with it or not) is that Europeans largely live under the umbrella of US protection.
That was Trump's inflammatory and subjective accusation, but the only objective criticism was that most counties in NATO did not met the 2% GDP target for expenditure on their armed forces.
The US reportedly spends 3.5% of its GDP on their armed forces.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expendit...
Consequently, it's easy to see that OP's baseless assertion that "Taxes are there to raise armies, not money" is patently false, even when considering the world's leaders in military expenditure.
> The US contributed $73 billion to NATO in 2020 compared to Lithuania's $1 billion [0].
Completely irrelevant.
The US, the world's richest nation by far, has a population of around 329 million and it's GDP is around $21T.
Lithuania's population is around 1% of the US population (2.1 million, similar to New Mexico). Moreover, Lithuania is a pretty bad example regarding NATO's expenditure target, as it's military spending exceeds NATO's target (around 2.12% of its GDP).
GDP-wise, Russia is a kin to Italy, and the European Union's GDP is slightly lower than the US', at around $18T.
That was Trump's inflammatory and subjective accusation, but the only objective criticism was that most counties in NATO did not met the 2% GDP target for expenditure on their armed forces.
The US reportedly spends 3.5% of its GDP on their armed forces.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expendit...
Consequently, it's easy to see that OP's baseless assertion that "Taxes are there to raise armies, not money" is patently false, even when considering the world's leaders in military expenditure.
> The US contributed $73 billion to NATO in 2020 compared to Lithuania's $1 billion [0].
Completely irrelevant.
The US, the world's richest nation by far, has a population of around 329 million and it's GDP is around $21T.
Lithuania's population is around 1% of the US population (2.1 million, similar to New Mexico). Moreover, Lithuania is a pretty bad example regarding NATO's expenditure target, as it's military spending exceeds NATO's target (around 2.12% of its GDP).
GDP-wise, Russia is a kin to Italy, and the European Union's GDP is slightly lower than the US', at around $18T.
Wow so that must mean when the government really needs people to fight in a war they tax the working class really heavily, to encourage them to quit their jobs and make marching off to death more attractive.
Instead of say, implementing a draft?
Instead of say, implementing a draft?
"Instead of say, implementing a draft?"
That's taxing. They are no longer available for the private sector to hire are they.
As I said tax isn't about raising money. It's about releasing resources. As you've cleverly discovered, there is more than one way to do that - given government's monopoly on violence. Time, currency, land are all up for confiscation when you control the big stick.
Of course there's what to do with the hoard of cash the private sector isn't spending on hiring people, but perhaps you can read "How to pay for the War" and discover the mechanisms for dealing with that.
That's taxing. They are no longer available for the private sector to hire are they.
As I said tax isn't about raising money. It's about releasing resources. As you've cleverly discovered, there is more than one way to do that - given government's monopoly on violence. Time, currency, land are all up for confiscation when you control the big stick.
Of course there's what to do with the hoard of cash the private sector isn't spending on hiring people, but perhaps you can read "How to pay for the War" and discover the mechanisms for dealing with that.
State and local government do need to raise money. Unless you want all local agencies to spend no more and no less than what the federal government decides to give them. They cannot issue currency.
State and local government can issue currency if they want to.
And yes, maintaining the peg and free movement means that the higher level government does decide what to give them. That's what giving up sovereignty at a lower level implies.
Even at local level, they need manpower, not land. So you end up relying on fungibility.
And yes, maintaining the peg and free movement means that the higher level government does decide what to give them. That's what giving up sovereignty at a lower level implies.
Even at local level, they need manpower, not land. So you end up relying on fungibility.
State and local governments explicitly cannot issue their own currency. This was included in the constitution in article 1 section 10[1] after the US states dealt with all the issues of multiple state issues currencies that occurred during the short lived time under the Articles of Confederation.
[1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-2...
[1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-2...
They cannot.
I'm also not exactly sure what you mean by your manpower statement. Say a town wants to build traffic lights and a new intersection. Surely it's easier to collect money and pay an outside firm (which may or may not have local employees) then engineer the road/lights locally?
Same with police. They use tons of tools and systems to both do their job and internally. Obviously raising money is going to be more efficient than each town designing its record management tools from scratch.
I'm also not exactly sure what you mean by your manpower statement. Say a town wants to build traffic lights and a new intersection. Surely it's easier to collect money and pay an outside firm (which may or may not have local employees) then engineer the road/lights locally?
Same with police. They use tons of tools and systems to both do their job and internally. Obviously raising money is going to be more efficient than each town designing its record management tools from scratch.
Would you trust currency issued by the sand government that can’t manage its own pensions?
But surely we can deduce that property taxes are _more_ immoral than a land value tax. With both, you do have to pay more when the wealthy decide your area is valuable. (Leave aside for the moment the argument that some Georgists will argue this is less likely in a world with LVT). But only with property tax are you taxed _more_ when you spend your own money to improve your own property. Property tax directly disincentivizes making the most of your own land, because it taxes the improvements to it.
Land Value Tax is like taking property tax and removing the worst element of it. At least personally I think it moves the needle from "a very bad idea" to more in the realm of a necessary evil.
Land Value Tax is like taking property tax and removing the worst element of it. At least personally I think it moves the needle from "a very bad idea" to more in the realm of a necessary evil.
Okay, but don't most people who like Land Value Tax want property taxes to go up, overall? As in, governments will collect more revenue?
It's difficult to see how all the radical changes they promise would happen if property tax rates were lowered on average. That would tend to let people keep owning the property they have.
It's difficult to see how all the radical changes they promise would happen if property tax rates were lowered on average. That would tend to let people keep owning the property they have.
No, it is enough that massively expanding your property wont increase your tax. That way you can build a lot more homes on your land and therefore become a lot richer without paying more taxes. There is no reason for the tax to be higher overall than before, its just what it incentivises. You might not take this opportunity but others will.
Some people might pay more tax, if lets say your area develops into a dense city core over 40 years your land will now be worth many millions, at that point your tax would be comparable to the skyscrapers around you. Which is reasonable since you are hurting the progress of the city at that point, and if you sell your property you will have so much money that you can easily move slightly outside the boundaries of the city core. But in most cases you wont strike it rich with your land getting worth that much.
Some people might pay more tax, if lets say your area develops into a dense city core over 40 years your land will now be worth many millions, at that point your tax would be comparable to the skyscrapers around you. Which is reasonable since you are hurting the progress of the city at that point, and if you sell your property you will have so much money that you can easily move slightly outside the boundaries of the city core. But in most cases you wont strike it rich with your land getting worth that much.
This doesn't make sense. The higher the tax the more the (negative) incentive. Low tax means low incentive.
Let's say someone has a house in a gentrifying area. The house isn't taxed but the land is, and property values are rising. Encouraging density means making it financially difficult for them to stay there, so they will sell to a developer. If the tax doesn't do that, LVT doesn't provide enough incentive to discourage speculation.
LVT advocates need to own up to what they're trying to do. There will be winners and losers. Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose.
And this is exactly the sort of thing that got Prop 13 passed in California. Homeowners really don't like it when their property tax goes up.
Let's say someone has a house in a gentrifying area. The house isn't taxed but the land is, and property values are rising. Encouraging density means making it financially difficult for them to stay there, so they will sell to a developer. If the tax doesn't do that, LVT doesn't provide enough incentive to discourage speculation.
LVT advocates need to own up to what they're trying to do. There will be winners and losers. Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose.
And this is exactly the sort of thing that got Prop 13 passed in California. Homeowners really don't like it when their property tax goes up.
For most people the taxes would stay the same. It would increase the tax for some and reduce the tax for others, there is no reason to increase the tax overall.
Can even keep prop 13, the important part is that improving the land shouldn't increase your tax as that discourages building things and encourages wasteful usage of that land like huge parking lots for a tiny shop etc. Land value tax would force those companies to sell or actually use it better, which is a good thing, they can't just sit on mostly unimproved land hoping the value goes up with time while paying almost nothing.
Can even keep prop 13, the important part is that improving the land shouldn't increase your tax as that discourages building things and encourages wasteful usage of that land like huge parking lots for a tiny shop etc. Land value tax would force those companies to sell or actually use it better, which is a good thing, they can't just sit on mostly unimproved land hoping the value goes up with time while paying almost nothing.
LVT isn't meant to evict anyone, it is meant to make it cheaper to use less land and more expensive to use more land. It is like an energy efficiency policy. We aren't forcibly trashing old cars. Even a modest LVT can prevent speculation because empty plots are no longer untaxed due to low property values.
> Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose.
Most advocates of a higher LVT also advocate for a provision to defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for pensioners.
Most advocates of a higher LVT also advocate for a provision to defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for pensioners.
Most people who want significant increases in things like a full LVT want to use them to remove other taxes like the income tax. I haven’t met a Georgist who wants a full LVT to grow government unless you count UBI/Citizen’s Dividend as growing government.
> … unless you count UBI/Citizen’s Dividend as growing government.
You don’t?
LVT supplanting all other tax would absolutely mean it’d be ruinous to use land in ways contrary to the wishes of the government body socially-engineering land-use policy.
You don’t?
LVT supplanting all other tax would absolutely mean it’d be ruinous to use land in ways contrary to the wishes of the government body socially-engineering land-use policy.
I think there is a substantial difference between handing money back to all civilians to compensate their rights and spending the money on specific government programs that only benefit a subset of the population.
A citizen's dividend for land is just the democratisation of land as now every human has an equal right to a given plot of land. If they want a bigger or more valuable plot they will have to work for it.
As it stands right now land ownership is just used to pass down dynastic wealth and reap economic rents (profit at the expense of someone else as opposed to earning it through work).
As it stands right now land ownership is just used to pass down dynastic wealth and reap economic rents (profit at the expense of someone else as opposed to earning it through work).
I think it would be immoral for land property rights to operate in the way you want them to. Property rights for copyright, tractors, land, etc all work differently so there's no obvious "most ethical" way to manage property rights. This legal property rights are usually different for good reasons. The Real Estate rights bundle, for example, is a kind of monopoly. I think it's ethical that that bundle of rights should come with an obligation to pay a kind of rent to society for that monopoly for the same reason that the right to own a slice of radio frequency spectrum comes with a rent to society. A good method for determining the relative size of that rent (in both cases) is based on its market value (ie in proportion to the value that other members of society place on that monopoly).
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bundle-of-rights.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bundle-of-rights.asp
Do you think town services are immoral? If police, fire-dept., water, roads, and schools are not immoral - how do you propose to pay for them? Or do you wish to experience a "true property value" without those services?
What's more immoral: Property taxes or zoning that prevents other people from building what they want on their own property? It's not the increased demand for homes that drives increases in prices, and hence property taxes, it's the prohibitions on new construction. Surely those are immoral too!
What's more immoral: Property taxes or zoning that prevents other people from building what they want on their own property? It's not the increased demand for homes that drives increases in prices, and hence property taxes, it's the prohibitions on new construction. Surely those are immoral too!
I think you are mixing 2 different concepts:
1. type of taxes
2. public services
While public services you listed are not immoral, the way how the taxes collected to pay for these services can be immoral.
> how do you propose to pay for them?
You need to answer this question.
You need to answer this question.
The cost of these services hasn’t increased by $2k/year to serve my home just because home prices have increased.
You yourself alluded to people moving in, so I don't see why the cost of those services (and many more) isn't justified.
>because a bunch of very wealthy out-of-state home owners have decided they want to live here
There it is.
>because a bunch of very wealthy out-of-state home owners have decided they want to live here
There it is.
We wonder why people aren't bootstrapping their way up from nothing anymore. The truth is that we made it illegal to help ourselves.
> how do you propose to pay for them?
Assess the actual cost, adjusted according to actual income — not the estimated value someone’s home.
Assess the actual cost, adjusted according to actual income — not the estimated value someone’s home.
Homeowners have access to the value in their home, despite the fact that it’s relatively illiquid, and their political actions often are oriented towards jealously guarding and boosting that value.
It’s disingenuous to act like taxing that value is unfair, so much of local politics is related to property values.
It’s disingenuous to act like taxing that value is unfair, so much of local politics is related to property values.
The myth that home owners are focused on jealously
boosting property values is just that — a myth, and a pernicious and ridiculous one promulgated by people who simply don’t understand home ownership.
The political priority of a home owner is the community in which they’ve made a literal lifetime investment in.
The political priority of a home owner is the community in which they’ve made a literal lifetime investment in.
How is it a pernicious myth, considering the fact that people will show up to city council meetings, and state it as a fact explicitly.
> I should be ruinously taxed
I don't know where you are getting that it would be a ruinous tax. It should also be offset by not having other types of taxes in a pure Georgian system.
I don't know where you are getting that it would be a ruinous tax. It should also be offset by not having other types of taxes in a pure Georgian system.
>I don't know where you are getting that it would be a ruinous tax.
I'm sure the "force people with existing single family homes to develop them into something else or sell them to someone who will" rhetoric the proponents of such taxes sling around has something to do with it.
I'm sure the "force people with existing single family homes to develop them into something else or sell them to someone who will" rhetoric the proponents of such taxes sling around has something to do with it.
> have driven up prices to an extreme.
So your land, through no effort of your own, has hugely gone up in value; don't you think there's something wrong with you benefiting from other people's labour that increased the value of your land?
So your land, through no effort of your own, has hugely gone up in value; don't you think there's something wrong with you benefiting from other people's labour that increased the value of your land?
Except he doesn't benefit any more from the increased value unless he sells or rents the property.
In fact, as his tax liability went up he is actually paying more to accommodate the inevitable increase in spending on municipal amenities that the wealthy newcomers are likely to petition for, given how much they pay in property taxes.
If we imagine he did not desire these things in the first place, and was on fixed income like many thousands of individuals, he would be forced to sell his home as a result of the whims of the market.
The escalating cost of property in his area should leave him with a tidy sum of money to ease the transition, but that is little consolation for potentially being forced out of the home you raised your children in, met your grandchildren in, spent hundreds or thousands of hours maintaining and improving, among many other sentimental attachments.
To a homeowner who values their home and doesn't intend to sell, the increased value of land is an apology. It is a meagre recompensation for second order consequences of the market's capriciousness.
But at least the value went up right?
In fact, as his tax liability went up he is actually paying more to accommodate the inevitable increase in spending on municipal amenities that the wealthy newcomers are likely to petition for, given how much they pay in property taxes.
If we imagine he did not desire these things in the first place, and was on fixed income like many thousands of individuals, he would be forced to sell his home as a result of the whims of the market.
The escalating cost of property in his area should leave him with a tidy sum of money to ease the transition, but that is little consolation for potentially being forced out of the home you raised your children in, met your grandchildren in, spent hundreds or thousands of hours maintaining and improving, among many other sentimental attachments.
To a homeowner who values their home and doesn't intend to sell, the increased value of land is an apology. It is a meagre recompensation for second order consequences of the market's capriciousness.
But at least the value went up right?
He does benefit from the increase in value, because land increases in value due to increased services and amenities. If you put a train station nearby someone's house, their property hugely increases in value, and they benefit from the nearby train (or school, or fire station, or port, or whatever else).
Now, we could certainly defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for, say, pensioners, as no one wants to be kicking out retirees from their homes.
However, the issue of people losing their homes due to increases in value already exist for a massive section of the population: those who rent. As rents increase, many renters are forced to move. They don't even get to benefit from an increase in land value, from the community they helped build and improve.
A fantastic way to solve this issue would be a land value tax that taxes the economic rent of the land, in conjunction with removing all income and sales tax. This means that land sale prices are low, renters have more income to spend on things besides rent, and people sitting on land don't benefit enormously without returning that value to society.
The tax can be deferred until sale of the property for pensioners, for their primary residence.
Now, we could certainly defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for, say, pensioners, as no one wants to be kicking out retirees from their homes.
However, the issue of people losing their homes due to increases in value already exist for a massive section of the population: those who rent. As rents increase, many renters are forced to move. They don't even get to benefit from an increase in land value, from the community they helped build and improve.
A fantastic way to solve this issue would be a land value tax that taxes the economic rent of the land, in conjunction with removing all income and sales tax. This means that land sale prices are low, renters have more income to spend on things besides rent, and people sitting on land don't benefit enormously without returning that value to society.
The tax can be deferred until sale of the property for pensioners, for their primary residence.
Lets take the example above as being too much money (as "too much" is hard to pin down). In exchange for losing a home due to the $2k payment you will receive $80k.
Generally speaking 40 years worth of "I couldn't afford it" is a pretty decent apology.
This is working of NJ which has the highest rate at 2.5%, most states are lower.
Sure it sucks that you are paying $1k instead of $2k because your house is worth $200k instead of $100k but you know... You could sell your house for a profit of $100k.
Generally speaking 40 years worth of "I couldn't afford it" is a pretty decent apology.
This is working of NJ which has the highest rate at 2.5%, most states are lower.
Sure it sucks that you are paying $1k instead of $2k because your house is worth $200k instead of $100k but you know... You could sell your house for a profit of $100k.
Consider the cost to the community, not just the people being priced out.
The first people we lose are often those who have been here the longest, contributed greatly to the community, but are on a fixed income and cannot afford the tax increase.
Case in point, we’re losing our volunteer fire department’s rookie coordinator and training captain because he’s been priced out of the area.
He’s elderly, been a member of the department for decades, is hugely valuable and has a trove of institutional knowledge.
I’m glad he’s able to move elsewhere with the payout he’s getting from his home, but the loss to our community is enormous.
How is arbitrarily forcing people out of the communities they’ve built the moral (or constructive!) thing to do?
The first people we lose are often those who have been here the longest, contributed greatly to the community, but are on a fixed income and cannot afford the tax increase.
Case in point, we’re losing our volunteer fire department’s rookie coordinator and training captain because he’s been priced out of the area.
He’s elderly, been a member of the department for decades, is hugely valuable and has a trove of institutional knowledge.
I’m glad he’s able to move elsewhere with the payout he’s getting from his home, but the loss to our community is enormous.
How is arbitrarily forcing people out of the communities they’ve built the moral (or constructive!) thing to do?
Taxes can have negative consequences but a single anecdote of negative consequence doesn’t prove that overall tax is net negative.
Every household that moves out of a neighbourhood is replaced by the household moving into a neighbourhood. A society where the most valuable neighbourhoods for working families aren’t disproportionately occupied by retirees paying a tiny fraction of the true cost of living there has benefits. Some households in the Bay Area are being undercharged in property tax by over $50,000/year at current rates. That’s $50,000 a year less for schools and services. It also means other, newer home owners have to pay a disproportionate amount more since if property taxes were based on market rates the percentage rate of the tax would go down.
Every household that moves out of a neighbourhood is replaced by the household moving into a neighbourhood. A society where the most valuable neighbourhoods for working families aren’t disproportionately occupied by retirees paying a tiny fraction of the true cost of living there has benefits. Some households in the Bay Area are being undercharged in property tax by over $50,000/year at current rates. That’s $50,000 a year less for schools and services. It also means other, newer home owners have to pay a disproportionate amount more since if property taxes were based on market rates the percentage rate of the tax would go down.
Your arguments for social engineering are based in ignoring the true individual human cost, and the true cost to the communities you’d happily destroy in pursuit of your bland generalized vision of how things should be.
That seems immoral to me, and I’m not convinced you’ve actually thought through the implications of your idealized grand vision.
“Your lost decades-long community members will be replaced by brand new people” is not the argument you seem to think it is, and could only be made by someone who had no experience building a functioning community.
That seems immoral to me, and I’m not convinced you’ve actually thought through the implications of your idealized grand vision.
“Your lost decades-long community members will be replaced by brand new people” is not the argument you seem to think it is, and could only be made by someone who had no experience building a functioning community.
My primary point is not that the old people are replaced by new people. My primary point is that you have huge costs related to maintaining the community you want in the form of massive subsidies that reduce taxation and collect resources in an unfair and biased way from the community.
I’m pretty sure it’s a bad idea because it’s pretty much a historical accident in California and implemented just about nowhere else. California can’t get rid of it because the policy creates a huge amount of inertia but people have tried on many occasions because the policy is also extremely bad.
The solutions to property tax rising are myriad. A person can take a mortgage out against the gains in property value. Since property taxes are well under 1%, this can pay for the property tax for 50 years easily and the only drawback is not owning 100% of the property. A person can also downsize to a smaller home or condo in the community, providing the community gets its act together enough on housing to provide said options. Ultimately, your community is losing someone because they decided the best option was to cash in the value of their home, take their profits and leave. They also decided there best bet for cheaper housing was elsewhere, which is something the community could have done something about with better policy. People should have that choice. The problem in this scenario is not property taxes going up with land value increases.
Lastly, artificially keeping communities together through massive subsidies to people who’ve been there a long time is just as much social engineering as having a property tax that’s based on current market value.
I’m pretty sure it’s a bad idea because it’s pretty much a historical accident in California and implemented just about nowhere else. California can’t get rid of it because the policy creates a huge amount of inertia but people have tried on many occasions because the policy is also extremely bad.
The solutions to property tax rising are myriad. A person can take a mortgage out against the gains in property value. Since property taxes are well under 1%, this can pay for the property tax for 50 years easily and the only drawback is not owning 100% of the property. A person can also downsize to a smaller home or condo in the community, providing the community gets its act together enough on housing to provide said options. Ultimately, your community is losing someone because they decided the best option was to cash in the value of their home, take their profits and leave. They also decided there best bet for cheaper housing was elsewhere, which is something the community could have done something about with better policy. People should have that choice. The problem in this scenario is not property taxes going up with land value increases.
Lastly, artificially keeping communities together through massive subsidies to people who’ve been there a long time is just as much social engineering as having a property tax that’s based on current market value.
> massive subsidies
You’ve invented this idea whole-cloth.
We’re not subsidizing someone’s existence just because we could derive much more value from their land if we forced them to sell it to us.
> A person can also downsize to a smaller home or condo in the community, providing the community gets its act together enough on housing to provide said options.
We’re not obligated to pave over our community and turn our population into a permanent rental class, pouring wealth into the pockets of rent-seeking developers that will extract it from the local economy, just because you don’t like how we live.
I realize this is a bit inappropriate for yc, but just about everything you’ve said demonstrates a gross moral failing inherent in believing you have a rightful interest in forcing others to behave the way you want them to, instead of the way they’ve chosen to live.
You’ve invented this idea whole-cloth.
We’re not subsidizing someone’s existence just because we could derive much more value from their land if we forced them to sell it to us.
> A person can also downsize to a smaller home or condo in the community, providing the community gets its act together enough on housing to provide said options.
We’re not obligated to pave over our community and turn our population into a permanent rental class, pouring wealth into the pockets of rent-seeking developers that will extract it from the local economy, just because you don’t like how we live.
I realize this is a bit inappropriate for yc, but just about everything you’ve said demonstrates a gross moral failing inherent in believing you have a rightful interest in forcing others to behave the way you want them to, instead of the way they’ve chosen to live.
We are subsidizing their existence when we charge them below market property tax rates based on property values that are 40 years old instead of current market rates.
You went to ad hominem very quickly on having your ideas challenged. It’s not a gross moral failing to want property tax to work the way it’s supposed to and does in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet. Except California because of weird historical accident.
You went to ad hominem very quickly on having your ideas challenged. It’s not a gross moral failing to want property tax to work the way it’s supposed to and does in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet. Except California because of weird historical accident.
> below market property tax rates
There’s no such thing as a “market rate” when you’re discussing invented taxation schemes.
> You went to ad hominem very quickly on having your ideas challenged.
No, I went very quickly to calling out the immorality of your position upon your succinctly demonstrating the same.
> It’s not a gross moral failing to want property tax to work the way it’s supposed to …
Taxation schemes are an arbitrary invention. They’re not supposed to do anything other than whatever they’re designed to do.
Furthermore, the LVT scheme you proposed is not how property tax works in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet, and is designed to force people from their homes, coerce them into selling their property, and control how that property may be used under penalty of ruinous taxation for a failure to comply.
There’s no such thing as a “market rate” when you’re discussing invented taxation schemes.
> You went to ad hominem very quickly on having your ideas challenged.
No, I went very quickly to calling out the immorality of your position upon your succinctly demonstrating the same.
> It’s not a gross moral failing to want property tax to work the way it’s supposed to …
Taxation schemes are an arbitrary invention. They’re not supposed to do anything other than whatever they’re designed to do.
Furthermore, the LVT scheme you proposed is not how property tax works in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet, and is designed to force people from their homes, coerce them into selling their property, and control how that property may be used under penalty of ruinous taxation for a failure to comply.
There is also the issue that by failing to build low-cost housing it’s your community’s responsibility for pricing people out and not giving them the option to downsize within their community. Giving artificial tax breaks to subsidize bad housing policy seems to me more like a cause of Bay Area problems than a solution to anything substantial.
> … not giving them the option to downsize within their community
The “option to downsize” is an odd euphemism for “forcing people from their homes to live the way I think they should have to”.
> Giving artificial tax breaks …
The tax itself is already an artificial, arbitrary construction.
The “option to downsize” is an odd euphemism for “forcing people from their homes to live the way I think they should have to”.
> Giving artificial tax breaks …
The tax itself is already an artificial, arbitrary construction.
Forced to sell is quite ridiculous he could take out a small loan against the increased property value without having to sell. He would lose less money from the loan than the unrealized gain on the property even if he paid the increase in property taxes this way for 50 years. The idea that homeowners need to maintain 100% ownership of their home no matter what their finances are and no matter how much their home goes up is a bad one.
>Except he doesn't benefit any more from the increased value
Thats the same for literally any product or service in the world which you like which goes up in price due to increased demand. Is that immoral?
The only difference is that if LVT goes up it does mean you can charge more rent so you potentially could benefit even if you choose not to.
While renters in the same area are exposed to the same market forces. Theres no potential benefit to them they just need to pay more money.
Thats the same for literally any product or service in the world which you like which goes up in price due to increased demand. Is that immoral?
The only difference is that if LVT goes up it does mean you can charge more rent so you potentially could benefit even if you choose not to.
While renters in the same area are exposed to the same market forces. Theres no potential benefit to them they just need to pay more money.
> Thats the same for literally any product or service in the world which you like which goes up in price due to increased demand.
I already own the home.
Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value if you were to chose to sell it that year.
> The only difference is that if LVT goes up it does mean you can charge more rent so you potentially could benefit even if you choose not to.
How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord?
How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle?
I already own the home.
Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value if you were to chose to sell it that year.
> The only difference is that if LVT goes up it does mean you can charge more rent so you potentially could benefit even if you choose not to.
How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord?
How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle?
>I already own the home.
A privileged position the poorer half of the population doesnt share. They have to deal with rising rents along with rising gas prices.
>Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value
Imagine instead that it was limited just to the roof over your head. Voila youve just imagined rent. Something the poorer half of the population HAS to deal with.
Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases.
That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house.
>How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord
1. The option is always there. Whether you exercise it or not having the option of an additional stream of income DOES help you.
2. Your net worth literally goes up. You can easily convert that net worth into cash if you choose. Reverse mortgages, etc.
>How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle?
With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently. Denser housing etc. That means lower rents. That means renters who were priced out of their homes, forcibly dismantling their community, get to stay.
Some people think forcibly dismantling communities of renters is fine. Perhaps they dont think they matter coz theyre typically less white communities. Perhaps this is what they really want.
A privileged position the poorer half of the population doesnt share. They have to deal with rising rents along with rising gas prices.
>Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value
Imagine instead that it was limited just to the roof over your head. Voila youve just imagined rent. Something the poorer half of the population HAS to deal with.
Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases.
That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house.
>How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord
1. The option is always there. Whether you exercise it or not having the option of an additional stream of income DOES help you.
2. Your net worth literally goes up. You can easily convert that net worth into cash if you choose. Reverse mortgages, etc.
>How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle?
With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently. Denser housing etc. That means lower rents. That means renters who were priced out of their homes, forcibly dismantling their community, get to stay.
Some people think forcibly dismantling communities of renters is fine. Perhaps they dont think they matter coz theyre typically less white communities. Perhaps this is what they really want.
> Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases.
Nobody is capitalizing on unrealized land value increases. That’s literally the definition of “unrealized”.
“Make everything terrible for everyone” is one way to level a playing field, but rarely a good way.
> That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house.
What free money? The wealth is unrealized. If I want to continue living in my community, it may never be realized.
When and if it ever is, you can tax it.
> With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently
Forcing more people from their homes and destroying their community.
Nobody is capitalizing on unrealized land value increases. That’s literally the definition of “unrealized”.
“Make everything terrible for everyone” is one way to level a playing field, but rarely a good way.
> That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house.
What free money? The wealth is unrealized. If I want to continue living in my community, it may never be realized.
When and if it ever is, you can tax it.
> With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently
Forcing more people from their homes and destroying their community.
That's basically the argument for gentrification. i.e. "If you're too poor, why are you here?"
You only benefit if you sell.
[deleted]
Why do you think land taxes would be ruinous? The only single family home owners who would see major tax increases are those in markets like the Bay Area - many of whom are already paying well below what they would nearly anywhere else in the country due to their legislatively capped house value.
I also find the morality argument interesting, as land has some unique attributes as an economic good that one could use to make very convincing arguments for the immorality of land ownership itself.
I also find the morality argument interesting, as land has some unique attributes as an economic good that one could use to make very convincing arguments for the immorality of land ownership itself.
With the use of the term “out-of-state” I am assuming you are American, and that means you don’t own land. No one in the country owns land. You own a title to rent exclusive use of the land from the government and property taxes are the rent on that.
Being allowed to sit on unrealized value from the land, deny its use to all others in society, _and_ not pay taxes on it seems like the immoral situation to me
Being allowed to sit on unrealized value from the land, deny its use to all others in society, _and_ not pay taxes on it seems like the immoral situation to me
> Being allowed to sit on unrealized value from the land
By “sit on unrealized value”, you mean continuing to live in my home, in the community that I’ve worked with others to build, exactly as I have for many years prior?
It’s incredibly presumptuous to think you have the right to force me from my home and dismantle my community because you don’t like how we’re choosing to “sit on unrealized value”.
> deny its use to all others in society
I’m also denying the use of my lawnmower to all others in society, but I don’t have to pay a yearly tax on it.
There’s plenty of land, plenty of housing, and plenty of lawnmowers.
You’re not entitled to mine just because you really want to take it from me.
By “sit on unrealized value”, you mean continuing to live in my home, in the community that I’ve worked with others to build, exactly as I have for many years prior?
It’s incredibly presumptuous to think you have the right to force me from my home and dismantle my community because you don’t like how we’re choosing to “sit on unrealized value”.
> deny its use to all others in society
I’m also denying the use of my lawnmower to all others in society, but I don’t have to pay a yearly tax on it.
There’s plenty of land, plenty of housing, and plenty of lawnmowers.
You’re not entitled to mine just because you really want to take it from me.
> You’re not entitled to mine just because you really want to take it from me.
No one is entitled to anything that is your property. However, you still don’t own the land. Just a right to exclusiveish(barring other rights others hold to the land like easements) use of it as long as you pay your property taxes.
Wanting to keep a monopoly on the use of the land without paying the taxes is you feeling entitled to taking land from society.
No one is entitled to anything that is your property. However, you still don’t own the land. Just a right to exclusiveish(barring other rights others hold to the land like easements) use of it as long as you pay your property taxes.
Wanting to keep a monopoly on the use of the land without paying the taxes is you feeling entitled to taking land from society.
Why should “society” have a stronger right to land than the people inhabiting it?
Because that society’s government is what actually owns the land? If you think you own the land do you think you can do things like cede it to another country? If you can’t cede the land, how does that jive with actually owning it?
You don’t own the land you live on in perpetuity. It seems like your neighborhood is undergoing gentrification; time to move to a more affordable neighborhood.
I’m not being displaced since I can readily afford the increase.
The people being displaced are those on the margins who can’t afford it, many of whom our community is much worse off for losing.
Hence “immoral”; the government is forcing gentrification through property tax.
The people being displaced are those on the margins who can’t afford it, many of whom our community is much worse off for losing.
Hence “immoral”; the government is forcing gentrification through property tax.
My wages were driven up by wealthy employers hiring other programmers for jobs I didn't want or ask for - it's immoral to tax my increased income.
Increased income is realized value. You actually have the income.
Imagine that instead, your income was taxed based on the government estimated income you could have if you switched to a new job that paid more, and you were taxed based on that hypothetical increase in your wages.
I see no profit from my home’s increased estimated value unless/until I sell and move out of the area.
Imagine that instead, your income was taxed based on the government estimated income you could have if you switched to a new job that paid more, and you were taxed based on that hypothetical increase in your wages.
I see no profit from my home’s increased estimated value unless/until I sell and move out of the area.
You see all sorts of value from the increased value of your home including the ability to get larger loans using the land/property as an asset to back that loan. Not having the cash in hand isn’t a good basis for not charging a tax, especially when that tax is a tiny fraction of the actual value of the property.
> Not having the cash in hand isn’t a good basis for not charging a tax
That’s a great basis for not charging a tax.
> … especially when that tax is a tiny fraction of the actual value of the property.
How does that justify a tax?
That’s a great basis for not charging a tax.
> … especially when that tax is a tiny fraction of the actual value of the property.
How does that justify a tax?
This may sound extreme, and I don't quite believe it, but I'm thinking on it. But the long and short of it is that I'm not even sure we should allow for the ownership of land. Going back far enough all land was stolen (central park, anything dealing with first peoples) or conned from someone, some war determined it, it was sold and sold again. The only two arguments of justification are 1. they were conquered so it's done (basically might makes right) or 2. it was so long ago that we shouldn't worry about it, and that wasn't me specifically.
Besides if Climate Change ends up half as bad as I think it will, some areas will need to designated as "no farm zones" or "no more people zones", some towns will need to be closed and maybe turned back into wilderness. The problems are already there, like California having a 20 year drought and importing most of it's water, at what point do you say "this is the new normal and we need to plan as such" because we continue to grow water heavy crops like pistachios in California when over 20 years tells us we shouldn't. But protection of ownership of a thing that probably shouldn't be owned will halt any effective amounts of change to be able to happen.
I'm not even entirely sure what I'm trying to say as I've not thought it out, but just recognize that we have these assumptions about things that maybe aren't or shouldn't be true.
Besides if Climate Change ends up half as bad as I think it will, some areas will need to designated as "no farm zones" or "no more people zones", some towns will need to be closed and maybe turned back into wilderness. The problems are already there, like California having a 20 year drought and importing most of it's water, at what point do you say "this is the new normal and we need to plan as such" because we continue to grow water heavy crops like pistachios in California when over 20 years tells us we shouldn't. But protection of ownership of a thing that probably shouldn't be owned will halt any effective amounts of change to be able to happen.
I'm not even entirely sure what I'm trying to say as I've not thought it out, but just recognize that we have these assumptions about things that maybe aren't or shouldn't be true.
Another angle to look at property taxes might be private property rights. From some point of view real estate taxes are a way to deny these rights by forcing owners to pay rent for the right to use the property.
The private property rights of land violate the private property rights of the people around that land as they work to improve their community and do not get compensated for their efforts. Instead, all that income is redistributed to corrupt established owners of land who want their family line to retain power at the expense of everyone else.
You don’t own property in the US and never have. You have a title and deed that result in a lease of land from government and they can enforce taxes as part of that lease.
So you also think jacking up rent is immoral?
If lots of people want something I occupy but I didnt create or make valuable why should I not have to pay society for that privilege?
If lots of people want something I occupy but I didnt create or make valuable why should I not have to pay society for that privilege?
Property taxes help pay for local services. As housing costs go up, so too do expenses faced by governments and contractors.
What expense is there for governments and contractors, that is directly tied to housing prices going up? Sure, more people would go to the same school but the government or contractors have very little to do with educational expenses. Maybe paving roads? Can’t think of much else. Happy to be wrong.
>What expense is there for governments and contractors, that is directly tied to housing prices going up?
In theory, nothing.
In practice rich people complain about everything that isn't "nice" and want it made nice. As the community gets richer as a result of the minimum buy-in going up the municipality will be be fixing more potholes, changing more street light bulbs, painting everything on a more regular schedule, hiring more enforcement officials to harass people over increasingly smaller violations, hiring more cops because rich people call the cops over more minor things resulting in more calls, etc, etc.
It costs a ton more money run a city/town the way people who can afford $500k houses and $2k rents want them run than the way people who can afford $200k houses and $800 rents want them run.
In theory, nothing.
In practice rich people complain about everything that isn't "nice" and want it made nice. As the community gets richer as a result of the minimum buy-in going up the municipality will be be fixing more potholes, changing more street light bulbs, painting everything on a more regular schedule, hiring more enforcement officials to harass people over increasingly smaller violations, hiring more cops because rich people call the cops over more minor things resulting in more calls, etc, etc.
It costs a ton more money run a city/town the way people who can afford $500k houses and $2k rents want them run than the way people who can afford $200k houses and $800 rents want them run.
To retain their employees and attract new talent, they need to pay wages that cover increasing rents.
I think most people are against taxes. Let's get rid of them already.
I’m not opposed to taxes, I’m opposed to assessing them in a way that arbitrarily and unnecessarily forces people out of their homes and out of our community.
And I’m opposed to the argument that the current distribution of property is somehow more just or fair than one that results afterwards from a change in tax policy. Currently, suburbs are massively subsidized by big cities and without those subsidies taxes in suburbs would roughly double to pay for infrastructure (higher increases in poorer neighbourhoods where the tax base is smaller). You assume the resultant communities from all these subsidies are morally neutral and have strong rights to exist unchanged. Cities have a right to take back the tax dollars that are unfairly siphoned to suburbs and the resultant change in taxes would be just as disruptive to the community as anything being proposed.
Georgism has a better moral basis than suburbanization. It’s possible to come up with a moral theory that justifies LVT and philosophers have done so. No philosopher has found a consistent moral theory to justify taking money from poor apartment dwellers and using it to pay for well-off suburbs. The current communities that exist are created through injustice and it’s unreasonable to demand they continue to exist unchanged when doing so requires perpetuating that injustice.
Georgism has a better moral basis than suburbanization. It’s possible to come up with a moral theory that justifies LVT and philosophers have done so. No philosopher has found a consistent moral theory to justify taking money from poor apartment dwellers and using it to pay for well-off suburbs. The current communities that exist are created through injustice and it’s unreasonable to demand they continue to exist unchanged when doing so requires perpetuating that injustice.
This is a really long-winded way to say “it’s moral to force people out of their homes, destroy people’s communities, and ruinously tax them, all for not living the way I want them to.”
The fair allocation of a shared pool of taxes is a different question from LVT entirely.
The fair allocation of a shared pool of taxes is a different question from LVT entirely.
You completely ignored the point. Communities exist currently based on various injustices. You can't correct the injustice without having some impact on who's in the community. You've argued that forcing anyone out of a community is a greater injustice than fixing any injustice in how that community operates.
Your philosophy is a weird sort of artificial elevation of the status quo. It's almost like you believe moral good is lack of change and everything should remain constant all the time. I on the other hand believe progress is a good thing, even when it requires some change and even when not all of that change is a-priori beneficial to those affected by it.
Your notions of what constitutes ruinous taxation is laughable since even a 100% LVT is set to the economic rent of the land. This can be expensive but it's certainly not ruinous since by definition the land can actually produce this value.
I could also characterize your position as a weird sort of worship of income tax. I could satirize your weak beliefs in bodily autonomy since you think so highly of the government interfering in labour contracts and taking income. This expression would result in equally damning statements akin to the moral outrage you have produced rather than addressing my argument. But it wouldn't be substantive debate, just like your current low-brow cheap-shots aren't.
Your philosophy is a weird sort of artificial elevation of the status quo. It's almost like you believe moral good is lack of change and everything should remain constant all the time. I on the other hand believe progress is a good thing, even when it requires some change and even when not all of that change is a-priori beneficial to those affected by it.
Your notions of what constitutes ruinous taxation is laughable since even a 100% LVT is set to the economic rent of the land. This can be expensive but it's certainly not ruinous since by definition the land can actually produce this value.
I could also characterize your position as a weird sort of worship of income tax. I could satirize your weak beliefs in bodily autonomy since you think so highly of the government interfering in labour contracts and taking income. This expression would result in equally damning statements akin to the moral outrage you have produced rather than addressing my argument. But it wouldn't be substantive debate, just like your current low-brow cheap-shots aren't.
For all your window dressing, you want to destroy communities, force people out of their homes, and coerce adherence to your viewpoint on how people should live.
Whatever injustice you think you’d be correcting, the one you’d be promulgating would be just as immoral.
You pretend to lofty ideals because you cannot actually justify the real human costs incurred by your desired form of government social engineering.
Whatever injustice you think you’d be correcting, the one you’d be promulgating would be just as immoral.
You pretend to lofty ideals because you cannot actually justify the real human costs incurred by your desired form of government social engineering.
In order for property taxes to be moral we have to ask what land is and what land does. Land is an economic good that is unlike any other. It captures the value of other people’s work just by existing. As the amount of income in a neighborhood goes up the land value goes up even if no one improves everything.
So there are substantial questions on why you are entitled to 100% of these gains you didn’t create. Short of libertarianism you’re not going to have a moral basis for a property right strong enough to justify it. And libertarianism is a terrible morass of bad philosophical ideas that don’t work.
So there are substantial questions on why you are entitled to 100% of these gains you didn’t create. Short of libertarianism you’re not going to have a moral basis for a property right strong enough to justify it. And libertarianism is a terrible morass of bad philosophical ideas that don’t work.
> It captures the value of other people’s work just by existing
That’s an invention to justify your desire to force people out of their homes to make way for your preferred use of their land.
You don’t want to only tax the profits when they actually do eventually sell; you want to tax unrealized “value” that they derive no benefit from and will never see if they remain in their homes and as part of their community.
That’s an invention to justify your desire to force people out of their homes to make way for your preferred use of their land.
You don’t want to only tax the profits when they actually do eventually sell; you want to tax unrealized “value” that they derive no benefit from and will never see if they remain in their homes and as part of their community.
No, it's a valid economic model that has been consistently explained through economic theory. You are entitled to you're own opinion but not your own facts and you're literally calling substantial pieces of modern economics "an invention" in the sense of fiction.
I want to tax the economic rent of land. Your land being worth more has benefits to you even if you haven't yet cashed them in. The market taxes on your property going up functions similarly to rents going up from land increases and is just as justified. You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed. It's pretty bog standard.
If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases. In both cases, the expense comes from unrealized value of land, the landlord doesn't have to sell in order to raise a rent. Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality.
I want to tax the economic rent of land. Your land being worth more has benefits to you even if you haven't yet cashed them in. The market taxes on your property going up functions similarly to rents going up from land increases and is just as justified. You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed. It's pretty bog standard.
If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases. In both cases, the expense comes from unrealized value of land, the landlord doesn't have to sell in order to raise a rent. Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality.
> You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed.
No, I’m treating a taxation scheme as an arbitrary invention because that’s what it it is.
Nothing mystical or unnatural about it. Just, in this case, grossly immoral.
> If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases.
You’re rather breezily glossing over the fundamental difference — property rights.
I get that you dislike property rights and want to steal them from people living contrary to how you believe they should, but your wanting to steal what other people have isn’t a position I’m going to agree with.
> Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality.
Your invented scheme to force people out of their homes so you can redevelop their land isn’t “the fabric of reality”.
No, I’m treating a taxation scheme as an arbitrary invention because that’s what it it is.
Nothing mystical or unnatural about it. Just, in this case, grossly immoral.
> If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases.
You’re rather breezily glossing over the fundamental difference — property rights.
I get that you dislike property rights and want to steal them from people living contrary to how you believe they should, but your wanting to steal what other people have isn’t a position I’m going to agree with.
> Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality.
Your invented scheme to force people out of their homes so you can redevelop their land isn’t “the fabric of reality”.
I see. So you’re just one of these fringe libertarians who thinks property rights are so strong they admit no basis for taxation and you want to call all taxation to be both arbitrary and theft. I consider it a privilege for my thoughts to be immoral according to your warped and twisted worldview.
People arguing for higher taxes on property are arguing an admissible public policy. The right to private property in land is contingent on taxation and there is a long-established moral basis for either property tax or land tax. I’m very curious for you to provide a definition of property rights that is more concrete than whatever you want them to be.
People arguing for higher taxes on property are arguing an admissible public policy. The right to private property in land is contingent on taxation and there is a long-established moral basis for either property tax or land tax. I’m very curious for you to provide a definition of property rights that is more concrete than whatever you want them to be.
No, I just think the current model of property taxation is immoral; the government shouldn’t be inducing gentrification and the destruction of communities.
The model you’re proposing (LVT) is more sinister, in that the taxation rates would be set with the intention of directly coercing behavior and socially engineering other people’s lives according to your preferences.
Of course, I think you’d very quickly find that, thanks to corruption and regulatory capture, it would not be your preferences being prioritized, and you’d have simply handed a huge hammer to exploitative developers.
The model you’re proposing (LVT) is more sinister, in that the taxation rates would be set with the intention of directly coercing behavior and socially engineering other people’s lives according to your preferences.
Of course, I think you’d very quickly find that, thanks to corruption and regulatory capture, it would not be your preferences being prioritized, and you’d have simply handed a huge hammer to exploitative developers.
>The model you’re proposing (LVT) is more sinister, in that the taxation rates would be set with the intention of directly coercing behavior and socially engineering other people’s lives according to your preferences.
You mean the preferences of every single human that wants to live on that plot of land. The fact that you can't even see the fact that you personally as a single person want to override the wishes of countless of people and deny them the ability to fulfill their basic need of housing is what is truly sinister.
You complain about corruption yet you cannot see your own corrupt behaviour. An LVT is inherently an anti corruption policy.
You mean the preferences of every single human that wants to live on that plot of land. The fact that you can't even see the fact that you personally as a single person want to override the wishes of countless of people and deny them the ability to fulfill their basic need of housing is what is truly sinister.
You complain about corruption yet you cannot see your own corrupt behaviour. An LVT is inherently an anti corruption policy.
I think our current system is the one that hands developers a huge hammer. It lets them capture all of land rents. I think that’s unjust bs.
But if you need to live in fantasy-land where NIMBYs are the ones saving the world instead of poisoning it, I guess you have every right to remain deluded.
I’m not advocating for an LVT to force my preferences on anyone. I advocate for an LVT because I think it’s a far better form of taxation than income tax. Left and right wing economists both agree.
You want to capture your own land rents so you don’t care how many developers do so as well or how harmful it is for society. Your position is basically “screw you, got mine” and it’s showing.
But if you need to live in fantasy-land where NIMBYs are the ones saving the world instead of poisoning it, I guess you have every right to remain deluded.
I’m not advocating for an LVT to force my preferences on anyone. I advocate for an LVT because I think it’s a far better form of taxation than income tax. Left and right wing economists both agree.
You want to capture your own land rents so you don’t care how many developers do so as well or how harmful it is for society. Your position is basically “screw you, got mine” and it’s showing.
Your position is “screw you, I want yours”, and it’s showing.
Surprised it took you this long to trot out “NIMBY”.
It’s pretty clear from the sudden uptick of people like you parroting the “Georgist” line that’s it’s a new (or, newly repurposed, anyway) faddish reframing of the same old ideas from the same old “give me yours” crowd.
Surprised it took you this long to trot out “NIMBY”.
It’s pretty clear from the sudden uptick of people like you parroting the “Georgist” line that’s it’s a new (or, newly repurposed, anyway) faddish reframing of the same old ideas from the same old “give me yours” crowd.
It is actually a widely accepted model by many economists to increase the efficiency of the land market. The reason why it is rarely adopted is plain corruption.
One issue with georgism is that it significantly penalizes Urbanization and productivity that goes with it. People are incentivized to spread out and live on less costly land and take a hit to their income or less lucrative jobs.
You would have Urban workers paying most of their income and taxes, and remote white collar workers paying essentially zero taxes.
You would have Urban workers paying most of their income and taxes, and remote white collar workers paying essentially zero taxes.
This is maybe true for the landowner, but it's much less true for the renter. Since land is more available (due to fewer underproductive uses), you can expect more competition to put renters in land efficient configurations (high rises) in the densest cities. Sounds like urbanization to me? And more affordable than the status quo.
Still sounds like a lot of blue collar workers who need to be close to jobs crammed into tiny high-rises, paying for the tax either directly or through rent, and white collar works living in remote mansions with no tax.
alternatively, if blue collar workers cant keep up with the tax, then they are commuting 2 hours each way to drive in from the countryside
alternatively, if blue collar workers cant keep up with the tax, then they are commuting 2 hours each way to drive in from the countryside
There's a lot of analysis out there showing that LVT is the one kind of tax that is not transferred into rent. On the contrary, it's expected that rents would drop under LVT, since land would become less scarce where people are willing to pay rents.
It sounds like a perpetual motion machine. 100% of Revenue comes from land but somehow this isn't passed on to those occupying the land. It also ignores entire segments of the economy that don't have significant land requirement: Finance, services, digital Commerce.
Google on Googlers pay no taxes but plumbers and homeowners in urban areas pick up the slack. Sounds highly regressive
Google on Googlers pay no taxes but plumbers and homeowners in urban areas pick up the slack. Sounds highly regressive
The reason for that is that the renter's are already paying economic rents and taxing those economic rents does not increase them. Ground rent is a residue that is left over after everyone else took their cut (income taxes reduce land value taxes for example).
The landowners pay the tax. Because of the vertical supply curve (land supply is fixed), it does not get passed on. This is true for any good that has fixed supply when the tax is equal to the gain in having exclusive rights to that good.
But the Assumption of a vertical supply curve is absurd. Land quantity is fixed but desirable land is flexible. From the outside this sounds like crazy cult thinking. May be applicable for a but Island like Singapore or Hong Kong but not the United States with vast swathes of usable land. Someone can go from Prime real estate in downtown San Francisco to rural Montana. As I said before, this ignores the fact that a remote googler can buy 100 acres with near 0 alternative land use value.
It also ignores the regressive nature of the tax. Many places have a vertical Supply for water, but that doesn't mean raising tax revenue based on water consumption isn't regressive
It also ignores the regressive nature of the tax. Many places have a vertical Supply for water, but that doesn't mean raising tax revenue based on water consumption isn't regressive
Georgism lowers the cost of achieving density and removes subsidies paid from cities to suburbs and rural areas from the tax system. In exchange for that, some variations of the system which offer a citizen’s dividend make it possible to subsist on rural land due to its low tax value. Doing so results in significant wage losses for the vast majority of the populace so it’s unclear how popular such a strategy would be.
Maybe, but my problem with the land tax is that the rich just wouldn't own any land. Especially in the age of gig work "independent contractors" I can imagine people who work somewhere being forced to commit a part of their salary to supplying their own workplace. Rents and mortgages are essentially the same thing.
Property taxes are a downward pressure on home prices
Agreed. The question of whether the build or its location should be taxed is at the hear of the property Vs land value tax. For some reason people think that they are dedicated eviction tools while completely ignoring that they are meant to align economic incentives with human desires. There is no need to have extremely high taxes, just don't keep them laughably low.
Solid analysis. If I might add some factors about my particular market that might be similar to other people's markets that I believe confound the issues:
-- Builders are not building the kind of properties that buyers want. In my market these are suburban tract housing generally at a sub-$500K price point with low-end construction materials and finishes. Thus, buyers say "there's nothing to buy" because they aren't the kind of houses they want. They end up buying them anyway because it's all they can afford and/or other factors like proximity to work or family. But, looking at days on market, etc, relative to other properties, it's pretty clear buyers of these homes are acting more out of desperation.
-- Obsolescence. We have a lot of (older) houses in our area that are simply not conducive to modern living and until someone is able to do major overhauls, they will always be less desirable. Think tiny parlor rooms, bedrooms that barely fit a double bed, kitchens closed off from the rest of the house, single bathrooms, etc.
-- Non-turn key properties. My market is such that many local buyers live paycheck to paycheck and will not be able to afford renovations of any kind. Thus, the people buying non-turnkey properties are our out of area newcomers (of which there are many) but these buyers are such that they tend to want more amenities than our existing housing stock can provide. So basically anything not turnkey is sitting longer even in a competitive market.
So my point in all of the above is to say that in some markets, I believe there is more inventory than believed, but because it is not in line with market expectations you end up with the general public believing there are limited opportunities.
-- Builders are not building the kind of properties that buyers want. In my market these are suburban tract housing generally at a sub-$500K price point with low-end construction materials and finishes. Thus, buyers say "there's nothing to buy" because they aren't the kind of houses they want. They end up buying them anyway because it's all they can afford and/or other factors like proximity to work or family. But, looking at days on market, etc, relative to other properties, it's pretty clear buyers of these homes are acting more out of desperation.
-- Obsolescence. We have a lot of (older) houses in our area that are simply not conducive to modern living and until someone is able to do major overhauls, they will always be less desirable. Think tiny parlor rooms, bedrooms that barely fit a double bed, kitchens closed off from the rest of the house, single bathrooms, etc.
-- Non-turn key properties. My market is such that many local buyers live paycheck to paycheck and will not be able to afford renovations of any kind. Thus, the people buying non-turnkey properties are our out of area newcomers (of which there are many) but these buyers are such that they tend to want more amenities than our existing housing stock can provide. So basically anything not turnkey is sitting longer even in a competitive market.
So my point in all of the above is to say that in some markets, I believe there is more inventory than believed, but because it is not in line with market expectations you end up with the general public believing there are limited opportunities.
> In my market these are suburban tract housing generally at a sub-$500K price point with low-end construction materials and finishes. Thus, buyers say "there's nothing to buy" because they aren't the kind of houses they want.
There is something to buy, but there is nothing to buy at the price buyers want to pay. Developers can get away with less expensive finishes because they know demand is still so high relative to supply that the houses will still be sold.
There is something to buy, but there is nothing to buy at the price buyers want to pay. Developers can get away with less expensive finishes because they know demand is still so high relative to supply that the houses will still be sold.
I'd actually be ok with them using less expensive finishes so long as the houses themselves were built to last more than 20 years... there's a house I drive past regularly in a development where it's obvious that the sheet siding wasn't even put up square. I mean - what do the studs, the foundation, the insulation, etc in that house look like if they couldn't even get the seams on the siding to hang correctly? The finishers all get swapped out every 5-15 years as fads change, and they are the easiest things for homeowners to do themselves (IE: a little Home Depot style remodel). But, it gets a lot harder to fix things in the walls that weren't done correctly from the beginning.
Builders will always build the most profitable projects that they can. In many desirable areas the construction cost is a relatively small part of the cost after purchasing the land and obtaining permits. Thus it makes sense to build with high-end construction materials and finishes. Even if that prices out many lower-income buyers, there are still plenty of affluent buyers to snap up the units.
As for "non-turn key properties", whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years and saving your money until you can afford to renovate?
As for "non-turn key properties", whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years and saving your money until you can afford to renovate?
> whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years
In other words, "I had to suffer (or grew up with an expectation that many people had to suffer) this way, so no one else gets to complain about having to suffer this way, even if it's very possible to eliminate this kind of pointless suffering from the system."
In other words, "I had to suffer (or grew up with an expectation that many people had to suffer) this way, so no one else gets to complain about having to suffer this way, even if it's very possible to eliminate this kind of pointless suffering from the system."
"whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years"
Mom. I have wanted to buy land with a shitty trailer for years so that I can live there and build with cash. Wife thinks I'm nuts. I'm addicted to building things out of nothing though, affluency bores me.
Mom. I have wanted to buy land with a shitty trailer for years so that I can live there and build with cash. Wife thinks I'm nuts. I'm addicted to building things out of nothing though, affluency bores me.
> simply not conducive to modern living [...] kitchens closed off from the rest of the house
I still cannot understand that trend, to be honest. Cooking generates smells, sometimes greasy fumes, and especially in summer unwanted heat, and I don't see why I need to purposely dump all those throughout the rest of the house.
I still cannot understand that trend, to be honest. Cooking generates smells, sometimes greasy fumes, and especially in summer unwanted heat, and I don't see why I need to purposely dump all those throughout the rest of the house.
I thought this was a great article, but one thing that I think was missing was an analysis of how rural vs. urban/suburban desirability has greatly changed housing demand.
In the past 20-30 years, there has been a huge concentration of wealth in major metros, and many rural areas have been "hollowed out", with most young people looking to "get out" if they can. Some of this is anecdotal, but is also supported by various data sets. Even during the pandemic, where many folks left the cities and went to other areas, it was still that a lot of "tier 2" metros (think Boise, Charlotte, etc.) that took the influx.
So my concern is that even if there are the same number of houses in the US nationwide, many of those houses have become completely undesirable as people move to areas with opportunity. Just think of all the boarded up $1 houses in Detroit, for example.
Just think it would be interesting to see how much "low valued" housing there is (i.e. housing that has lost value or been stagnant) to calculate how much concentration of housing demand has been going on.
In the past 20-30 years, there has been a huge concentration of wealth in major metros, and many rural areas have been "hollowed out", with most young people looking to "get out" if they can. Some of this is anecdotal, but is also supported by various data sets. Even during the pandemic, where many folks left the cities and went to other areas, it was still that a lot of "tier 2" metros (think Boise, Charlotte, etc.) that took the influx.
So my concern is that even if there are the same number of houses in the US nationwide, many of those houses have become completely undesirable as people move to areas with opportunity. Just think of all the boarded up $1 houses in Detroit, for example.
Just think it would be interesting to see how much "low valued" housing there is (i.e. housing that has lost value or been stagnant) to calculate how much concentration of housing demand has been going on.
Well written and researched. Its not about how many houses are available but how many are available where people want to be ... theres plenty of empty houses in Detroit, etc. I appreciate how this points out that areas that cant support more housing, or are already very desirable, fall into the group of 'they must need more houses'.
IMO looking at it as want to be somewhere is a bit simplistic. Ultimately there are that many people in pricey places because they are working jobs that can support them there. Sure half of boston can go to detroit and find lower prices, but will there be jobs available to them in detroit? and once there are jobs available to them at this talent level (given the high professional degrees per capita in boston), who is to say prices don't also rise in response if detroit fails to build housing in response to the increase in population driven by this job growth? Building housing in desirable areas is not to just keep piling people there, its to house labor where the growing economic activity is in demand for housing for labor.
It’s because people are no longer content with living where they are from. We all prefer to live in the very best city until it isn’t the very best city anymore because everybody moved there.
I've seen various reports that the reverse is true, people are moving away from their family less than in the past, although I'm struggling to find the right search terms ("migration" is flooded with immigration results; "mobility" is turning up economic stuff...). Compare today with a century ago: how many places went from "barely on the map" to "huge metropolis" in the USA since then? How many look poised to do the same over the next century?
And I think when they are moving, they're similarly not moving to as "new" or "small" destinations - e.g. tons of sunbelt towns saw very rapid growth from young adults moving there in the 60s-90s. But many of those towns are still the ones seeing a lot of growth; anecdotally, my parents moved to Dallas after college. Where's the "new Dallas"? The cheaper towns with jobs that are being promoted are still the same ones as fifty years ago, and they're not nearly as cheap as they were then anymore. Combine that with rising population from immigration + the kids who grew up there and didn't move away, and you see a lot of cost inflation.
And I think when they are moving, they're similarly not moving to as "new" or "small" destinations - e.g. tons of sunbelt towns saw very rapid growth from young adults moving there in the 60s-90s. But many of those towns are still the ones seeing a lot of growth; anecdotally, my parents moved to Dallas after college. Where's the "new Dallas"? The cheaper towns with jobs that are being promoted are still the same ones as fifty years ago, and they're not nearly as cheap as they were then anymore. Combine that with rising population from immigration + the kids who grew up there and didn't move away, and you see a lot of cost inflation.
You make a good point. I have no data to back up the comment you replied to. It’s just how I feel being from Austin and watching it grow way too fast. I wish I had another home town to move back to.
I should have thought through my comment a bit more. Today I did some genealogy research and was amazed at how often my relatives moved in the 1700s and 1800s. It wasn’t uncommon for them to move cities three or four times during their life in a time when you couldn’t just rent a uhaul and head down the road.
I should have thought through my comment a bit more. Today I did some genealogy research and was amazed at how often my relatives moved in the 1700s and 1800s. It wasn’t uncommon for them to move cities three or four times during their life in a time when you couldn’t just rent a uhaul and head down the road.
> It wasn’t uncommon for them to move cities three or four times during their life in a time when you couldn’t just rent a uhaul and head down the road.
Except that you only needed one person to find a better job back then. The problem with now is that you need two people two find better jobs simultaneously.
This was blocking people from moving when better opportunities pop up. I suspect this is more responsible for the Great Resignation than anything else. Once one person of a couple loses their job and has to start a job search, there's no longer anything slowing down the other from taking a better offer even if you have to move.
Except that you only needed one person to find a better job back then. The problem with now is that you need two people two find better jobs simultaneously.
This was blocking people from moving when better opportunities pop up. I suspect this is more responsible for the Great Resignation than anything else. Once one person of a couple loses their job and has to start a job search, there's no longer anything slowing down the other from taking a better offer even if you have to move.
If you go by the census data of my relatives the head of household usually had the job title “laborer” or “farmer”. When he was married his wife was either “maid”, “cook” or “home maker”. Given that, I don’t think they looked too hard for any job before moving on to the next town. It was probably more of getting a letter from a brother or friend saying “Montgomery isn’t as shitty as Durham”.
> It was probably more of getting a letter from a brother or friend saying “Montgomery isn’t as shitty as Durham”.
There's always work in California. And you can eat the grapes right from the vine. Got a handbill here that says so.
There's always work in California. And you can eat the grapes right from the vine. Got a handbill here that says so.
This is a compelling theory for the 30+ crowd, makes a lot of sense.
Something else was going on with the unattached 20-something millenials that crowded to existing cities instead of striking out on their own, though. Maybe when Elon gets to Mars, Gen Z+1 will have somewhere new to go. ;)
Something else was going on with the unattached 20-something millenials that crowded to existing cities instead of striking out on their own, though. Maybe when Elon gets to Mars, Gen Z+1 will have somewhere new to go. ;)
> ...Gen Z+1...
I think we should call this generation the ampersands.
I think we should call this generation the ampersands.
Yeah, I don't know how to get out of that dilemna. It's a behavioral change for the whole society with big impact: if your parents moved from LA to Dallas to escape rising costs (as a friend of mine's did in middle school), where do you move when the rising costs come for you? Why aren't there new destinations in the same way?
Or is it that now that the prices are up in so many places, the behaviors will revert back?
Is it gonna be places like Boise post-Covid? Will anyone do that same level of massive development? Would they be allowed to?
Or is it that now that the prices are up in so many places, the behaviors will revert back?
Is it gonna be places like Boise post-Covid? Will anyone do that same level of massive development? Would they be allowed to?
> Why aren't there new destinations in the same way
A few possible reasons that spring to mind are population growth, high quality information quickly traveling around the world rapidly removing arbitrage opportunities, automation and outsourcing obviating certain businesses in certain areas, technology and automation allowing economies of scale such that big only get bigger and suck the air out of the room for small players.
A few possible reasons that spring to mind are population growth, high quality information quickly traveling around the world rapidly removing arbitrage opportunities, automation and outsourcing obviating certain businesses in certain areas, technology and automation allowing economies of scale such that big only get bigger and suck the air out of the room for small players.
Maybe we just need to emulate my ancestors and move on to the next opportunity every 20 years. All I want at this point is to be near my grandkids. I don’t care where that is.
I wish I had another home town to move back to.
Is it possible you only see it this way because your home town is a desirable place to live? If you had a home town nobody wanted to move to- would you want to move back there either?
Is it possible you only see it this way because your home town is a desirable place to live? If you had a home town nobody wanted to move to- would you want to move back there either?
I’ve thought about that too. I’m aware that I am biased and assuming that every home town is a great place to live.
As a counterpoint to that, my wife recently did some genealogy work and found that her ancestors came over on the Mayflower, moved to a small Upstate NY city, and then lived right there for roughly 300 years.
key word = "labor mobility"
> until it isn’t the very best city anymore because everybody moved there.
Wat. Cities are not parties that get diluted with lame people.
London and Paris grew large and rich in comparison to their respective countries.
To the extent there is an equilibrium at play, it is a power law. There is no rotating most popular city, not withstanding what people think about San Francisco. Density wins, and the winners keep on winning absent some sort of disaster.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a classic example of pulling out some Hobbesian cynicism as a calling card for classy sober thinking...but in this case it's dead wrong.
Wat. Cities are not parties that get diluted with lame people.
London and Paris grew large and rich in comparison to their respective countries.
To the extent there is an equilibrium at play, it is a power law. There is no rotating most popular city, not withstanding what people think about San Francisco. Density wins, and the winners keep on winning absent some sort of disaster.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a classic example of pulling out some Hobbesian cynicism as a calling card for classy sober thinking...but in this case it's dead wrong.
Density may win in some ways from a pure economic standpoint but the majority of people hate it, and will choose to live somewhere with some space and privacy if they can possibly afford. (Yes I am aware that some people actually prefer living in dense cities but they are a minority.)
Most people want space and privacy but still want to have access to the kinds of services, goods, entertainment and community urban areas offer. High population density is also a problem from an environmental perspective, so the best option seems to be somewhere in between. Away from crowded city centers, but not out in the middle of nowhere either.
> High population density is also a problem from an environmental perspective
Citation needed that high floor area per land area without low floor area per capita has environmental issues.
Citation needed that high floor area per land area without low floor area per capita has environmental issues.
It really just comes down to the number of bodies. As the number of people increases so does the strain on biocapacity. An area can only sustainably support so many people.
People prefer larger floor area per capita. That is independent of floor area per land area.
> Wat. Cities are not parties that get diluted with lame people.
If you fill a party past it’s optimal capacity, is the same kind of party? Are you still likely to enjoy being there?
Why is a city any different?
There are absolutely problems that only emerge with scale, and scale non-linearly with population and density.
> London and Paris grew large and rich in comparison to their respective countries.
“Large and rich” aren’t the values that most/many people want their communities to optimize for.
If you fill a party past it’s optimal capacity, is the same kind of party? Are you still likely to enjoy being there?
Why is a city any different?
There are absolutely problems that only emerge with scale, and scale non-linearly with population and density.
> London and Paris grew large and rich in comparison to their respective countries.
“Large and rich” aren’t the values that most/many people want their communities to optimize for.
> “Large and rich” aren’t the values that most/many people want their communities to optimize for.
Maybe. But for the high growth job generating urban centers in todays US that’s certainly the case.
Maybe. But for the high growth job generating urban centers in todays US that’s certainly the case.
> optimal capacity
Cities to do not have fixed capacity.
> There are absolutely problems that only emerge with scale, and scale non-linearly with population and density.
The biggest thing that doesn't scale is private car usage. But private car usage is terrible. I have not heard of extant cities hitting fundamental scaling constraints in and other way.
> “Large and rich” aren’t the values that most/many people want their communities to optimize for.
Then why aren't rents lower?
Cities to do not have fixed capacity.
> There are absolutely problems that only emerge with scale, and scale non-linearly with population and density.
The biggest thing that doesn't scale is private car usage. But private car usage is terrible. I have not heard of extant cities hitting fundamental scaling constraints in and other way.
> “Large and rich” aren’t the values that most/many people want their communities to optimize for.
Then why aren't rents lower?
> Cities to do not have fixed capacity.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have optimal capacities.
The metrics you’re optimizing for are not necessarily high density and high population — like a dinner party, which would be impossible to scale and would ruin the experience if you tried.
> I have not heard of extant cities hitting fundamental scaling constraints in and other way.
You’re ignoring all other negatives to living in a city and high population density.
Crime. No need for community involvement; everything is provided by paid municipal services. Not knowing your neighbors. Not having space to breath, or to have a woodshop, or to garden.
The list is endless. You might not care about optimizing for those properties, but lots of other people do.
> Then why aren't rents lower?
They are in plenty of places, you just don’t want to live there.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have optimal capacities.
The metrics you’re optimizing for are not necessarily high density and high population — like a dinner party, which would be impossible to scale and would ruin the experience if you tried.
> I have not heard of extant cities hitting fundamental scaling constraints in and other way.
You’re ignoring all other negatives to living in a city and high population density.
Crime. No need for community involvement; everything is provided by paid municipal services. Not knowing your neighbors. Not having space to breath, or to have a woodshop, or to garden.
The list is endless. You might not care about optimizing for those properties, but lots of other people do.
> Then why aren't rents lower?
They are in plenty of places, you just don’t want to live there.
> That doesn’t mean they don’t have optimal capacities.
> The metrics you’re optimizing for are not necessarily high density and high population — like a dinner party, which would be impossible to scale and would ruin the experience if you tried.
You continue to crudely reason by analogy without mentioning what these scaling limits might be.
> You’re ignoring all other negatives to living in a city and high population density.
> Crime.
What about cities are intrinsically more crime ridden?
> No need for community involvement;
What?
> everything is provided by paid municipal services.
False, even if I wish it were :P
> Not knowing your neighbors.
Again not intrinsic at all
> Not having space to breath, or to have a woodshop, or to garden.
You are confusing floor area per capita vs land area pre capita. Even gardens can be in boxes on balconies, see New Orleans.
> The list is endless. You might not care about optimizing for those properties, but lots of other people do.
> > Then why aren't rents lower?
> They are in plenty of places, you just don’t want to live there.
Hey buddy, if "weird city apologists" like me are not representative, then we can't bid up the the rent.
Clearly a lot of people are trying to live in the major cities or they wouldn't be as high.
------
This is one of the worst comments I've ever responded to on HN. All vague NIMBY vibes, no actual reasoning whatsoever. Get that shit out of here.
> The metrics you’re optimizing for are not necessarily high density and high population — like a dinner party, which would be impossible to scale and would ruin the experience if you tried.
You continue to crudely reason by analogy without mentioning what these scaling limits might be.
> You’re ignoring all other negatives to living in a city and high population density.
> Crime.
What about cities are intrinsically more crime ridden?
> No need for community involvement;
What?
> everything is provided by paid municipal services.
False, even if I wish it were :P
> Not knowing your neighbors.
Again not intrinsic at all
> Not having space to breath, or to have a woodshop, or to garden.
You are confusing floor area per capita vs land area pre capita. Even gardens can be in boxes on balconies, see New Orleans.
> The list is endless. You might not care about optimizing for those properties, but lots of other people do.
> > Then why aren't rents lower?
> They are in plenty of places, you just don’t want to live there.
Hey buddy, if "weird city apologists" like me are not representative, then we can't bid up the the rent.
Clearly a lot of people are trying to live in the major cities or they wouldn't be as high.
------
This is one of the worst comments I've ever responded to on HN. All vague NIMBY vibes, no actual reasoning whatsoever. Get that shit out of here.
> What about cities are intrinsically more crime ridden?
Don’t know, but the stats are quite clear. Crime per capita correlates strongly with population density.
>> No need for community involvement;
> What?
Community involvement. I understand this is likely a totally foreign concept to you, but where I live, we rely almost entirely on volunteerism and community support to take care of each other.
That includes everything from municipal services like our volunteer fire department, to basic day-to-day support for others in our community.
It’s a rewarding and engaging way to live, and nothing comparable exists in a dense city; I spent 20 years living in SF and NYC before I lived here.
>> Not knowing your neighbors.
> Again not intrinsic at all
Of course it is. With 20k+ people per square mile, you can’t know your neighbors.
> You are confusing floor area per capita vs land area pre capita. Even gardens can be in boxes on balconies, see New Orleans.
Don’t piss on me and call it rain. That’s not the same and you know it very well.
> Hey buddy, if "weird city apologists" like me are not representative, then we can't bid up the the rent.
A lot of people packing themselves into a sardine can might only see the can and think that’s the limit of the universe.
That doesn’t make it true, or make you representative of the rest of us out here.
> This is one of the worst comments I've ever responded to on HN. All vague NIMBY vibes, no actual reasoning whatsoever. Get that shit out of here.
Given that you took things in this direction, allow me to respond in kind.
Grow up, learn about the world outside your tiny immature bubble, and don’t come back until you actually have something useful to share with the rest of us.
Don’t know, but the stats are quite clear. Crime per capita correlates strongly with population density.
>> No need for community involvement;
> What?
Community involvement. I understand this is likely a totally foreign concept to you, but where I live, we rely almost entirely on volunteerism and community support to take care of each other.
That includes everything from municipal services like our volunteer fire department, to basic day-to-day support for others in our community.
It’s a rewarding and engaging way to live, and nothing comparable exists in a dense city; I spent 20 years living in SF and NYC before I lived here.
>> Not knowing your neighbors.
> Again not intrinsic at all
Of course it is. With 20k+ people per square mile, you can’t know your neighbors.
> You are confusing floor area per capita vs land area pre capita. Even gardens can be in boxes on balconies, see New Orleans.
Don’t piss on me and call it rain. That’s not the same and you know it very well.
> Hey buddy, if "weird city apologists" like me are not representative, then we can't bid up the the rent.
A lot of people packing themselves into a sardine can might only see the can and think that’s the limit of the universe.
That doesn’t make it true, or make you representative of the rest of us out here.
> This is one of the worst comments I've ever responded to on HN. All vague NIMBY vibes, no actual reasoning whatsoever. Get that shit out of here.
Given that you took things in this direction, allow me to respond in kind.
Grow up, learn about the world outside your tiny immature bubble, and don’t come back until you actually have something useful to share with the rest of us.
If by "best" you mean "more job opportunities." That's always been true, and earlier migrants always hate the later migrants.
At most, you could say that the preference of living in the city vs. its suburbs flipped compared to 20 years ago, which had previously flipped when cars made suburbs commutable.
At most, you could say that the preference of living in the city vs. its suburbs flipped compared to 20 years ago, which had previously flipped when cars made suburbs commutable.
We all prefer to live in the very best city until it isn’t the very best city anymore because everybody moved there.
Well, it was the best city until just after I moved there, then it became untenable and people should stop moving there.
Well, it was the best city until just after I moved there, then it became untenable and people should stop moving there.
A good city should be able to withstand people moving there. Otherwise it was probably only good for reasons that aren't actually inherently city qualities, such as culture or access to nature or cheap land.
A good city can't withstand people moving there and maintaining the same standard of living at the same cost as earlier inhabitants.
And I'm not sure we'd want it to anyways? When prices get too high for later folks to move, then that's a great signal to actually go elsewhere.
I'm not sure why we'd want a system where everyone just migrated to one or two cities in the entire US. I've seen those cities in Asia that have populations of 15M or 20M and yeah, seems super inefficient once you get to a certain size.
And I'm not sure we'd want it to anyways? When prices get too high for later folks to move, then that's a great signal to actually go elsewhere.
I'm not sure why we'd want a system where everyone just migrated to one or two cities in the entire US. I've seen those cities in Asia that have populations of 15M or 20M and yeah, seems super inefficient once you get to a certain size.
Fair point. My ideal model for cities is what Germany does, lots of cities with a population of ~600k, medium density, lots of choice and good connections between cities.
Well by that measure “good” cities are very rare, and thousands of years of societies of dredged on building cities without a single thought towards what a “good” city should be. Maybe you should start a lecture or something?
On the contrary, labor mobility has declined precipitously since WWII, and this is a bad thing because it means people can't move to where there is a better job for them
"This city used to be perfect but now there are too many people here ruining it" – said by every resident of every city in every civilization in the world at any given point in their history.
The comparison between the Bay Area and Atlanta is interesting. “There is essentially zero correlation - the metros with the largest rent increases had added population / added housing ratios no different than metros with smaller rent increases.”
What this seems to be leaving out is the lack of much of an escape valve in the Bay Area. Where there’s density, there could be more - with zoning changes and years of red tape. Where there’s little density, geography is against much of anything. You have serious hills/mountains, the bay and the ocean dividing things up. Where there’s land with little or no housing, there’s no drinking water and/or regulations against building and/or those areas aren’t very well connected.
Atlanta seems to be one gigantic sprawl that steadily transitions from relatively low density urban to suburban. If you can’t afford/find housing in the metro proper, just go a few miles further out.
What this seems to be leaving out is the lack of much of an escape valve in the Bay Area. Where there’s density, there could be more - with zoning changes and years of red tape. Where there’s little density, geography is against much of anything. You have serious hills/mountains, the bay and the ocean dividing things up. Where there’s land with little or no housing, there’s no drinking water and/or regulations against building and/or those areas aren’t very well connected.
Atlanta seems to be one gigantic sprawl that steadily transitions from relatively low density urban to suburban. If you can’t afford/find housing in the metro proper, just go a few miles further out.
IMO why is the author leaving out the elephant in the room which is jobs? Who rents these apartments that go higher and higher in SF? people with jobs who can afford them. All of it is dependent on jobs. Prices are as high as what the wages of the local job market may bear. If houses cost a lot, its because there are a lot of high earners in the local economy buying them and affording to put in offers at these prices. Likewise with rent.
When you compare these metros and see similar growth but dramatically different prices, it does seem perplexing, until you consider the jobs. Median income is twice as high in SF than atlanta. That means there are more workers who are paid high enough wages to afford higher rents in SF, and landlords are pricing accordingly. In Atlanta there are fewer of these workers, and at a certain point it becomes difficult to price an apartment so high and still pull in prospective tenants as quickly as you'd like. As atlanta adds more high income jobs and fewer units of housing though, expect prices to rise in response and the low income workers more commonly pushed to the fringes or on top of eachother in overcrowded conditions.
When you compare these metros and see similar growth but dramatically different prices, it does seem perplexing, until you consider the jobs. Median income is twice as high in SF than atlanta. That means there are more workers who are paid high enough wages to afford higher rents in SF, and landlords are pricing accordingly. In Atlanta there are fewer of these workers, and at a certain point it becomes difficult to price an apartment so high and still pull in prospective tenants as quickly as you'd like. As atlanta adds more high income jobs and fewer units of housing though, expect prices to rise in response and the low income workers more commonly pushed to the fringes or on top of eachother in overcrowded conditions.
The last big section of the article is dedicated specifically to this idea:
> But there are other economic relationships that might have similar effects. One of these is income level - as incomes rise, demand curves shift to the right, which (all else being equal) should also cause an increase in prices. So we should expect an increase in housing prices to be partly driven by rising incomes, especially when the supply is fairly inelastic (as it is for housing.)
> But there are other economic relationships that might have similar effects. One of these is income level - as incomes rise, demand curves shift to the right, which (all else being equal) should also cause an increase in prices. So we should expect an increase in housing prices to be partly driven by rising incomes, especially when the supply is fairly inelastic (as it is for housing.)
Half the peninsula is forests and grass fields with nothing there. You can't be serious? There's huge NIMBYism preventing those areas from being developed.
Someone owns that open space land. It cannot be developed unless one buys out the owners like San Francisco Water District (most of the open space visible on 280 for a long stretch is Crystal Springs Reservoir and the drainage into it even though a lot of the water comes from far away like Hetchy Hetch.) or the Mid Peninsula Open Space District or Santa Clara Water District (several large reservoirs and the drainage into them are only for recharging the underwater aquifers - if one builds over it, the reservoirs do not recharge and subsidence will be much worse like the Central Valley) or park land. The NIMBYism is people preventing high density development in places like Palo Alto.
Nothing but pristine natural beauty? Did you think this comment through?
Is population growth a good measure of demand? You can’t show up in the local census unless you actually land a place to live. The priced-out cohort seems relevant.
Meanwhile fertility among the adult incumbents does raise the population, even though those children won’t demand housing units for at least 18 years.
Maybe San Francisco has added a bunch of professionals living like college students while Atlanta has added a bunch of actual babies.
Meanwhile fertility among the adult incumbents does raise the population, even though those children won’t demand housing units for at least 18 years.
Maybe San Francisco has added a bunch of professionals living like college students while Atlanta has added a bunch of actual babies.
There is a shortage of good housing. Humans are not meant to live in 100 year old rat trap paper thin apartments.
Tell that to the Europeans.
Unless we invent the ability to build single family homes into the 4th dimension, there is no physical way to build enough houses in good locations for everyone. And we can support only a certain amount of horizontal expansion, because eventually the cost of infrastructure and services becomes economically infeasible.
Unless we invent the ability to build single family homes into the 4th dimension, there is no physical way to build enough houses in good locations for everyone. And we can support only a certain amount of horizontal expansion, because eventually the cost of infrastructure and services becomes economically infeasible.
The europeans can't hear you though the walls of their stone apartments.
The Chinese also can't hear you through the walls of their stones apartments, but for reasons that aren't related to the physics of sound waves.
There are lots of good locations. Some people are just too picky. There's nothing wrong with living in Nashville or Cleveland. It's stupid to keep cramming more and more people into a few coastal cities.
People move to where they get hired and these coastal cities have a lot of demand for labor. If there were larger job markets in nashville or cleveland there would be larger populations. Cleveland in particular you can trace the population decline with the loss of manufacturing jobs from the downtown area and the increase of jobs in the exurbs.
> It's stupid to keep cramming more and more people into a few coastal cities.
Climate change is going to help solve that problem for us. I expect a lot of folks to be forced inland, if not by rising water, then by storms or water shortages. It's looking like we may lose large parts of the western US to heat and desertification too, but plenty of "fly over states" could end up being a lot more popular.
Climate change is going to help solve that problem for us. I expect a lot of folks to be forced inland, if not by rising water, then by storms or water shortages. It's looking like we may lose large parts of the western US to heat and desertification too, but plenty of "fly over states" could end up being a lot more popular.
Potential future political developments might make that untenable for many.
A dirt road is not very complicated to make, even the Romans who resided in the continent you mentioned were able to do a bit better than that.
Why does every city need to be a vertical one connected by state of the art high speed rail?
Those who want to live in the cities with their apartments are more than welcome to. Those who don't shouldn't be limited by some policies made by cityfolk.
Why does every city need to be a vertical one connected by state of the art high speed rail?
Those who want to live in the cities with their apartments are more than welcome to. Those who don't shouldn't be limited by some policies made by cityfolk.
Or the majority of all humans who ever lived
What is it that people say here when there's an article that claims there is a shortage of labor?
Raise wages (the price of labor) and the shortage will go away. Why doesn't the same principle apply here? We can just raise housing prices and the shortage will go away.
Raise wages (the price of labor) and the shortage will go away. Why doesn't the same principle apply here? We can just raise housing prices and the shortage will go away.
Just talked with someone in the concrete business.
There is a national shortage of Portland cement (imports restricted, new plants regulated out) and high quality flyash (these people got it from a place that used to ash from coal burning).
That can't help house prices...
There is a national shortage of Portland cement (imports restricted, new plants regulated out) and high quality flyash (these people got it from a place that used to ash from coal burning).
That can't help house prices...
One misconception in the article is that lots of people would like two houses, for example vacation homes, or work and weekend homes.
They say "At the extreme end, you can’t have more households than there are people", which I think is incorrect thinking.
It really matters when looking at houses getting built, because if those houses are holiday homes, then most analysts really screw up their analyses because the averages look like they improve, but actually the majority of people have no improvement.
They say "At the extreme end, you can’t have more households than there are people", which I think is incorrect thinking.
It really matters when looking at houses getting built, because if those houses are holiday homes, then most analysts really screw up their analyses because the averages look like they improve, but actually the majority of people have no improvement.
How many houses are AirBNBs and similar?
The US has 660,000 Airbnb listings, but of course, not all of them are 'entire place' rentals. A lot of spare rooms and guest-houses.
I live in Seattle, one of the hottest housing markets in the country. If I go to Airbnb and select "seattle" "entire place" "house" and "flexible" it comes up with 836 options. SF had roughly the same 700-800 (and a few from the larger bay area bled in).
That doesn't seem very significant in cities of roughly 750K/875K (within city limits of Seattle and SF respectively)
That doesn't seem very significant in cities of roughly 750K/875K (within city limits of Seattle and SF respectively)
Isn't land use restriction just a proxy for added housing, so with population growth being equal isn't it a proxy for the added population / added housing ratio?
Looking at things nationally is a little unclear imo. Locally the shortage is evident. In LA county back in the 1960s when prices were very affordable, the area was zoned for a population of 10 million people. Today after rezoning decades ago, its zoned for about half that, and nearly completely built out, and what do you know prices are high as a result. Capacity was available then it became scarce and prices rose.
In the graph: "Housing Units in the United States", one should point out that number of "Housing Units" is an upper bound on number of "Households".
A gap between "Housing Units" and "Households" indicates some slack. When these two curves coincides, everyone is buying at the margin.
A gap between "Housing Units" and "Households" indicates some slack. When these two curves coincides, everyone is buying at the margin.
This is the result of the way we've been lending money. Before 2008 you could easily get a loan for constructing new houses so many people did. Now new families can only get a loan for existing houses, this necessarily constrained supply and I would argue is the primary driver in the housing crunch.
Bring back land loans and the problem will solve itself.
Bring back land loans and the problem will solve itself.
A lot of areas are already built out and there's nothing left for greenfield single family home development. Zoning needs to be fixed before building can even happen. There is plenty of demand and money ready for development.
The US really is mostly empty and zoning is the way it is because the infrastructure needs to be upgraded first.
Yeah but alot of it is too inaccessible. The dense areas like LA county are built out to the mountainsides. What's left is desert that has no good access to the urban core containing the rest of the population, due to the massive mountain range in the way and only like two good routes that are nowhere near a convenient straight shot through. Its a lot easier to just think about how we can stack up people where they already are, where the jobs already are, then to go off scarring up more and more of the earth with development. There's plenty scarred already, lets just build up there.
I am surprised no one mentions the elephant in the room - rent control.
It makes it harder to discover the true rent (one has to pay a large lump sum to the previous tenant to get a rent-controlled apartment) and it discourages rental housing construction.
Do you really think that these effects are best observable indirectly, as rent and construction?!
It makes it harder to discover the true rent (one has to pay a large lump sum to the previous tenant to get a rent-controlled apartment) and it discourages rental housing construction.
Do you really think that these effects are best observable indirectly, as rent and construction?!
Why is your solution to abolish rent control rather than propose a public housing solution?
The ACA (Obamacare) extended coverage to age 26 for children because about half of young adults up to age 26 were living with their parents
Since WW2, we've torn down about a million SROs.* We have also largely zoned out of existence the ability to build new Missing Middle housing.
We have a dire shortage of a certain kind of housing: small, inexpensive housing near amenities. This is true nationwide.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy#:~:tex....