Made in America is back, leaving US factories scrambling to find workers(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Made in America is back, leaving US factories scrambling to find workers
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/09/economy/manufacturing-jobs/index.html
424 comments
> It's not that the factories are being cheap (at least not in all cases), but the gov has to step in and bring real estate price under control, this is often the biggest economic gap that hurts our generation.
This will never happen.
The only way to get affordable housing is to build a lot more housing than is currently being built. But that means:
* Higher density living
* A sustained decrease in residential property values
Both of these would be very unpopular with voters. The second point would also probably cause some serious economic problems, as a lot of peoples' and businesses' decisions are based on property values generally going up faster than the rate of inflation.
This will never happen.
The only way to get affordable housing is to build a lot more housing than is currently being built. But that means:
* Higher density living
* A sustained decrease in residential property values
Both of these would be very unpopular with voters. The second point would also probably cause some serious economic problems, as a lot of peoples' and businesses' decisions are based on property values generally going up faster than the rate of inflation.
This seems like a very Big Coastal Metro-centric view that is probably true in those areas but doesn't capture what's happening elsewhere. Home prices in Metro Detroit, for example, used to be quite reasonable and have recently exploded to being rather unaffordable for most people. There hasn't really been any population growth to speak of, so it's not clear to me why would we need or want more housing to be constructed in order for prices to be reasonable, as was the historic norm.
The places that have cheap housing stock are usually places that are undesirable to live in because of crime, an undeserved reputation for crime, and generally pathetic government services.
Metro Detroit has low housing expenses because the government provides no services. Even if we assume low crime, if a middle class family were to move to urban Detroit, because Detroit has been deliberately designed so all the rich people live in the suburbs, that family will have no decent schools to send their kids to. So they will basically be trading their child’s education and future for a cheaper rent.
That’s almost always a terrible decision. And that’s before we consider the fact that the governor of Michigan probably doesn’t give shit about Detroit or Flint or the fact that those families are drinking lead in their water. L
Metro Detroit has low housing expenses because the government provides no services. Even if we assume low crime, if a middle class family were to move to urban Detroit, because Detroit has been deliberately designed so all the rich people live in the suburbs, that family will have no decent schools to send their kids to. So they will basically be trading their child’s education and future for a cheaper rent.
That’s almost always a terrible decision. And that’s before we consider the fact that the governor of Michigan probably doesn’t give shit about Detroit or Flint or the fact that those families are drinking lead in their water. L
>Metro Detroit has low housing expenses because the government provides no services.
The parent claimed that prices in Metro Detroit have gone up and become unaffordable.
The parent claimed that prices in Metro Detroit have gone up and become unaffordable.
Detroit was designed for rich people. Unlike almost any large city, it consists of large, single family homes, each on a relatively large parcel of land. It was a city, before "the riots," that was one of the richest in the world. Everyone had cars. There was so much entertainment that new music genres came from Detroit.
Flint's water has been fixed for years.
I'm finding conflicting reports about this. Some say it's been fixed for all houses in Flint, others say there's 2000 houses where it still hasn't been fixed.
But there's apparently a lot of people who simply don't trust it because they're been lied to for too long.
But there's apparently a lot of people who simply don't trust it because they're been lied to for too long.
> The places that have cheap housing stock are usually places that are undesirable to live in because of
The leading cause for people not wanting to live somewhere is almost certainly the ability to find work (relatively) nearby. Large amounts of crime are only really a problem in sufficiently large cities (obviously with exception) and particularly poor ones, both of which stem from a lack of sustainable income:CoL ratio.
The leading cause for people not wanting to live somewhere is almost certainly the ability to find work (relatively) nearby. Large amounts of crime are only really a problem in sufficiently large cities (obviously with exception) and particularly poor ones, both of which stem from a lack of sustainable income:CoL ratio.
I don't think you've lived somewhere that has failing city services. One of the last places I rented for a while, the city was the only trash service. Optimistically my trash would get collected 3 times a month at best. Sometimes I was lucky to get trash picked up 2 times a month. We frequently had a "queue" of trash bags that had to be loaded after each trash day. I remember moving out and leaving a backlog of trash in the garage, simply because I had no way to dispose of it all.
And when the trash isn't collected on my day? Better bring the can in immediately, otherwise I'll get fined by the city for having my can out too long.
In the same place, the government mandated regulated power simply decided that they were not going to read my meter because of a "dog behind the gate" (there was no gate). Their solution was to have me pay an "estimated" charge that was several times my monthly income.
It's absolutely unlivable long term to be some place like that.
And when the trash isn't collected on my day? Better bring the can in immediately, otherwise I'll get fined by the city for having my can out too long.
In the same place, the government mandated regulated power simply decided that they were not going to read my meter because of a "dog behind the gate" (there was no gate). Their solution was to have me pay an "estimated" charge that was several times my monthly income.
It's absolutely unlivable long term to be some place like that.
It's a perverse incentive providing poorer service enables more fines. Of course the cost benefit of this approach is rarely considered by the government involved.
It's separate parts of the city, at least where I was talking about. The police issue the citation and collect the revenue, not the garbage collection part of the city.
Fundamentally it's just the same thing as any other city service: they have no actual obligation to provide any service. Your recourse is to move to another jurisdiction, which I did.
Fundamentally it's just the same thing as any other city service: they have no actual obligation to provide any service. Your recourse is to move to another jurisdiction, which I did.
Even in a cheap area in a western red state, last year, flippers bought a house, slapped a for sale sign and doubled the price the next month. Those are still sitting unsold. And now houses are being bought by flippers who are slapping an extra 2.5 times the price they got it for in the same month. None of these houses are selling. Just sitting empty.
That sort of thing should end with the end of low interest rates. When interest rates were near zero, borrowing money to purchase unused real estate could be profitable if you could sell some of it. No longer true.
Right, unless those flippers paid with straight cash, they are going to have a hard time raising more money to buy more houses, and they might go underwater on the current ones.
To see what that looks like on steroids, China's economy is at real risk of recession due to property developers running out of cash and failing to build promised developments. (Most apartments in China are purchased before construction starts, so you can buy a house and not end up with one in the end.)
To see what that looks like on steroids, China's economy is at real risk of recession due to property developers running out of cash and failing to build promised developments. (Most apartments in China are purchased before construction starts, so you can buy a house and not end up with one in the end.)
Even if investors pay cash, they need cheap interest rates to be able to sell at a profit to people who need a loan.
The average time to flip a house is 45 days to 6 months. Let’s pretend it’s going to cost $500 more a month in interest rates, that’s only $3000 more dollars. If you could do 3 in a year you’ll only lose about $10k.
They don't have infinite money to do this, not anymore. Eventually the market's going to clear or they're going out of business.
Although in my experience people are convinced there's "vacant houses" absolutely everywhere based on not seeing the lights on at night. It's not true and this is not a major contribution to the housing crisis.
Although in my experience people are convinced there's "vacant houses" absolutely everywhere based on not seeing the lights on at night. It's not true and this is not a major contribution to the housing crisis.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/303-Atherton-Ave-Atherton...
Scroll down to price and tax history.
This house has been on the market for at least 15 months and has had its price slashed by over 3 million dollars and nobody is nibbling.
It's become a bit of a running joke around here, trying to guess if it's still the most expensive listing in the local paper each week.
As an aside, the local papers are really just pages and pages of real estate ads with a few paragraphs of news sprinkled here and there. Can literally rip out half the pages and not lose a single line of news.
Scroll down to price and tax history.
This house has been on the market for at least 15 months and has had its price slashed by over 3 million dollars and nobody is nibbling.
It's become a bit of a running joke around here, trying to guess if it's still the most expensive listing in the local paper each week.
As an aside, the local papers are really just pages and pages of real estate ads with a few paragraphs of news sprinkled here and there. Can literally rip out half the pages and not lose a single line of news.
I wish the tax on flipping houses went up. Something is sleeping there that it economically makes sense. Like if I sell 1 car, ok, but if I sell 10 I need a dealer license. Same should happen with the flippers. More regulations, because they’re cutting corners all the way.
I think Airbnb rentals need to be curtailed.
I'm my county there are 65k people. It's also the largest county by size in Utah Iirc, in my city which is the biggest city in the county there's around 40k.
When we had to move it was horrifying and scary trying to find a place. There seemed to be no vacancies. Someone posted a listing on Facebook marketplace and there were 20 replies in under 5 minutes.
However, the are 400 apartments that used to presumably be college(we're a college town) or regular residential homes.
So the irksome thing is the fear of being homeless is very real even if you have money to move to another place, there aren't any. But there's 400 places that could be available which would raise supply if short term rentals were banned or taxed steeply enough that revenue for short term might only be 500 more per month instead of 3000 more.
This is happening everywhere not just my part of fantasia.
I'm my county there are 65k people. It's also the largest county by size in Utah Iirc, in my city which is the biggest city in the county there's around 40k.
When we had to move it was horrifying and scary trying to find a place. There seemed to be no vacancies. Someone posted a listing on Facebook marketplace and there were 20 replies in under 5 minutes.
However, the are 400 apartments that used to presumably be college(we're a college town) or regular residential homes.
So the irksome thing is the fear of being homeless is very real even if you have money to move to another place, there aren't any. But there's 400 places that could be available which would raise supply if short term rentals were banned or taxed steeply enough that revenue for short term might only be 500 more per month instead of 3000 more.
This is happening everywhere not just my part of fantasia.
Rather than targeting flipping, I think ownership of more than one housing unit should be taxed progressively and become prohibitive rapidly.
Under your scheme, if I own a property, it is cheaper for me to make it a single family home than to subdivide it into multiple units? Why are you punishing who make housing available to others?
I rent out one single family home that I couldn't sell when I moved and a 4 unit building where I currently live in one of the units. I never understand these comments. The 4 unit building could be torn down and made a SFH or I could build 14 units which my city desperately needs. If you keep adding rent control and payment vacations and eviction moratoriums and taxes it will be a SFH.
I think your dream is every property is tenancy in commons, but that is legal now and not popular. The reason is zoning. Rich people can compete with two families easily and by limiting the number of units that is all they need to compete with. Much more difficult to compete with 10 families if the lot is zoned for 10.
Anyway, these policy suggestions are maniacal. Go buy and build housing and you'll see how much work it is. Make a startup that makes TiC and construction easier. Go change zoning laws.
I rent out one single family home that I couldn't sell when I moved and a 4 unit building where I currently live in one of the units. I never understand these comments. The 4 unit building could be torn down and made a SFH or I could build 14 units which my city desperately needs. If you keep adding rent control and payment vacations and eviction moratoriums and taxes it will be a SFH.
I think your dream is every property is tenancy in commons, but that is legal now and not popular. The reason is zoning. Rich people can compete with two families easily and by limiting the number of units that is all they need to compete with. Much more difficult to compete with 10 families if the lot is zoned for 10.
Anyway, these policy suggestions are maniacal. Go buy and build housing and you'll see how much work it is. Make a startup that makes TiC and construction easier. Go change zoning laws.
Making construction easier just makes those guys lives easier, I doubt it'll result in more housing. Look at the red states with no regulations like Louisiana. They're terrible places to live. Nothing gets fixed with no/low regulation.
I do think his idea about high taxes on a 2nd+ home makes sense. The only problem with it is that it doesn't apply globally, only nationally. You'll have rich people have a palace in the US, Spain, and Australia instead of 3 in the US.
For my own life and approach to this, I moved around a lot and lived in austerity saving up money for a home. I don't want zoning laws to change at all because there's already too many multi-tenant buildings. Pull up the sex and gun offender maps, it's disproportionately those people. And I'm currently a tenant myself (while obeying the laws and having a clean record).
I'd rather see taxes on 2nd+ homes than zoning change. We already built 'out' with suburbs and have plenty of land available for developers to build on and make money. With the internet we no longer have to all live in a city either. It seems to me like his idea, minus the global snag, is generally on the right track.
But I am not a fan of multi-tenant housing near whatever home I purchase, just because of the sort of short-sighted people that often make up renters. They should be in homes anyway, not renting, in an ideal scenario.
I do think his idea about high taxes on a 2nd+ home makes sense. The only problem with it is that it doesn't apply globally, only nationally. You'll have rich people have a palace in the US, Spain, and Australia instead of 3 in the US.
For my own life and approach to this, I moved around a lot and lived in austerity saving up money for a home. I don't want zoning laws to change at all because there's already too many multi-tenant buildings. Pull up the sex and gun offender maps, it's disproportionately those people. And I'm currently a tenant myself (while obeying the laws and having a clean record).
I'd rather see taxes on 2nd+ homes than zoning change. We already built 'out' with suburbs and have plenty of land available for developers to build on and make money. With the internet we no longer have to all live in a city either. It seems to me like his idea, minus the global snag, is generally on the right track.
But I am not a fan of multi-tenant housing near whatever home I purchase, just because of the sort of short-sighted people that often make up renters. They should be in homes anyway, not renting, in an ideal scenario.
Do you feel that renters should be punished economically (which I think would be an inevitable consequence of that policy)?
I think amount of renters would rapidly drop off.
It's worth considering that some of us want to rent. I've moved for work a few times, so I rented because it wasn't worth the hassle of buying a house, living in it for 2 years, then selling it to move. Some people move to a big city to start a career, with the intentions of moving back towards home when they've cut their teeth.
Having the option to rent is a good thing, being forced to rent when you don't want to is a bad thing. Hopefully we can accommodate both.
Having the option to rent is a good thing, being forced to rent when you don't want to is a bad thing. Hopefully we can accommodate both.
I agree. Some to ownership. Others to homelessness.
It depends on what facilities the country would provide. Assuming it's USA it's homelessness. If it was another country, it might be provided social housing.
Why not skip the taxation and homelessness and just build the social housing?
That's also an option, however, it does not remove enough profits from land ownership rent seeking.
What should people that expect/hope to move soon do?
What should young and poor people who can't afford a down payment do?
rent...
I think /u/carom agrees with you (that renting is the best choice for many), even if they don't realize it.
Both. And IRS penalties.
This is also a nice description of the stock market over the last few years. Buy high and quickly sell higher. Works great until the music stops.
Unaffordable is relative. $150k for a 1500 sq ft house is pretty common there...Detroit needs better incomes, not more housing. On the other hand, SF needs more housing, not more income
People also need to stop flocking to the Oligarchy of cities. New and upcoming cities need to become the norm because those are the ones with a maxima of opportunity plus lower costs.
As in all industries, so long as we refuse to consider alternatives, they'll hold all the power to raise the price. It happens with brands like Apple, it happens/happened to big brand name cities like Miami, Austin, San Francisco ...
As in all industries, so long as we refuse to consider alternatives, they'll hold all the power to raise the price. It happens with brands like Apple, it happens/happened to big brand name cities like Miami, Austin, San Francisco ...
Why should residential property values increase anyway? It's not like the population growth in the US (overall) is staggering. Property prices the last couple of decades are largely artificial. They've long been disconnected from the supply and (non-speculative) demand, that's (one important reason) why the market's been unable to solve the problem. The signal is broken.
Housing prices are mostly supply and demand driven, but it's the supply and demand of location, not of the building itself.
Next to that, the maximum price is largely defined by how much people can and are willing to borrow with a typical income for the location and the type of building.
And with location being in short supply, locations (and houses) go for maximum price. With rent going up, maximum price will come down, to keep total price the same.
Next to that, the maximum price is largely defined by how much people can and are willing to borrow with a typical income for the location and the type of building.
And with location being in short supply, locations (and houses) go for maximum price. With rent going up, maximum price will come down, to keep total price the same.
> how much people can borrow
This is the main factor, and it's a result of the monetary policy of the last decades.
Since this number has been increasing compared to wages, it's becoming less sensible to build apartments for rental. But at the same time, those are needed to increase density and availability of affordable housing in attractive cities.
It's a mess.
This is the main factor, and it's a result of the monetary policy of the last decades.
Since this number has been increasing compared to wages, it's becoming less sensible to build apartments for rental. But at the same time, those are needed to increase density and availability of affordable housing in attractive cities.
It's a mess.
It's complicated. The loose monetary policy is certainly one aspect. Another is that most American city-center residential areas are still zoned at low densities. If organic growth could lead to organic densification in central locations, there would be less impact to the housing market, but American zoning is stuck in the aftermath of WWII and is loathe to densify.
Yep. One study^1 estimates that zoning and land use restrictions across the country leads to an (unnecessary) increase in housing costs worth 2% of the US GDP (about $400 billion).
[1]: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
[1]: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
Environmental regulations and such also artificially increase the price of older buildings because you can buy existing buildings that don't fulfil new regulations but can't build new ones. This is effectively a top-down supply restriction of low quality housing.
> Why should residential property values increase anyway?
Total non-worker consumption is equal to the unconsumed portion of total worker production, the worker-to-retiree ratio is getting worse each year, and total productivity gains are stalling. Working-age adults have to get squeezed somehow on pain of retirees voting different policies, and housing/rent/mortgage is the least flexible in terms of household budget and least politically obvious pathway for it.
Total non-worker consumption is equal to the unconsumed portion of total worker production, the worker-to-retiree ratio is getting worse each year, and total productivity gains are stalling. Working-age adults have to get squeezed somehow on pain of retirees voting different policies, and housing/rent/mortgage is the least flexible in terms of household budget and least politically obvious pathway for it.
> It's not like the population growth ... is staggering
It is staggering. California in 1990 was 29 million. In 2020, it's 39 million. If this is not staggering, I don't know what is.
It is staggering. California in 1990 was 29 million. In 2020, it's 39 million. If this is not staggering, I don't know what is.
Well for one thing houses have gotten much bigger and nicer.
Because everybody wants to live in the same place. You can get houses very cheap in places that are not popular.
it's the underlying FinTech of housing loans that is the systematic driver of high house prices.
To get low house prices we would have to destroy Fintech of house loans which will not happen.
To get low house prices we would have to destroy Fintech of house loans which will not happen.
> The second point would also probably cause some serious economic problems, as a lot of peoples' and businesses' decisions are based on property values generally going up faster than the rate of inflation.
But that's a big problem. If housing prices go up faster than inflation, then eventually most of our costs of living will be housing. And here we are, apparently.
I think it's also a big problem that housing costs are ignored in inflation calculations. I think that has lead to the rise in housing costs in general having been ignored. And now it's become a problem.
But that's a big problem. If housing prices go up faster than inflation, then eventually most of our costs of living will be housing. And here we are, apparently.
I think it's also a big problem that housing costs are ignored in inflation calculations. I think that has lead to the rise in housing costs in general having been ignored. And now it's become a problem.
People have an idea that the suburbs were this magical place where you had cheap housing, fast commutes, large gardens and a family of 6 children.
Just because you see it in a sitcom doesn't mean it's true. Or to quote the guys who did the big bang theory: "We went to the apartments of real physics post grads and they were too depressing to put on television." The same was true for suburbs in the 1950s which could be afforded by a family of four with only the father working.
Just because you see it in a sitcom doesn't mean it's true. Or to quote the guys who did the big bang theory: "We went to the apartments of real physics post grads and they were too depressing to put on television." The same was true for suburbs in the 1950s which could be afforded by a family of four with only the father working.
> that means
Density is unavoidable. But residential values can freeze or barely grow in nominal terms. That won’t cause a crisis.
Public housing built to be sold at an affordable price, not let to wards of the state, maybe with an aim at redeveloping blighted areas, is a model I’m fond of. (See Roosevelt Island.)
Density is unavoidable. But residential values can freeze or barely grow in nominal terms. That won’t cause a crisis.
Public housing built to be sold at an affordable price, not let to wards of the state, maybe with an aim at redeveloping blighted areas, is a model I’m fond of. (See Roosevelt Island.)
Every real dollar you add back to worker consumption via housing affordability measures is a real dollar you remove from non-worker consumption via a reduction in investment income via rents, mortgages, and housing sales. Housing is a market where there's extremely little productivity gains available for improving the size of the pie as a whole - at best you can improve energy efficiency, commuting waste, or other non-valuable housing related consumption. But if all you're doing is making housing more financially affordable, you're going to have to deal with the fact that Peter's financial savings is Paul's lost rent-seeking, and Paul is generally a pensioner that votes.
> Housing is a market where there's extremely little productivity gains available for improving the size of the pie as a whole
Sure, as long as you believe you must never change the laws around housing. In that case, you can stop the whole conversation there.
On the other hand if you wanted to actually do something you could pass a federal law or constitutional amendment giving individuals the right to posses no more than one home without undue restriction. For example, construction codes simply get more and more strict across the nation each year. For the simple reason that the industry lobbies for it, as it increases their opportunity for profit. There's no actual need for this as it isn't like humanity hasn't been building homes for thousands of years.
Sure, as long as you believe you must never change the laws around housing. In that case, you can stop the whole conversation there.
On the other hand if you wanted to actually do something you could pass a federal law or constitutional amendment giving individuals the right to posses no more than one home without undue restriction. For example, construction codes simply get more and more strict across the nation each year. For the simple reason that the industry lobbies for it, as it increases their opportunity for profit. There's no actual need for this as it isn't like humanity hasn't been building homes for thousands of years.
> Housing is a market where there's extremely little productivity gains available for improving the size of the pie as a whole - at best you can improve energy efficiency, commuting waste, or other non-valuable housing related consumption.
If housing prices are rising in the area then generally (not always) there's more demand for housing than supply. Increased density generally leads to increased economic activity (more housing = more residents = more commercial activity = higher tax revenue.) Viewing the housing market in isolation is a mistake.
> But if all you're doing is making housing more financially affordable, you're going to have to deal with the fact that Peter's financial savings is Paul's lost rent-seeking, and Paul is generally a pensioner that votes.
Yes and that's the problem. Veto powers in most residential politics tend to be strong and so Paul's veto generally overrides Paul's demand.
If housing prices are rising in the area then generally (not always) there's more demand for housing than supply. Increased density generally leads to increased economic activity (more housing = more residents = more commercial activity = higher tax revenue.) Viewing the housing market in isolation is a mistake.
> But if all you're doing is making housing more financially affordable, you're going to have to deal with the fact that Peter's financial savings is Paul's lost rent-seeking, and Paul is generally a pensioner that votes.
Yes and that's the problem. Veto powers in most residential politics tend to be strong and so Paul's veto generally overrides Paul's demand.
How about productivity of local businesses who can now find workers more easily, or at all, for the salary the businesses can afford?
I don’t think the public can building housing well. Public housing projects aren’t typically seen as desirable places to live.
Some public sectors have success with this (e.g. Singapore, Vienna)
I think the main issue I have with it as a proposal is that the fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level, and it's not ethical to embark on such an endeavor if there is no solid 60-vote bloc in the Senate and poor people are at risk of getting the rug from pulled out from under them. (See how our current housing authorities are doing to know how that plays out.)
I think the main issue I have with it as a proposal is that the fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level, and it's not ethical to embark on such an endeavor if there is no solid 60-vote bloc in the Senate and poor people are at risk of getting the rug from pulled out from under them. (See how our current housing authorities are doing to know how that plays out.)
> fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level
Some USA resort towns and counties do it. They are flush with vacationer tax dollars and short labor, so local gov't builds housing mainly for workers.
The feds don't have the funds to do this, though the feds can borrow from the future apparently indefinitely.
Some USA resort towns and counties do it. They are flush with vacationer tax dollars and short labor, so local gov't builds housing mainly for workers.
The feds don't have the funds to do this, though the feds can borrow from the future apparently indefinitely.
Most states and localities cannot borrow anywhere near as much before testing the markets. (For a non-state example of how horribly that can turn out, look at Puerto Rico.)
Puerto Rico is mis-managed in budget, revenue, and planning. Also, not a USA State.
Some USA ski towns have tens of millions banked and are using that to build.
Am interested in learning why you think USA feds can do these local housing projects. Feds run massive fiscal deficits.
Some USA ski towns have tens of millions banked and are using that to build.
Am interested in learning why you think USA feds can do these local housing projects. Feds run massive fiscal deficits.
So pass laws to provide incentives for bare bones low income construction, and disincentivize excessive luxury construction. In a lot of places you can't build unless you also build a certain amount of parking, the same approach could be applied to affordable apartments.
We also need laws against large scale speculative home purchases. An individual having a vacation home/rental unit or two is one thing, but home flippers and large scale property rental corps are a big problem.
We also need laws against large scale speculative home purchases. An individual having a vacation home/rental unit or two is one thing, but home flippers and large scale property rental corps are a big problem.
Maybe "desirable" isn't the right word, but I walked through several public projects recently in my area and they are much safer and better maintained than the historic image. Talking to people there, it was evident that they were not the "freeloaders" so often portrayed by a certain group of politicians either - many were there because of health care costs and other calamities that were beyond the person's control. I was there in the middle of the day and it was obvious that a whole lot of people were out at work - again, not the image so often unfairly portrayed of the unemployed freeloader. The houses and grounds were clean and well-maintained, more so than the poorer neighborhoods surrounding them.
counter-example. How much of suburbia was built on the GI bill?
There is more than one architype of public works projects
There is more than one architype of public works projects
GI Bill suburbia was built by private home builders and contractors, not the government. They were not public works. The government subsidized the loans.
Government loan subsidies, government loan guarantees, additional subsidies in the mortgage interest rate deduction, local government paying for infrastructure (roads/utilities), ...
perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
Also, say a city or state government wants to build a low-cost/low-income housing (or take historical examples if you will), the type of undesirable stuff the parent was talking about. Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor? Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
Also, say a city or state government wants to build a low-cost/low-income housing (or take historical examples if you will), the type of undesirable stuff the parent was talking about. Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor? Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Of course the government subcontracts the work out to do the actual construction. By the government has no incentive to build livable housing. Government employees don’t live in the housing. The government doesn’t have a business reputation to uphold. As crazy as it might sound, those who live in a community just might have a better understanding of how it should be developed compare to those on the outside.
>...perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
You're taking an incorrect definition of "public works". Words have meaning: "Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community."
Suburbia was not constructed by the government, and is not for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. It is for the use of a private owner.
Suburbia is by definition not a public works. QED.
>Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
Many times it's a mix of both. Cities and states employ thousands of plumbers, electricians, etc. Nonetheless, if you get a house constructed by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC, but they subcontract a large percent of the actual construction out to subcontractors, you'd still say your house was built by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC. That's who you'd go to for warranty issues, for construction progress, etc. Same applies for the government and public works.
>And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor?
For the same reasons private industry is better at building practically... everything.
>Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Government for sure because they can save money and face zero liability issues down the line. Insanely impossible to be fired so you can be lazy and cut corners all day and you'll still keep your job, and they projects are constantly cutting corners to save on materials. Then after you poison (Camp Lejeun) thousands of people you just shrug because no one goes to jail.
You're taking an incorrect definition of "public works". Words have meaning: "Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community."
Suburbia was not constructed by the government, and is not for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. It is for the use of a private owner.
Suburbia is by definition not a public works. QED.
>Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
Many times it's a mix of both. Cities and states employ thousands of plumbers, electricians, etc. Nonetheless, if you get a house constructed by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC, but they subcontract a large percent of the actual construction out to subcontractors, you'd still say your house was built by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC. That's who you'd go to for warranty issues, for construction progress, etc. Same applies for the government and public works.
>And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor?
For the same reasons private industry is better at building practically... everything.
>Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Government for sure because they can save money and face zero liability issues down the line. Insanely impossible to be fired so you can be lazy and cut corners all day and you'll still keep your job, and they projects are constantly cutting corners to save on materials. Then after you poison (Camp Lejeun) thousands of people you just shrug because no one goes to jail.
We can look to the communities the Soviets built mid-century. They were organized around the concept of community, something sorely lacking in big metro urban neighborhoods.
https://www.rbth.com/history/333420-socialist-communal-citie...
https://www.rbth.com/history/333420-socialist-communal-citie...
One solution would be to discourage the use of housing as a vehicle for investment, perhaps by requiring that in most cases the owner lives in the property.
One solution would be to discourage the use of housing as a vehicle for investment
Sweden does this through various policies. The main outcome is that finding a rental apartment is virtually impossible.
Sweden does this through various policies. The main outcome is that finding a rental apartment is virtually impossible.
That would make it much harder to move, because you end up owning two houses when you do that. Also, some people like renting and have enough problems finding rental housing.
Literally you just have to build more housing. It's fine to say this.
Literally you just have to build more housing. It's fine to say this.
What about people that prefer to rent for whatever reason? Or have to because their financial situation? These options would become more rare, likely more expensive.
I personally like the Georgist take on this one (Lars Doucet on substack has a good explanation).
The basic idea is to tax not the house, but the underlying land value.
The basic idea is to tax not the house, but the underlying land value.
> Both of these would be very unpopular with voters.
We need to find a way to never be in this situation again. For example, create Special Economic Zones where by law housing construction is expected to constantly be happening, and it is impossible to prevent it by law.
We need to find a way to never be in this situation again. For example, create Special Economic Zones where by law housing construction is expected to constantly be happening, and it is impossible to prevent it by law.
One of the founding principles of this country is “no taxation without representation.” Disregarding the will of the voters seems to run contrary to that.
Pro-housing principles have been quite popular with California voters; Scott Wiener (the state senator with the most aggressive upzoning bills) is the most popular elected official in SF even. It's just they're only popular at the state level, not the local level - that's what it means to be a NIMBY. But none of the major YIMBY policies have lost anyone an election yet that I know of.
If the law obliges construction to happen, and the law prevents it from being prevented, then the will of the people is expressed legislatively. This would normally be considered an expression of representation. This kind of a SEZ could be terminated if the relevant people elected relevant representatives to the relevant legislature.
The will of the voters is sometimes different depending on what you ask them.
If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Similarly with NIMBYism, people say they want houses built and support candidates who say they'll fix the housing crisis, but if you ask them about some specific planned development close to them, they say no.
I have no idea what the will of the voters actually is on this issue. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but most people are against all solutions.
If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Similarly with NIMBYism, people say they want houses built and support candidates who say they'll fix the housing crisis, but if you ask them about some specific planned development close to them, they say no.
I have no idea what the will of the voters actually is on this issue. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but most people are against all solutions.
> If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Source? I think most people are going to understand that speech you disagree with is part of freedom of speech.
Source? I think most people are going to understand that speech you disagree with is part of freedom of speech.
If the speech gets offensive enough, you can get people to say it shouldn't be protected.
Is Fred Phelps holding a sign saying "Fags die, God laughs" at a military funeral protected speech? It was non-obvious enough that it went to the Supreme Court, meaning a lot of people thought he had no right to say that.
Do you have the right to burn a US flag in protest? There literally were laws banning that until the Supreme Court said that's protected.
I don't think it'd be hard to find people who are still in favor of a flag burning ban, or who want to ban offensive speech near funerals.
I don't have statistics but anyone who was around for those examples knows there were plenty of people on both sides.
Is Fred Phelps holding a sign saying "Fags die, God laughs" at a military funeral protected speech? It was non-obvious enough that it went to the Supreme Court, meaning a lot of people thought he had no right to say that.
Do you have the right to burn a US flag in protest? There literally were laws banning that until the Supreme Court said that's protected.
I don't think it'd be hard to find people who are still in favor of a flag burning ban, or who want to ban offensive speech near funerals.
I don't have statistics but anyone who was around for those examples knows there were plenty of people on both sides.
Higher density is not actually required. There are hundreds of square miles of unbuilt land even within 30 minutes driving distance of Palo Alto and the rest of Silicon Valley. It's just not possible to build there due to environmental regulations, government ownership of the land, and so on.
As for sustained decrease in residential property values, yes, that is the real problem. Voters who own homes won't vote for policies that let everyone else have a cheaper home. It is going to need to happen in some other state, and that state will need to draw away so many workers that California house prices fall anyway, and then maybe the policies will change.
As for sustained decrease in residential property values, yes, that is the real problem. Voters who own homes won't vote for policies that let everyone else have a cheaper home. It is going to need to happen in some other state, and that state will need to draw away so many workers that California house prices fall anyway, and then maybe the policies will change.
The density is required if you don't think that commuting for a hour by a slowly moving car is the best use of everyone's time, and building and maintaining a huge highway is the best use of your limited tax funds.
Density + public transportation save a lot, on both counts. You may not be a fan of Manhattan, but 1/10 of its density, aka low-rises, already make proper urban infrastructure sustainable.
Density + public transportation save a lot, on both counts. You may not be a fan of Manhattan, but 1/10 of its density, aka low-rises, already make proper urban infrastructure sustainable.
Is density or the huge highway required? We're commuting to a huge number of white collar jobs completely unnecessarily. Move information, not people.
So much property value is tied up in this assumption we need to be close to jobs to work and it's all a lie. Many of the jobs that do require an in-person presence are only located where they're located because the assumption is the jobs need to be there to serve the workers who don't need to be there in the first place. I don't think any part of how we're making cities actually makes sense, because they're designed for the world of 2020, and not the world of 2030.
People have this mindset that's outmoded, they think about how to get the workers into offices. The thought now should be how to get goods and services to the workers.
So much property value is tied up in this assumption we need to be close to jobs to work and it's all a lie. Many of the jobs that do require an in-person presence are only located where they're located because the assumption is the jobs need to be there to serve the workers who don't need to be there in the first place. I don't think any part of how we're making cities actually makes sense, because they're designed for the world of 2020, and not the world of 2030.
People have this mindset that's outmoded, they think about how to get the workers into offices. The thought now should be how to get goods and services to the workers.
Density appears to be required because letting people do remote work causes them to live in cities /even more/. When they do spread out, it doesn't encourage low density, but rather even far out places like Spokane become unaffordable.
Besides that, low density suburbia is a very artificial post-WW2 invention, traditional villages were dense enough.
Besides that, low density suburbia is a very artificial post-WW2 invention, traditional villages were dense enough.
Indeed so; I've been to small towns in western Poland which are many centuries old, and they are pretty dense, sometimes downright tight. I've been to a number of small towns in Ireland and England, and they look properly urban, nothing like suburban sprawl.
Let's look at projections for the world of 2030, shall we?
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...
Most jobs are not office jobs and cannot be done remotely.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...
Most jobs are not office jobs and cannot be done remotely.
As a software engineer, I work from home, and it's OK. Living in a dense city means I can walk to a park, or a grocery store, or a to my doctor, but it's a just a nice bonus.
But the article is talking about factories, blue-collar jobs that require actual physical presence.
But the article is talking about factories, blue-collar jobs that require actual physical presence.
Factory jobs are a small fraction of the overall economy. Take the white collar cars off the road and you've freed up capacity. Then build roads for industrial purposes.
I do some work with blue collar industrial clients now and again as a favour. I work remote and contract out the various things I can't do remotely to an MSP or various local installers. A factory has an accounting department, it has managers pushing paper all day (although these usually can only be hybrid remote positions), that sort of thing.
You certainly need to build a freaking road to the facility and arrange for the transport of workers but honestly congestion on these roads isn't as much as an issue as disrepair and maintenance because of the heavy trucks driving across them. Talk to anybody running anything industrial and they want to hire some white collar people to automate some stuff to either cut labor costs or expand the business, hopefully the latter, and these people are likely to work hybrid.
I guess you are right and I should give more consideration to industrial uses of transportation infrastructure which are just as relevant as ever.
I do some work with blue collar industrial clients now and again as a favour. I work remote and contract out the various things I can't do remotely to an MSP or various local installers. A factory has an accounting department, it has managers pushing paper all day (although these usually can only be hybrid remote positions), that sort of thing.
You certainly need to build a freaking road to the facility and arrange for the transport of workers but honestly congestion on these roads isn't as much as an issue as disrepair and maintenance because of the heavy trucks driving across them. Talk to anybody running anything industrial and they want to hire some white collar people to automate some stuff to either cut labor costs or expand the business, hopefully the latter, and these people are likely to work hybrid.
I guess you are right and I should give more consideration to industrial uses of transportation infrastructure which are just as relevant as ever.
Where I live (in Europe), every factory has buses which ferries the workers to and from the factory even from remote villages. It isn't hard to do.
> and building and maintaining a huge highway is the best use of your limited tax funds.
And once again, the growth ponzi scheme strikes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
And once again, the growth ponzi scheme strikes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
Low density areas do not produce enough property taxes to fund the infrastructure required to maintain them. They're not sustainable.
Pretty sure the taxes in this area would. And besides, most of the USA is low density. Why does this specific area need to remain unbuilt?
Pretty sure based on what?
"As a young engineer, I remember sitting in a city council meeting where a senior colleague presented my analysis on the massive backlog of road maintenance the community was facing. My estimation was that the city's capital budget needed to be increased by five times just to keep from falling further behind"
"Analyses of new developments suggest that a minimum of $20 in private wealth is needed to sustain, for the long term, each dollar of public infrastructure investment. A ratio of 40:1 would provide an optimal buffer for future uncertainty. Yet, when we examine modern North American localities, it is common to find ratios of 1:1 or worse. That is, in the current development pattern, it takes one dollar of public infrastructure investment to create one dollar of private wealth. That’s a formula for economic disaster."
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/22/the-more-we-gr...
"As a young engineer, I remember sitting in a city council meeting where a senior colleague presented my analysis on the massive backlog of road maintenance the community was facing. My estimation was that the city's capital budget needed to be increased by five times just to keep from falling further behind"
"Analyses of new developments suggest that a minimum of $20 in private wealth is needed to sustain, for the long term, each dollar of public infrastructure investment. A ratio of 40:1 would provide an optimal buffer for future uncertainty. Yet, when we examine modern North American localities, it is common to find ratios of 1:1 or worse. That is, in the current development pattern, it takes one dollar of public infrastructure investment to create one dollar of private wealth. That’s a formula for economic disaster."
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/22/the-more-we-gr...
The Strong Towns argument is not convincing. Most local governments spend far more on public safety than on road maintenance. The roads are generally fine. Sure public works department employees can always point to long lists of needed maintenance work, but if it takes a few weeks to fix a pothole on some residential street that's not a crisis.
This is just bad reasoning. How much they spend on other items is irrelevant to whether the amount they spend on roads is sufficient. The effects of deferred maintenance take years or decades to show up. Then a bridge collapses or a road needs to be completely redone and there’s no money to fix it.
The same effect scales to other services anyway. You need more cops to cover 50 square miles than 10 square miles and if the areas is low density it’s producing less $ / square mile in taxes so they can’t afford it.
The same effect scales to other services anyway. You need more cops to cover 50 square miles than 10 square miles and if the areas is low density it’s producing less $ / square mile in taxes so they can’t afford it.
No that's not how it works. Many low-density areas have very few law enforcement officers, and still have low crime rates. Whereas some of the densest cities actually need more cops because the residents act out in antisocial ways.
Strong Towns just cherry picks data to support their preferred political narrative. I actually agree with some of their recommendations, but let's not be fooled into believing that they're doing high quality analysis.
Strong Towns just cherry picks data to support their preferred political narrative. I actually agree with some of their recommendations, but let's not be fooled into believing that they're doing high quality analysis.
Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't change the fact that "we spend more on public safety so the amount we spend on roads is enough" is straight nonsense. They are two different things with different requirements. How much is spent on one has nothing to do with how much needs to be spent on the other. You can underspend on roads for quite a while before things start obviously falling apart. People notice pretty quickly if the cops or ambulance aren't showing up though.
Since this area seems to mean Silicon Valley, you're aware of Prop 13, yes? Ain't nobody paying property taxes here.
The main limit there is usually transportation infrastructure, but there is not exactly room for more lanes on any of the Bay Area's highways, let alone space for new highways.
Rail scales better, but that's also not really getting a move on anytime soon, and in any case rail scales better if density is high development and nearby.
Rail scales better, but that's also not really getting a move on anytime soon, and in any case rail scales better if density is high development and nearby.
It's not strictly required, but it is desired if you don't want to keep cutting into nature. Not to mention more efficient all-around. Car-dominant suburban sprawl is a terrible model in the long run for a variety of reasons.
Ah yes, just tear down the redwood forest.
Or farmland, because that's just unused space, right?
That's how it's been seen traditionally in the US, unfortunately. Silicon Valley in California used to be the site of the largest fruit producing area in the world from the beginning of the 20th century until the 1960s, but technology turned out to be more profitable. The Orlando area in Florida was also a major citrus producer until the 1970s and the coming of Disney World and other theme parks that located there to get traffic from Disney visitors.
What about the empty, smelly, marshland? Sure there may be some limited wildlife there but what about you know, people who want a house affordable enough to have a family?
Limited wildlife in wetlands? No. Wetlands are among the most richly bio diverse ecological niches. Humans regard themselves as somehow outside the system in which they evolved.
Smelly? The presence of volatile compounds interacting with your olfactory receptors that trigger certain aversive reactions is a poor justification for destroying a natural habitat.
Smelly? The presence of volatile compounds interacting with your olfactory receptors that trigger certain aversive reactions is a poor justification for destroying a natural habitat.
The smell they're referring to is probably the Milpitas Stench, which is probably coming from a San Jose garbage dump. It is quite… noticeable.
https://milpitas-odor.info/about/
https://milpitas-odor.info/about/
There are millions of square kilometers of undeveloped land that are not within 30 minutes of the most expensive real estate in the USA. Preserve it elsewhere, let families have homes here.
I think something missing here is that people often want to live in urban areas. For many young people, these are the places where all the interesting things are happening. You're always surrounded by other people and culture. Prices are high in these areas because they are so attractive; we need to increase supply to meet it
people don't just want to live in cities, they want to live in a few specific neighborhoods within those cities.
for example, a peculiar thing has been happening in baltimore. average housing prices have been steadily going up while the population is actually shrinking. there is a glut of supply citywide, with entire blocks sitting vacant. but the competition over units in a few cool neighborhoods is enough to totally offset that.
we could provide satisfactory homes and services to everyone in america, if we made it a priority. but we will never be able to build enough supply in the most desirable neighborhoods. people just need to get over that.
for example, a peculiar thing has been happening in baltimore. average housing prices have been steadily going up while the population is actually shrinking. there is a glut of supply citywide, with entire blocks sitting vacant. but the competition over units in a few cool neighborhoods is enough to totally offset that.
we could provide satisfactory homes and services to everyone in america, if we made it a priority. but we will never be able to build enough supply in the most desirable neighborhoods. people just need to get over that.
> * Higher density living
USA is non-uniformly populated. The middle of the country is nowhere as dense as the coasts. Our goal as a society should be better land use across the whole country. That would require incentives on the government level.
USA is non-uniformly populated. The middle of the country is nowhere as dense as the coasts. Our goal as a society should be better land use across the whole country. That would require incentives on the government level.
It doesn't mean high(er) density living at all (at least not how it is understood in the rest of the world). The US is mostly empty space, no flats or whatever required.
Higher density happens because investors want to maximize the use of land in desirable areas, not because land is unavailable or difficult to zone. I live in Bucharest, a city of incredibly high RE development, and most of the new buildings are more compressed and crowded in on each other than they were under communism, which is a common occurrence in the former Soviet satellite states [1].
From my window, I can see across the Delta Vacaresti, a wildlife reserve that was once a neighborhood that Ceausescu just had time to raze to the ground for some new insane scheme before his people shot him. Across the way, I see three massive multistory residential blocks going up, crowded together like pedestrians on a metro train at rush hour - only one side of the front-most block has any view of the Delta, while the others literally live in each other's shadows, lacking sunlight.
By contrast, communist design principles designed a whole neighborhood, with schools and hospitals and doctors, with the 'megablocks' seen as small cities in themselves that needed dedicated support systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eIxUuuJX7Y
From my window, I can see across the Delta Vacaresti, a wildlife reserve that was once a neighborhood that Ceausescu just had time to raze to the ground for some new insane scheme before his people shot him. Across the way, I see three massive multistory residential blocks going up, crowded together like pedestrians on a metro train at rush hour - only one side of the front-most block has any view of the Delta, while the others literally live in each other's shadows, lacking sunlight.
By contrast, communist design principles designed a whole neighborhood, with schools and hospitals and doctors, with the 'megablocks' seen as small cities in themselves that needed dedicated support systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eIxUuuJX7Y
Everyone loves to talk about fixing the supply issue, but no one wants to touch the demand issue.
In what sense? Zero population growth, or incentivizing corporations to not congregate in only like six metro areas in the entire US or what?
In most developed countries experiencing population growth, it's mainly driven by immigration. That's pretty easy for a nation state to control.
For what it's worth, current policies in Europe may already be enough[0]:
> The EU-27’s population is projected to increase from 446.8 million in 2019 and peak to 449.3 million in 2026
The situation in China is apparently similar[1]:
> China’s population will peak in 2022 due to negative natural growth
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/28a1f975-8374-4b87-b2ba-2e60ddf20...
> The EU-27’s population is projected to increase from 446.8 million in 2019 and peak to 449.3 million in 2026
The situation in China is apparently similar[1]:
> China’s population will peak in 2022 due to negative natural growth
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/28a1f975-8374-4b87-b2ba-2e60ddf20...
No, the lack of supply was intentionally created to stop "the demand issue", by which they meant "other people having children". And California certainly doesn't produce enough houses for even their own children; talk to any suburban boomer and they'll tell you 1. their kids have moved out of state and 2. their kids don't deserve to live near them and had better become millionaires first.
This was popularized by 70s books like Cities as Growth Engines and The Population Bomb, which IIRC also caused China to ruin their demographics by introducing the one-child program. It was recently parodied in movies by that Thanos guy. It is not your new idea that everyone else is ignoring.
This was popularized by 70s books like Cities as Growth Engines and The Population Bomb, which IIRC also caused China to ruin their demographics by introducing the one-child program. It was recently parodied in movies by that Thanos guy. It is not your new idea that everyone else is ignoring.
> * Higher density living
i don't think it'd actually be that unpopular IF it comes with decent public transport + walkability + mixed use and such, like in europe.
I HIGHLY doubt it is possible to do in the near term in the US.
i don't think it'd actually be that unpopular IF it comes with decent public transport + walkability + mixed use and such, like in europe.
I HIGHLY doubt it is possible to do in the near term in the US.
Why not? I ask this as european that lives in an appartement close to city center. We have about 32 families in the space where you have typically a big us house. And no I don’t live in poverty - 100sqm rooftop, own garage spot and really enjoy my 10min cycling time everywhere.
I work daily with people from Boston. I think downtown is not that different in terms of willingness to have similar lifestyle.
I think many don’t know how good density living means and it would be totally doable also in the US, not overnight. I guess there is still a big of a perception: Without your big house and garden your are nothing/« you didn’t make it » . Once this is gone I guess it could go fast.
I work daily with people from Boston. I think downtown is not that different in terms of willingness to have similar lifestyle.
I think many don’t know how good density living means and it would be totally doable also in the US, not overnight. I guess there is still a big of a perception: Without your big house and garden your are nothing/« you didn’t make it » . Once this is gone I guess it could go fast.
Stating your living conditions without naming rent/mortgage, income and location isn't very useful. Average Joe can't find a place in most cities, and educated, young Europeans are struggling to earn median while being pushed to work in the cities.
European cities also aren't that dense, generally speaking. Building high is an exception and only pushed recently, in places with infrastructure already present.
European cities also aren't that dense, generally speaking. Building high is an exception and only pushed recently, in places with infrastructure already present.
>European cities also aren't that dense, generally speaking. Building high is an exception and only pushed recently, in places with infrastructure already present.
Buildings 5 stories high get similar or higher density than anything but the most extreme high rise neighbourhoods and are a better place to live. Easily get to 15k per km2 without highrises.
Buildings 5 stories high get similar or higher density than anything but the most extreme high rise neighbourhoods and are a better place to live. Easily get to 15k per km2 without highrises.
100sqm rooftop, own garage spot and really enjoy my 10min cycling time everywhere.
In many major European cities, a place like that will cost a lot more than nice house in the suburbs. In fact we ended up moving to a house in the suburbs in large part because because we could not afford an apartment like that.
In many major European cities, a place like that will cost a lot more than nice house in the suburbs. In fact we ended up moving to a house in the suburbs in large part because because we could not afford an apartment like that.
We rent - unable to buy such an apartment. But yeah it is not in a major EU city only smaller 200k inhabitants but international and well connected.
Because the supporting structure isn't there in the US. Kinda a chicken and egg problem, cant squeeze more people in because parking but public transport isn't worth it for low density areas.
High density living done in Europe is only a few cities and most of them aren't much of a step up. Realistically people would have to look at Tokyo-scale high density living as a starting point to tackle most complaints.
Good examples of high-density living are not found within the EU. For this you should look at f.e. singapore.
What about.... building a massive new City somewhere?
A new City for the Wealthy, with modern infrastructure.
Another new City that is designed for Manufacturing, with new housing and infrastructure based on those needs.
A new City for the Wealthy, with modern infrastructure.
Another new City that is designed for Manufacturing, with new housing and infrastructure based on those needs.
It is called a suburb. You can plan whatever you want, and people might or might not come. But if it isn't next to an existing city nobody will come.
Closed cities, like those in Russia/Soviet union are exception. Either people were forced to come or the incentives were too high to refuse.
Americans aren’t going to voluntarily move to high density housing to work in factories. It’s just not the culture.
They will if the pay is good enough. See: tech workers.
Tech is a bubble that's about to burst. No one is going to pay factory workers anywhere close to that.
Bingo! Real estate prices and rents are so high precisely because this is what the majority (that is, homeowners) want: they want their home equity to go up. And they will vote for whoever makes it more likely.
Want to solve it? Scrap democracy (so no one gives a damn what people want), or scrap market economy (so the Party will provide free housing to everyone). I'd much rather stick with expensive rent.
Want to solve it? Scrap democracy (so no one gives a damn what people want), or scrap market economy (so the Party will provide free housing to everyone). I'd much rather stick with expensive rent.
Or just have everybody kill everybody else. Reduce the population and you reduce demand for housing, food, energy, and all those other pesky necessities of life that have become too expensive.
/s, but history shows that this is how things usually end.
/s, but history shows that this is how things usually end.
Yup. I see this as increasing pressures. What matters is the rate of increase.
Everyone is competing to ensure they are not at the bottom. But:
- will the pressure rise slowly enough to simply pressure those at the bottom to have less children.
- will the pressure rise cause those at the bottom to explode. IE riots in the streets etc
I think the second option as more likely. By definition, those in power are out of touch with those at the bottom.
Everyone is competing to ensure they are not at the bottom. But:
- will the pressure rise slowly enough to simply pressure those at the bottom to have less children.
- will the pressure rise cause those at the bottom to explode. IE riots in the streets etc
I think the second option as more likely. By definition, those in power are out of touch with those at the bottom.
It's a coordination problem. They'll vote for people who prevent it locally, but if you move power a bit up to the state level there isn't nearly so much interest in preventing it, which is why other countries don't have this issue outside the Anglosphere.
Even moving from per-district to at-large city council members is enough to improve things, though we seem to be moving in the other direction there.
Even moving from per-district to at-large city council members is enough to improve things, though we seem to be moving in the other direction there.
I will never understand how today's industry productivity is the highest it has ever been, yet workers wages/purchasing power hasn't followed, it even got reduced. What the heck is going on?
The upper limit for wages is how much the work produces. The actual wage is determined by how many other people will do the job for less.
This is why when economists say wages are linked to productivity it is true, but only in the same way my cars theoretical top speed limited to the speed of light...
This is why when economists say wages are linked to productivity it is true, but only in the same way my cars theoretical top speed limited to the speed of light...
Isn't it because there's a ton of new supply of labor from around the world?
Simple: A lot of the productivity gains of the last decades is thanks to globalization, automation and digitalization - basically, many high-paying manual jobs were eliminated by machines, a lot of lower-paying manual jobs (or environmentally problematic production that would have needed expensive adjustments in the US/EU) was shifted off to China, and digitalization eliminated or vastly improved paper-pusher jobs.
Additionally, the standing of unions went down over time, as a combination of legitimate unions-gone-rogue scandals, anti-union legislation being enacted and union-protection enforcement being reduced.
The result was that the capitalist owner and leadership class enjoyed absurd amounts of net worth gains, and the worker class was left unemployed or with stagnating wages at best. To prove that: CEO payments exploded 940% since 1978, S&P went up 707%, while average worker pay went up only 12% [1] in the same time frame.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
Additionally, the standing of unions went down over time, as a combination of legitimate unions-gone-rogue scandals, anti-union legislation being enacted and union-protection enforcement being reduced.
The result was that the capitalist owner and leadership class enjoyed absurd amounts of net worth gains, and the worker class was left unemployed or with stagnating wages at best. To prove that: CEO payments exploded 940% since 1978, S&P went up 707%, while average worker pay went up only 12% [1] in the same time frame.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
You are saying the owners want to pay everyone as little as possible, so why would CEO pay go up? I suspect the reason is more about competing for the best CEOs because of their importance to a company.
CEO pay is peanuts compared to what raising wages to all employees would cost.
People assume that inequality is expensive. It isn't. Income inequality is what a failing society does to motivate people by meeting their greed rather than meeting their needs. An island of concubines is a lot cheaper to give to a CEO than paying 100,000 employees enough for an electric car.
> Income inequality is what a failing society does to motivate people by meeting their greed rather than meeting their needs.
Workers are not greedy for simply needing enough money to rent or own a home! In the same time frame, average US-wide rent has gone up from ~200$ to 1100$ [1] - that's a 450% increase. In "hot" areas such as SF, the development has been even worse [2]. On top of that, other necessities of life such as groceries have also continuously gotten more and more expensive [3], not to mention more expensive to obtain as neighborhood grocery stores closed down in favor of large malls.
We're talking about bare survival here. The costs of living have exploded for decades, while wages have been stagnant. People couldn't set aside money as a result, and now we have over half the US population unable to cover a 1000$ emergency without going into (even more) debt [4]. Wanting more money is not greed in these conditions.
[1] https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-yea...
[2] https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in...
[3] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/average-pric...
[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-...
Workers are not greedy for simply needing enough money to rent or own a home! In the same time frame, average US-wide rent has gone up from ~200$ to 1100$ [1] - that's a 450% increase. In "hot" areas such as SF, the development has been even worse [2]. On top of that, other necessities of life such as groceries have also continuously gotten more and more expensive [3], not to mention more expensive to obtain as neighborhood grocery stores closed down in favor of large malls.
We're talking about bare survival here. The costs of living have exploded for decades, while wages have been stagnant. People couldn't set aside money as a result, and now we have over half the US population unable to cover a 1000$ emergency without going into (even more) debt [4]. Wanting more money is not greed in these conditions.
[1] https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-yea...
[2] https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in...
[3] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/average-pric...
[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-...
Ok, but that has nothing to do with my post.
Of course it has. You're claiming that societies are "motivate people by meeting their greed", whereas the reality is that people are struggling to survive instead of being greedy.
You missed the little word "failing" there.
Try reading with your eyes, not your ideology.
Try reading with your eyes, not your ideology.
Cheap labor, easily available. People willing to work for lower and lower wages, since it is still better than the conditions in their home country.
The west defeated the socialist alternative lurking behind the iron curtain and all bargaining power of unions went to hell. Rollback started right after the discovery what a brittle giant the Sovjet Union really was (about 1970s-1980s) and kept going ever since.
Stand alone, with no gun to its head, capitalism auto decays into the neo-feudalism of the guilded age. And alot of the gullible citizenry supported this return to nothing.
Stand alone, with no gun to its head, capitalism auto decays into the neo-feudalism of the guilded age. And alot of the gullible citizenry supported this return to nothing.
Without the politics angle, just adding a new ~two billion poor people to capitalism, over the course of mere ~10 years, will depress wages (imagine US took in a a couple hundred million very poor refugees from Afria and Asia, that are happy to work for half the US minimum wage or less - that's the equivalent of what happened thanks to globalization and free trade). Things might stabilize now, as we enter into de-globalization and the wage levels in Asia will not influence wage levels in the US as much.
One possibility:
As productivity has increased, so has availability of credit. Servicing debt is soaking up our increased productivity. I don't think it's just a coincidence that the FIRE sector has grown so spectacularly.
As productivity has increased, so has availability of credit. Servicing debt is soaking up our increased productivity. I don't think it's just a coincidence that the FIRE sector has grown so spectacularly.
Because what matters was never productivity but competition. That's inbuilt into the capitalist philosophy. With that, it doesn't really matter that X company's productivity skyrocketed if Y's company, X's competitor, also does. They both will try to grow has much as possible, invest as much as possible in R&D, (...) or they are out-competed by the other.
We should always remember: If a company could, they would have free labour. Expert professional volunteers. That's how a company can maximize their profits. So every single year, every company is, unless forced by laws, wage competition (from other companies) or by force (unions), behind rationalizations, pushing for, unconsciously, getting close to that ideal of free labor.
Also remember that today, free labour has a limit. They can't really pay zero, because people have mortgages, etc. So actually, the modern "zero" is when the workers have zero profit, ie, savings, or even go into constant debt, and have the government pay for it with subsidies.
And this is exactly what we've been seeing the last decades.
We should always remember: If a company could, they would have free labour. Expert professional volunteers. That's how a company can maximize their profits. So every single year, every company is, unless forced by laws, wage competition (from other companies) or by force (unions), behind rationalizations, pushing for, unconsciously, getting close to that ideal of free labor.
Also remember that today, free labour has a limit. They can't really pay zero, because people have mortgages, etc. So actually, the modern "zero" is when the workers have zero profit, ie, savings, or even go into constant debt, and have the government pay for it with subsidies.
And this is exactly what we've been seeing the last decades.
All of the profit from increased productivity has gone to the executive caste. None has gone to workers.
Additionally, widespread and unchecked propaganda has brainwashed the public into believing that unions are bad and that the most evil word you can say in public is "socialism".
Additionally, widespread and unchecked propaganda has brainwashed the public into believing that unions are bad and that the most evil word you can say in public is "socialism".
Or rent prices in general. It's absolutely obscene how expensive rent is where light rail is available near Philly. $1400+/month for a 1 bed room. I can rent cheaper inside of Philly proper.
sure, but then youre in Philly proper
So, quality of location and buyer demand seem to have a large impact on this problem. I'm not sure how the government is going to solve this, other than making Philly nicer and thus more enticing to live in, or just forcing you to live there anyways.
If Philly was cleaner, it would instantly compete on a much higher level. As someone who grew up in the area and loved (loves?) it I’ve never understood how dirty the city compared to other major cities. On cleanliness, it competes with New York and San Francisco but it is… Philly.
Maybe the dirtiness is demonstrating an unreclaimed lead and air pollution problem, which would explain Philly residents' reputation for violence and throwing batteries at each other.
> but the gov has to step in and bring real estate price under control
You do realize that the government created the inflation problem, right? The high amounts of stimulus spending plus years of deficit spending created this situation.
You do realize that the government created the inflation problem, right? The high amounts of stimulus spending plus years of deficit spending created this situation.
No politician wants to admit that the source of housing inflation is the government: ZIRP, QE, stimulus, deficit spending combined with ever greater regulations and restrictions on land use have fused together into ever rising housing prices.
It appears that no sensible politician is willing to admit the problem let alone propose comprehensive solutions.
It appears that no sensible politician is willing to admit the problem let alone propose comprehensive solutions.
Most voters don’t see housing price inflation as a bad thing. They see it as a good thing because it means their net worth is increasing.
65% of voters or thereabouts are homeowners iirc. Untouchable.
Let's not let the federal reserve off the hook with insanely low interest rates for so long.
Zero interest rates also meant construction was cheap. The fact that we didn't construct anything using them was the problem. Higher interest rates are going to make that worse unless we have more public housing investment.
It's important to realize that the GOAL of the Fed was to raise inflation, but since they can't create money (only change rates and bond terms) it affected primarily financial assets... so we have had financial asset inflation since the dotcom boom (and entry of China into WTO) because of the Fed mandate. For long term growth we should have spent money (eg on broken bridges and infrastructure), but that requires congress to allocate funds so instead it was all monetary (and tax cuts).
The only thing I would add to your comment is that it was all on purpose. As you note, the inflation was on purpose. But also the not repairing our infrastructure. That was on purpose too. It was the greatest wealth transfer from the common people to the wealthy that has ever happened in the history of the planet. The biggest mistake people make is believing this was all just "incompetence." Mistakes of this magnitude are not made innocently.
True but inflation was triggered by the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
Inflation was at 7.8% the day before Putin's Price Hike.
Better with a source but you are correct. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi#:~:....
How about inflation was triggered by a combination of COVID supply change problems and further exacerbated by sanctions placed on Russian due to the Ukrainian invasion.
You're absolutely correct. Bullwhip effect was temporary inflation (but less likely to shift expectations) and then Russian (and OPEC+) effects on energy costs (which are likely to shift expectations and wages). The Fed has been trying to get inflation up since 2008... and have stated that they will target "average 2%" inflation over an unspecified term. Since inflation has been below that for a long time they wanted it to run hot. They want to inflate away some debt, just without imploding banks/insurers.
How about: Politician will lie about anything to get elected.
The day before the invasion we were looking at 6% inflation with everyone expecting it to get worse.
The day before the invasion we were looking at 6% inflation with everyone expecting it to get worse.
The day before the invasion everyone knew it was going to happen.
Apart from Zelesky apparently.
More like step out. The biggest issue with housing today is lack of supply, and the biggest cause of that is the restriction on development imposed by planning regulation. It shouldn't be a 20 minute walk from a detached house to downtown San Francisco. It's a nice idea, but every house like that could be part of an apartment building housing 10 times as many people. US cities have jobs, entertainment, amenities and services, so demand is always going to be high; supply has to be allowed to meet it.
I don’t agree with this anymore as housing prices exploded last year in areas that don’t have any lack of supply or building constraints.
what did you see?
Government is one of the primary reasons why housing is so expensive. In some areas, the cost to develop a plot of land has gone up 10x in as many years. Permit process is expensive and takes time. Laying utilities is expensive. Paying the myriad of fees is expensive.
In one place I lived, the cost of developing a plot of land for single family use was almost $70k, and that was not an expensive state like California.
And then mortgage rate hikes have to be considered. Buyers are walking away from contracts and homes being built because rate hikes made the homes unaffordable.
Less government is the solution, not more.
In one place I lived, the cost of developing a plot of land for single family use was almost $70k, and that was not an expensive state like California.
And then mortgage rate hikes have to be considered. Buyers are walking away from contracts and homes being built because rate hikes made the homes unaffordable.
Less government is the solution, not more.
If it were so easy as "less government"! (Which, I agree, is often a good idea.)
The problem is that a house is seen as in investment vehicle. Buy a house, its value will always grow, they said. So people who bought houses expect their values to grow, and loathe their values to go down even a little bit.
Now the value (aka cost) of a house has grown so much that it's unaffordable for large swaths of regular working population, even well-paid. Cheaper housing is badly needed.
But cheaper housing also means that "value" of existing houses will go down! Either from being next to a cheaper house, or from a general downturn on the housing market (aka housing becoming more affordable). Every house owner will hate that! And these house owners are voters.
Now life savings of an old lady from the working class depend on a young family from the working class being unable to afford a similar (or any) house. We're in a pretty bad situation here :(
The problem is that a house is seen as in investment vehicle. Buy a house, its value will always grow, they said. So people who bought houses expect their values to grow, and loathe their values to go down even a little bit.
Now the value (aka cost) of a house has grown so much that it's unaffordable for large swaths of regular working population, even well-paid. Cheaper housing is badly needed.
But cheaper housing also means that "value" of existing houses will go down! Either from being next to a cheaper house, or from a general downturn on the housing market (aka housing becoming more affordable). Every house owner will hate that! And these house owners are voters.
Now life savings of an old lady from the working class depend on a young family from the working class being unable to afford a similar (or any) house. We're in a pretty bad situation here :(
It can't be just that. I have the skills, tools, and basically enough cash to build what would have been a nice house on decent land in California 20 years ago.
But it's nowhere near enough now. By the time you buy 2 acres on the edge of town, get all the connections to utilities you need, get everything approved and permitted, and pay for all the materials, you're well beyond what most regular people can afford.
In 1998, I had a highschool friend who's mother was going to law school at 40 years old, and his dad was an employee in the construction industry. In 2 years over weekends, while the mother still paid for law school, they build a house that today is worth well over a million dollars on 1 acre.
A construction worker with a wife going back to college isn't pulling that off today.
If they could, they would do it full time and build one of owner builder homes and sell them. It doesn't pencil out these days at all from government fees and material costs.
It's not just 'oh houses are expensive because owners want them to be'.
Nothing you said is inconsistent with “the government has arbitrarily made housing more expensive because that’s what the voters want since most of them stand to gain from their most valuable asset increasing in value.” As time goes on the old methods stop raising the value and newer ones are needed. Eventually this process leads to insane regulation as all the “easy” stuff is already done.
I agree, California is a special, exceptionally difficult case. Due to reasonable policies which allowed it to be a hotbed of tech innovation since 1960s, it has enough inertia to allow it enforce pretty crazy policies, and still stay very much afloat.
Well, problems with electricity, water, and wildfires destroying towns? Transportation problems and a housing crisis? Never mind, Silicon Valley and Hollywood will fill the state coffers all right!
Tides turn slowly, but they are turning; I'm afraid Californian voters are heading towards a series of rude awakenings.
Well, problems with electricity, water, and wildfires destroying towns? Transportation problems and a housing crisis? Never mind, Silicon Valley and Hollywood will fill the state coffers all right!
Tides turn slowly, but they are turning; I'm afraid Californian voters are heading towards a series of rude awakenings.
The scariest thing about California I don't think left leaning people realize, is that tons of conservative Californians are leaving.... and many of them are business owners. Not just business owners, but some of the most clever, hard working, helpful, interesting people Ive known. Between 2000 and 2018, several great people I knew died young. I used to say that only the good die young. But now the good also move out of state.
My neighbor that would mow my lawn and sweep my sidewalk gutter if I was out of town. Gone to Nevada.
Race car driver that owned a mobile office trailer building company. Gone to Idaho.
Master electrician that could do work alone that would required engineers to reexplain to regular electricians, gone to Utah.
Cabinet company manufacturer, family owned for 30 years. Idaho.
The nicest most helpful towing company owner I ever met? Closed down this summer and went to Utah.
I'm not exactly sure if I want to live here myself if all that's left is crime, tent cities, and tech workers.
Every time I get cajoled into visiting my wife’s family out there my experience is just a long stream of internal “how do you live like this?” moments.
>Why is there a carcinogen warning on the rental car?
>Am I the only one bothered that an in-laws car was broken into in his own driveway in a residential zone in the middle of the day?
>Does nobody else see there’s a guy shooting a deuce on a bus stop?
>Did I really just spend 15 minutes in line for 6oz of soft serve ice cream?
>The first thing you discuss with your middle school class is pronouns? Not, like, here are the fire escapes? Or maybe, this is what we’re going to study?
>Why do all these 40-somethings dress like teenagers?
>Well, I guess no outdoor wedding photos… too much smoke… everything a few miles away is on fire.
>I guess there are just tents at basically every intersection. Huh.
>You’re paying 3K a month to live in a 60s era cracker box? Bummer. My mortgage is less than a third of that for twice the house and five times the land.
Permanent residents seem to have this defense mechanism where they just act like it isn’t happening. I’m pretty happy with flyover county. Given how easy remote work is now, I really don’t get why so many stay. Other than programming from the paid mouths in (info/e)ntertainment beating the drum of urbanization and ‘oh it’s just the zoning’
>Why is there a carcinogen warning on the rental car?
>Am I the only one bothered that an in-laws car was broken into in his own driveway in a residential zone in the middle of the day?
>Does nobody else see there’s a guy shooting a deuce on a bus stop?
>Did I really just spend 15 minutes in line for 6oz of soft serve ice cream?
>The first thing you discuss with your middle school class is pronouns? Not, like, here are the fire escapes? Or maybe, this is what we’re going to study?
>Why do all these 40-somethings dress like teenagers?
>Well, I guess no outdoor wedding photos… too much smoke… everything a few miles away is on fire.
>I guess there are just tents at basically every intersection. Huh.
>You’re paying 3K a month to live in a 60s era cracker box? Bummer. My mortgage is less than a third of that for twice the house and five times the land.
Permanent residents seem to have this defense mechanism where they just act like it isn’t happening. I’m pretty happy with flyover county. Given how easy remote work is now, I really don’t get why so many stay. Other than programming from the paid mouths in (info/e)ntertainment beating the drum of urbanization and ‘oh it’s just the zoning’
If it were as bad as your post says, people wouldn't pay 3K for a cracker box.
None of your points ring true at all for a 42 year old born and raised here.
I hate the housing costs as much as anyone.
None of your points ring true at all for a 42 year old born and raised here.
I hate the housing costs as much as anyone.
I've been here for 40 basically, and while his comments were slightly exaggerated, they all basically ring true. The most exaggerated one is the smoke being THAT bad. Other than the 2020 smoke Armageddon I've never even noticed fire season. But I assume he just means that in general our public lands are mismanaged.
I've been offroading and riding dirt bikes for 20+ years. Without a doubt, fire roads in the mountains are falling into disrepair. When they do clear them, they do so so lazily that it for sure will alter their response time if they ever need to use them. And that's just one tiny example.
I think OPs list was pretty accurate, just a little exaggerated but I think you know what he means.
I've been offroading and riding dirt bikes for 20+ years. Without a doubt, fire roads in the mountains are falling into disrepair. When they do clear them, they do so so lazily that it for sure will alter their response time if they ever need to use them. And that's just one tiny example.
I think OPs list was pretty accurate, just a little exaggerated but I think you know what he means.
> The problem is that a house is seen as in investment vehicle.
That's not an alternative to the problem of bad regulation, it's the reason for the bad regulation. "Seen as an investment vehicle" doesn't mean "the corporations" are hoarding them, it means every old person is counting the house in their net worth, and the government tries to prop them up while at the same time providing affordable housing for the poor. This causes the "missing middle" effect, where there isn't anything in between for those of us who could theoretically buy something unsubsidized.
That's not an alternative to the problem of bad regulation, it's the reason for the bad regulation. "Seen as an investment vehicle" doesn't mean "the corporations" are hoarding them, it means every old person is counting the house in their net worth, and the government tries to prop them up while at the same time providing affordable housing for the poor. This causes the "missing middle" effect, where there isn't anything in between for those of us who could theoretically buy something unsubsidized.
Existing housing is expensive because a substantial portion of the stock isn't owned by the residents. Housing is used to extract rents, by wealthy individuals or businesses, and rent-seeking drives up prices.
New housing is expensive because of safety regulations, environmental regulations, and zoning restrictions. Those categories are listed in increasing order of negotiability: some zoning makes obvious sense (e.g. separating industrial areas from housing), but housing density mandates seem less defensible to me; meanwhile, I don't particularly feel like relaxing safety unless something can be demonstrated as clearly irrelevant due to age, or requiring gross overbuilding. I invite someone more fluent in the subject matter to enlighten us with the relative impact of each factor.
New housing is expensive because of safety regulations, environmental regulations, and zoning restrictions. Those categories are listed in increasing order of negotiability: some zoning makes obvious sense (e.g. separating industrial areas from housing), but housing density mandates seem less defensible to me; meanwhile, I don't particularly feel like relaxing safety unless something can be demonstrated as clearly irrelevant due to age, or requiring gross overbuilding. I invite someone more fluent in the subject matter to enlighten us with the relative impact of each factor.
Investors owning real estate has done more to move prices up than permits.
Investors buy a quarter of all stock and have an incentive to lobby for keeping supply low.
The solution is more government regulation reducing the number of units big investors can own, building small public housing units throughout their cities (not big projects), and making investing in property less appealing for big players via rent control, landlord tenant laws, zoning up, etc.
Investors buy a quarter of all stock and have an incentive to lobby for keeping supply low.
The solution is more government regulation reducing the number of units big investors can own, building small public housing units throughout their cities (not big projects), and making investing in property less appealing for big players via rent control, landlord tenant laws, zoning up, etc.
Forcing people to pay $3000/month in rent to a small time mom and pop landlord instead of $3000/month to a REIT (owned by the 401ks of those exact same small time landlords) does nothing for either housing affordability or equity. The main political force behind restricting housing supply is incumbent homeowners, not large investors.
Many types of housing are simply not feasible to build and operate except by large investors (e.g large apartment buildings), and banning entire categories of in-demand housing artificially restricts supply and drives prices up.
Imagine if we banned CPUs built by large corporations. Do you think that would make CPUs cheaper or cause massive shortages and drive prices up?
Many types of housing are simply not feasible to build and operate except by large investors (e.g large apartment buildings), and banning entire categories of in-demand housing artificially restricts supply and drives prices up.
Imagine if we banned CPUs built by large corporations. Do you think that would make CPUs cheaper or cause massive shortages and drive prices up?
Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store? So therefore, won't big players be able to be cheaper than smaller ones? So then what is the logic behind stopping big investors? Also don't understand the thought process behind not having big government projects
Amazon is forced to compete on price because electronics supply is flexible. People can find other retailers.
Even if every regulation was struck from the books tomorrow, housing supply doesn't have anywhere close to the same flexibility. It's limited by the availability of undeveloped (or redevelopable) land, and just as importantly, by the location of that land. You can't just create more land next to the metropolis of your preference. There are practical and physical limits.
Even if every regulation was struck from the books tomorrow, housing supply doesn't have anywhere close to the same flexibility. It's limited by the availability of undeveloped (or redevelopable) land, and just as importantly, by the location of that land. You can't just create more land next to the metropolis of your preference. There are practical and physical limits.
You can create more houses on the same land with technology called "taller buildings", mass timber construction, single stair apartment reforms, upzoning, &c.
The above comment saying corporate investors lobby for reducing supply isn't true though. It's individual old NIMBYs and small time developers who lobby for that. Big companies like BlackRock are passively investing because it's so easy when the local government already wants to help them by restricting supply, but they don't individually show up to city council meetings and lobby for this stuff.
You really can defeat them by showing up. No California YIMBY policy has lost someone an election yet.
The above comment saying corporate investors lobby for reducing supply isn't true though. It's individual old NIMBYs and small time developers who lobby for that. Big companies like BlackRock are passively investing because it's so easy when the local government already wants to help them by restricting supply, but they don't individually show up to city council meetings and lobby for this stuff.
You really can defeat them by showing up. No California YIMBY policy has lost someone an election yet.
You're quite right! If only so much of the viable, desirable land wasn't already occupied.
Many of the people currently occupying it would be happy to sell it to you so you could do infill development and they could move to Hawaii! It's just illegal to do it now.
(Or they could stay in place - California requires this to be possible through "right of return" laws.)
(Or they could stay in place - California requires this to be possible through "right of return" laws.)
Big projects are considerably more specialized to maintain. You don't just need a guy with a pressure washer, you need someone who can get a whole rig hanging over the edge of the building. The plumbing, elevators, fire suppression, trash collection, heating and cooling, and electrical systems require specialists.
They also centralize poverty, which has effects on the local area. The workers in those buildings need to travel all over for their work.
Small, two to four story apartment buildings can largely be managed by handymen. They can be distributed throughout a city, placing them in communities that can support them. The people who live there can work in their local communities.
Beyond that, their initial capital costs are lower, and it's easier to find land that is zoned for 4 story buildings than 40 story buildings.
> Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store?
Cheaper? Maybe. Better? Absolutely not. Amazon might save me a couple bucks, but the hassle and time dealing with quality control issues, poorly managed inventory, lack of local experience, etc makes the dollars I save disappear I into increased headaches.
The thought of renting a home from Amazon vs the local bookstore is nightmarish to me.
They also centralize poverty, which has effects on the local area. The workers in those buildings need to travel all over for their work.
Small, two to four story apartment buildings can largely be managed by handymen. They can be distributed throughout a city, placing them in communities that can support them. The people who live there can work in their local communities.
Beyond that, their initial capital costs are lower, and it's easier to find land that is zoned for 4 story buildings than 40 story buildings.
> Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store?
Cheaper? Maybe. Better? Absolutely not. Amazon might save me a couple bucks, but the hassle and time dealing with quality control issues, poorly managed inventory, lack of local experience, etc makes the dollars I save disappear I into increased headaches.
The thought of renting a home from Amazon vs the local bookstore is nightmarish to me.
> step in and bring real estate price under control
The feds can step out of real estate manipulation by removing the mortgage interest deduction.
The feds can step out of real estate manipulation by removing the mortgage interest deduction.
Don't the feds create the entire residential mortgage market in the first place through Fannie Mae? That's why we have flat-rate mortgages when other countries have ARMs.
That one tax deduction doesn't matter, not when there's a shortage. It's already the most people can afford to pay.
That one tax deduction doesn't matter, not when there's a shortage. It's already the most people can afford to pay.
thank the stupid loose monetary policy with interest rates never coming back up and balance sheet never coming back down. the fed wanted to make sure people could buy housing and its strategy was to do that by making loans cheap but this distorts the market.
I saw a commercial today from Greg Abbott in Texas claiming that he wanted to pass a law that made income tax permanently illegal in the state. Meanwhile, people are getting gouged with almost no positive movement in income year over year at the same time that properties are appreciating about 15% a year in value.
Isn’t the actual problem competition from factories overseas they have lower safety standards and wages? Just because there’s more housing doesn’t mean you suddenly have a good wage. You still have to save up for retirement, and some people invest in mutual funds instead of buying property
Overseas European here. Our safety standards are likely on par or even higher in many cases. Wages for factory workers surely are higher on average as well and you don't save up for your retirement here as this is already deducted from your wage or partly funded by the government.
> the gov has to step in and bring real estate price under control
I wouldn't assume the issue wouldn't be resolved better by the local/state/federal government stepping out of this area more.
I wouldn't assume the issue wouldn't be resolved better by the local/state/federal government stepping out of this area more.
It's complicated... the fed should manage the economy in such way so people are not forced to move in a couple of megacities to find jobs.
That sounds like an interesting thing for the government to mess with. No one is forced to move to specific places; there are jobs everywhere. Certain types of jobs, e.g. acting or tech, are best done where the money is, which is Hollywood/Silicon Valley respectively, but huge numbers of jobs are not.
Real estate prices are just a symptom of our never-ending inflation due fractional reserve banking.
https://workableeconomics.com/
Explains it all pretty well
https://workableeconomics.com/
Explains it all pretty well
The Georgists would like to disagree with you :-D
And apparently we can thank the Petro dollar system for gutting US manufacturing.
And apparently we can thank the Petro dollar system for gutting US manufacturing.
Georgism is largely orthogonal to monetary policy. Georgists hold that public improvements to land & location largely have their value captured by landlords, and as a result landlords enjoy large un-earned incomes simply by getting there first. This misallocation of resources can be fixed with a land-value tax, which returns the surplus to the state where it can be allocated to more public benefit projects, up until the return from those projects is less than the cost in taxes.
Inflation and central bank policy is separate from this. If you have a highly inflationary monetary policy, landowners will still reap the benefits of inflation in increased rent, and they will still turn a profit on mortgages, which are paid back in dollars that are worth less. The main difference is that they'll also have a LVT that grows with inflation, and so they face continuous pressure to keep the land is uses that generates the most economic value (rent). But unexpected inflation is effectively a discount on their purchase price, if they pay with borrowed money; this doesn't change under a Georgist system.
Inflation and central bank policy is separate from this. If you have a highly inflationary monetary policy, landowners will still reap the benefits of inflation in increased rent, and they will still turn a profit on mortgages, which are paid back in dollars that are worth less. The main difference is that they'll also have a LVT that grows with inflation, and so they face continuous pressure to keep the land is uses that generates the most economic value (rent). But unexpected inflation is effectively a discount on their purchase price, if they pay with borrowed money; this doesn't change under a Georgist system.
Despite inflation, prices of many goods are cheaper today: look at laptops, monitors, TVs.
That's only because the materials and labor needed for them is far less than in the past thanks to technological improvements, plus economies of scale are generally better now (population is much larger: lots of consumers in other countries like China buying the same stuff).
Take a look at the hand-soldered circuitry in an old TV or radio and it's obvious why those things were so expensive.
Take a look at the hand-soldered circuitry in an old TV or radio and it's obvious why those things were so expensive.
I am all in favor, and beg for a bill, that would simply declare that publicly-owned, publicly-traded companies may not legally possess housing, unless they built it themselves. Manage, yes; own, no. Never going to happen though.
It’s mostly local voters that are the issue not companies.
Good luck trying to lower property prices. This is a case of what’s good for the country is rarely good for the people making these choices. People living outside a county don’t decide their policies are but still suffer from them.
Good luck trying to lower property prices. This is a case of what’s good for the country is rarely good for the people making these choices. People living outside a county don’t decide their policies are but still suffer from them.
You have written “it’s” instead of “its” on the last two occurrences of the word. It should be without the apostrophe, as it’s indicating possession. I used to get this wrong all the time too.
That's not going to fix anything.
I dunno; a lot more house purchases are being bought as investments now, rather than places to live, than ever before. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
It's only an investment because somebody is willing to pay rent to cover the mortgage the purchaser paid and supply profit to the owner. If there are no renters willing to rent then nobody is able to profit.
Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.
Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.
>> It's only an investment because somebody is willing to pay rent to cover the mortgage the purchaser paid and supply profit to the owner. If there are no renters willing to rent then nobody is able to profit.
Not true; if housing prices continue to increase, then even without rent it becomes a reasonable investment. But that's just it; people need a place to live, so with housing becoming harder to purchase due to higher competition, more people end up renting, becoming this negative feedback loop.
>> Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.
So local government and zoning can be part of the issue, sure, but again, 1/4 of the homes sold in the past year were to institutional investors looking to rent them out. Those homes -could- have gone to a family; instead they became rental units. Relevant when we are talking about home ownership.
As to fiscal policy, I sort of agree with you, but not quite. It's less fiscal policy (after all, both a potential homeowner and a business can float a loan), but the scale at play. An investment company can get millions loaned out to them just by dint of being a business with cashflow, and so can pay well over appraisal. Homeowners can't; the loan there is made on the basis of the property as collateral. That innately means they're not competing on a fair footing.
Not true; if housing prices continue to increase, then even without rent it becomes a reasonable investment. But that's just it; people need a place to live, so with housing becoming harder to purchase due to higher competition, more people end up renting, becoming this negative feedback loop.
>> Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.
So local government and zoning can be part of the issue, sure, but again, 1/4 of the homes sold in the past year were to institutional investors looking to rent them out. Those homes -could- have gone to a family; instead they became rental units. Relevant when we are talking about home ownership.
As to fiscal policy, I sort of agree with you, but not quite. It's less fiscal policy (after all, both a potential homeowner and a business can float a loan), but the scale at play. An investment company can get millions loaned out to them just by dint of being a business with cashflow, and so can pay well over appraisal. Homeowners can't; the loan there is made on the basis of the property as collateral. That innately means they're not competing on a fair footing.
> Not true; if housing prices continue to increase, then even without rent it becomes a reasonable investment.
Only if other investments with the amount of capital needed for housing don't produce better results and you can guarantee that there will be buyers of the property post appreciation. There are very few (but they are there) housing markets where real estate has appreciated faster than stock markets or other asset classes and can offset taxes in selling the home. If you're using housing purely as an investment vehicle there's also the risk of a downturn causing real estate prices to decrease due to the low liquidity of housing (compared to, say, a fund).
Only if other investments with the amount of capital needed for housing don't produce better results and you can guarantee that there will be buyers of the property post appreciation. There are very few (but they are there) housing markets where real estate has appreciated faster than stock markets or other asset classes and can offset taxes in selling the home. If you're using housing purely as an investment vehicle there's also the risk of a downturn causing real estate prices to decrease due to the low liquidity of housing (compared to, say, a fund).
Even in that case it becomes diversification. It is still a reasonable investment.
They're rented out to people who will live in them.
Yes. And? The thread is about people buying houses, not people affording rent.
I was replying to "rather than places to live".
> the gov has to step in and bring real estate price under control
No government has ever managed to repeal the Law of Supply & Demand. Because it's The Law. Communist countries never succeeded at that, either.
No government has ever managed to repeal the Law of Supply & Demand. Because it's The Law. Communist countries never succeeded at that, either.
If it had enough political will do, the government could build more supply and reduce prices, no, like in Hong Kong and Singapore? There are a whole spectrum of government-directed solutions to try keep prices down that comply with supply and demand.
Building more supply in order to reduce prices is not repealing Supply+Demand, it is acknowledging it.
I was backing up the OP talking about the government stepping in and bringing prices under control, which for some reason you assumed must have meant violating supply and demand.
"bringing prices under control" with the government usually means price controls of some sort, which is denying S&D.
Denial of the Law of Supply&Demand is about as effective as denying the Law of Gravity, or passing a law that π=3.
A couple of obvious examples of failure are rent control and anti-gouging laws.
A couple of obvious examples of failure are rent control and anti-gouging laws.
Regulation can influence supply and demand. Raising interest rates lowers demand (I would say most significantly it lowers speculative demand).
Real estate prices today have little to do with supply and demand. Why else have real estate prices grown hundreds of percent all over the developed world in the last 3 decades, despite relatively low population growth?
This is a great question, I recently visited Australia where property prices are absolutely ridiculously inflated, they appear to be in a slight reversal currently; However, people are borrowing and paying millions (AUD) for shacks, just because they're near some water...yes the area is nice but these are old houses which are not really near public transport, good schools, hospitals or other amenities. Some of them I saw were built in a flood plane.
Why? What's driving this? Was it the historically low interest rates, which have now just rocketed in Australia back up to > 5% ?
Who will fuel the next property boom to pay for it? Feels almost like some apex has been reached and it's going down from here.
Especially as like others have said, it doesn't seem like the developed world is growing rapidly enough to sustain the demand. Immigration might help fuel more demand, but then pressure is taken away from real estate elsewhere, which would incentivize people to stay put, besides, it's not like immigrants often land in the developed world with 2 million dollars to spend on a shack in a remote location.
It's fascinating to say the least. Interesting times ahead for property speculators and I guess, everyone...
Why? What's driving this? Was it the historically low interest rates, which have now just rocketed in Australia back up to > 5% ?
Who will fuel the next property boom to pay for it? Feels almost like some apex has been reached and it's going down from here.
Especially as like others have said, it doesn't seem like the developed world is growing rapidly enough to sustain the demand. Immigration might help fuel more demand, but then pressure is taken away from real estate elsewhere, which would incentivize people to stay put, besides, it's not like immigrants often land in the developed world with 2 million dollars to spend on a shack in a remote location.
It's fascinating to say the least. Interesting times ahead for property speculators and I guess, everyone...
Like claims of perpetual motion, if it looks like Supply&Demand is not applying, then something is being overlooked.
In this case, I suspect your facts overlook the fact that population growth is not even across a country. Population growth has grown a lot in places that are more attractive to live in, and declined in areas that are less attractive. For example, in Spain, I read about many abandoned villages going for a song because the population moved to the big city.
In the US, population declined in Detroit and rural areas, and grew in the cities. Housing prices followed those trends.
In this case, I suspect your facts overlook the fact that population growth is not even across a country. Population growth has grown a lot in places that are more attractive to live in, and declined in areas that are less attractive. For example, in Spain, I read about many abandoned villages going for a song because the population moved to the big city.
In the US, population declined in Detroit and rural areas, and grew in the cities. Housing prices followed those trends.
You bring up a good point. But there are other important reasons. Particularly the availability of cheap money for speculation in the housing market. The reason for this is the historically low interest rates.
That just means construction has been made illegal. There's no reason "cheap money for speculation" would be easier to get than "cheap money for construction" otherwise; speculation is riskier!
And when interest rates go back up, it gets even harder to finance construction.
And when interest rates go back up, it gets even harder to finance construction.
There is money for constructing large expensive apartments who people who can acquire a bank loan would like to buy as an investment. There is little money for constructing cheap small simple rentals, because rentals are paid by wages, not inflated loans. But this is the segment where the demand is highest.
The cheap mortgages distorts the price signals, making the market less efficient.
The cheap mortgages distorts the price signals, making the market less efficient.
What happens when the interest rates go back up?
Let's say they go from < 1% to > 10%?
Let's say they go from < 1% to > 10%?
If we're lucky, the market recalibrates on a more affordable level. Workers start seeing real wage increases. Speculation and stimulus gives way to real economic development.
If we're unlucky, the interest rates are not allowed to increase for fear of falling house prices.
If we're unlucky, the interest rates are not allowed to increase for fear of falling house prices.
[deleted]
I always felt like calling the communist countries communist was like calling our republic a direct democracy. Maybe in spirit I guess, but not exactly in practice. You're in California right? What is the rent control/housing like where you are, if you don't mind my asking?
I live in Wa state. While we don't have specifically rent control, there are all kinds of other regulatory interferences with landlords. For example, one is that the tenant is not responsible for damage to the rental from domestic violence, the landlord is. Seattle will provide free lawyers to tenants who want to sue their landlords. Seattle made a lot of extensions to the rent moratoriums. There are requirements that someone building a new apt building must also build some "affordable housing" units.
All these things do is force rents higher.
https://www.seattle.gov/housing/renters/know-the-law#renters...
All these things do is force rents higher.
https://www.seattle.gov/housing/renters/know-the-law#renters...
Communist countries did succeed because they controlled demand. Although I don’t think people would like the solution that much, e.g. three families living together in a 3 bedroom apartment, one family per bedroom.
No, they didn't. They just had supply&demand based on how long you were willing to wait, the black market, barter, privilege, and a market of favors and counter-favors.
Also waiting lists. Everybody gets their own apartment… in 20 to 30 years.
The government has to step in by stepping out.
1. There is a problem. 2. Government steps in to fix problem. 3. Government creates two new problems by fixing the first one. 4. Repeat x 2
1. There is a problem. 2. Government steps in to fix problem. 3. Government creates two new problems by fixing the first one. 4. Repeat x 2
Not really a surprise when looking at the US male labor force participation rate from 1990 to 2021:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191725/us-male-civilian-...
1990: 76.4%
2021: 67.6%
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191725/us-male-civilian-...
1990: 76.4%
2021: 67.6%
Just in the last decade 4% more of the population has reached retirement age. Wouldn't be surprised if it makes up the bulk of the participation change since 1990.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-ag...
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-ag...
This is lfp for everyone 25-54. The key point is more like 2000, when female lfp peaks. I’d argue it’s been in secular decline since, though the severity of the decline is temporarily understated, because we are at a cyclical peak.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
> Timmons said that pay in the sector is up 5% over the course of the last year
Unless this figure is adjusted for inflation, real pay has gone down.
Unless this figure is adjusted for inflation, real pay has gone down.
One honest question I'd have about this.
If we started buying stuff made in other countries because it was cheaper, then if we made that production come back to the U.S., wouldn't that mean that the prices would have to go back up? Just a thought experiment, but I'm unable to find a way around it.
If we started buying stuff made in other countries because it was cheaper, then if we made that production come back to the U.S., wouldn't that mean that the prices would have to go back up? Just a thought experiment, but I'm unable to find a way around it.
Yes and no. Real wages in US manufacturing have been on a steady decline for a long time now, and the cost of manufacturing goods overseas has been steadily increasing. After factoring in all associated costs with importing goods from a place like China, the difference in cost might even tip towards made in the US being cheaper in the long run. That said, a lot of countries other than China do still have cheap slave laborers that we depend on to give us cheap stuff, and we just can't compete with that using our domestic work force. Also if the local workers unionize and push wages up more towards what they would be had they kept pace with inflation, then local goods will be far more expensive. The cost of a new factory would certainly inflate a lot of short term prices too.
All that said, I know a lot of people that would be willing to pay a substantial premium for well made goods that were produced domestically. Everyone has experienced just how terrible the goods we source from overseas often are, and if paying double or triple for something means that you get a useful lifespan that's 5 times longer, a lot of people are willing to pay that. There are also a lot of people that would happily pay for goods that they know for certain weren't made in a Sri Lankan sweatshop.
All that said, I know a lot of people that would be willing to pay a substantial premium for well made goods that were produced domestically. Everyone has experienced just how terrible the goods we source from overseas often are, and if paying double or triple for something means that you get a useful lifespan that's 5 times longer, a lot of people are willing to pay that. There are also a lot of people that would happily pay for goods that they know for certain weren't made in a Sri Lankan sweatshop.
I think what we need are product reviews that aren't so easily gamed by $$$. As it is, you don't know if the premium you pay for a product translates into quality.
the convenience of a brick and mortar store. currated quality
Probably yes, but some of the countries we've outsourced to have improved their quality of living. So it is possible that made in America could be cheaper than making it overseas and then shipping it over (I think this is unlikely, but it is at least hypothetically possible).
Alternatively, touched on in the article, it could be seen as preferable to get some supply chains entirely inside the US -- would have been nice to have more US mask manufacturing a couple years ago.
They didn't mention any changes to law or trade policy in the article so I guess these companies are looking in the US for economic reasons. They might just see the shortened supply line as worth the US manufacturing costs...
Alternatively, touched on in the article, it could be seen as preferable to get some supply chains entirely inside the US -- would have been nice to have more US mask manufacturing a couple years ago.
They didn't mention any changes to law or trade policy in the article so I guess these companies are looking in the US for economic reasons. They might just see the shortened supply line as worth the US manufacturing costs...
Yes, it's an inflationary effect for sure - deglobalization
Generally yes prices go up when goods are manufactured in higher cost areas.
But the profit/price can be the same with higher labor costs if the manufacturing efficiency is improved(due to automation mostly), or costs like shipping and taxes are lower.
But the profit/price can be the same with higher labor costs if the manufacturing efficiency is improved(due to automation mostly), or costs like shipping and taxes are lower.
Labor is a tiny fraction of the cost of manufacturing. The media likes to make it seem like the cost of labor is the largest part of goods.
Exactly, a huge part of the delivery of low cost Chinese goods was subsidized delivery by the USPS. That was subsidized by US agreement rather than foreign labor. If the delivery was a realistic $5 for the 50cent paper cups you ordered, it wouldn't be competitive to import them (directly through Amazon/eBay).
The advantage China has had is really factories and supply chains due to investment. Building those factories in the US is totally possible at marginal increases in price, but simultaneously marginal decreases on profit. Having a foreign government borrow/loan all the money to build the infrastructure for your factories simply for the cost of transferring your IP to them seemed like an obvious quarterly profit improvement!
The advantage China has had is really factories and supply chains due to investment. Building those factories in the US is totally possible at marginal increases in price, but simultaneously marginal decreases on profit. Having a foreign government borrow/loan all the money to build the infrastructure for your factories simply for the cost of transferring your IP to them seemed like an obvious quarterly profit improvement!
Of course
It's funny...walk into a liquor store and shoot someone and you can get the death penalty.
Advocate an economic policy that destroys the local economy in particular locations, bringing all the social ills that come with that, unemployment, societal breakdown, drug addiction and arguably 10's of thousands of deaths over time and you get, well, nothing....
It's the kind of thing that might make you end up voting for a reality television star....
Advocate an economic policy that destroys the local economy in particular locations, bringing all the social ills that come with that, unemployment, societal breakdown, drug addiction and arguably 10's of thousands of deaths over time and you get, well, nothing....
It's the kind of thing that might make you end up voting for a reality television star....
> It's the kind of thing that might make you end up voting for a reality television star....
... who was a billionaire globalist known for his anti-labor practices and ruthless big business hyper-captialist ideals. Whose literal catchphrase was "you're fired." Who was the physical embodiment of everything you should have hated, but you either couldn't see it or didn't care because the same corporate capitalist apparatus that stole your livelihood also beat a case of Stockholm Syndrome into you.
... who was a billionaire globalist known for his anti-labor practices and ruthless big business hyper-captialist ideals. Whose literal catchphrase was "you're fired." Who was the physical embodiment of everything you should have hated, but you either couldn't see it or didn't care because the same corporate capitalist apparatus that stole your livelihood also beat a case of Stockholm Syndrome into you.
Putting aside your underlying assumption that people are stupid (not like us), given how badly some of these people have been treated it can actually make perfect sense to vote for a candidate like Trump.
You achieve a couple of things, firstly you hopefully introduce some pain and unhappiness to the lives of all the right people. The smug, complacent people that have been benefiting from the current status quo and sneering at others that are not doing so well. Any discomfort you can bring into these peoples lives is well-deserved and the right thing to do.
Secondly, whilst voting for any of the traditional parties is obviously wasted given the history leading to that point (they demonstrably don't give a shit), voting for an outsider at least sends a message that might just be heard for the first time in a long time.
I realise that Hacker News comments section is made up largely of what Brett Stephens describes as the "protected class" so the points I'm making are not going to be appreciated but I'm just saying...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-tru...
You achieve a couple of things, firstly you hopefully introduce some pain and unhappiness to the lives of all the right people. The smug, complacent people that have been benefiting from the current status quo and sneering at others that are not doing so well. Any discomfort you can bring into these peoples lives is well-deserved and the right thing to do.
Secondly, whilst voting for any of the traditional parties is obviously wasted given the history leading to that point (they demonstrably don't give a shit), voting for an outsider at least sends a message that might just be heard for the first time in a long time.
I realise that Hacker News comments section is made up largely of what Brett Stephens describes as the "protected class" so the points I'm making are not going to be appreciated but I'm just saying...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-tru...
This shouldn't be a surprise. We kind of knew the favorability of offshoring was changing, and we also knew the demographics for cheap labor were also going to end. Covid just ripped the rug out a lot faster on both.
I am not american but this is good news for everyone. A stable america means stable politics meaning a stable west. Also it will likely lead to more innovation in robotics. Keep pushing.
I don't think that's necessarily true. America is much more stable than most nations and much more de-stabalising to the rest of the world...
[deleted]
> “Hiring has been a problem since 2020,” Jennison said. “Hiring experienced candidates that understand the industry, and understand what they’re doing, has been very difficult.”
Business owner expects to pay experienced staff $20 per hour.
There is no staff shortage, there is a failure to face reality among business owners.
Business owner expects to pay experienced staff $20 per hour.
There is no staff shortage, there is a failure to face reality among business owners.
Lol. There are no experienced manufacturing staff in the US anymore, full stop. This isn't a matter of the price of labor. The US has forgotten how to manufacture things.
Do you remember when Apple stopped making the Mac Pro in Austin because we couldn't manufacture enough screws? [0]
Everyone gave up post '08. The attrition of blue collar work overseas has been painful, so the recommendation writ large has been to avoid going into blue collar work. Even now if a worker takes on a $20 an hour job, they have no guarantee their manufacturing job won't be shipped overseas again. So why choose that career path for even $25 or $30 an hour? It's risky. The energy sector has this problem more severely than any other in part because everyone keeps talking about phasing out fossil fuels. How much would I have to pay you to take a job that a quarter of the country wants removed?
No one wants a blue collar job anymore either. That was the whole point of going to college: you become educated for the right to sit on your ass for eight hours and act like you're doing something worthwhile.
And now you can do that from home.
Compare that to working a skilled manufacturing job where your every movement is measured in a country.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/iphones-apple-...
Do you remember when Apple stopped making the Mac Pro in Austin because we couldn't manufacture enough screws? [0]
Everyone gave up post '08. The attrition of blue collar work overseas has been painful, so the recommendation writ large has been to avoid going into blue collar work. Even now if a worker takes on a $20 an hour job, they have no guarantee their manufacturing job won't be shipped overseas again. So why choose that career path for even $25 or $30 an hour? It's risky. The energy sector has this problem more severely than any other in part because everyone keeps talking about phasing out fossil fuels. How much would I have to pay you to take a job that a quarter of the country wants removed?
No one wants a blue collar job anymore either. That was the whole point of going to college: you become educated for the right to sit on your ass for eight hours and act like you're doing something worthwhile.
And now you can do that from home.
Compare that to working a skilled manufacturing job where your every movement is measured in a country.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/iphones-apple-...
I'm in industrial controls/automation and also electrical maintenance, currently in-house. We do have experienced manufacturing staff in this country, most of them are immigrants. Technical jobs such as mine are paid pretty well, but especially with our aging manufacturing infrastructure (old, decaying plants) - which China et al are decades away from - there's not enough skill to go around and so we tend to be very overworked, causing further attrition. I guess my question is why can't we just import more talent/skill from places like China, just as we've done in science and medicine? People still want to come here.
The article isn't clear on exactly where the shortages are eg technicians, QA, forklift drivers, operators. The un-/low-skilled positions are again largely filled with immigrants as it is. These jobs, like agriculture (where I worked in a past life), are not for the faint of heart.
As for job security, we Millenials giggle dejectedly to even imagine that to be a thing.
Your point on the college-educated bias against blue-collar work is apt; even if it's better money many simply don't want to accept that we paid through the nose for something that doesn't pan out economically.
Not clear on the meaning of your last sentence ie 'movement is measured in a country'. Do you mean PRC being totalitarian?
The article isn't clear on exactly where the shortages are eg technicians, QA, forklift drivers, operators. The un-/low-skilled positions are again largely filled with immigrants as it is. These jobs, like agriculture (where I worked in a past life), are not for the faint of heart.
As for job security, we Millenials giggle dejectedly to even imagine that to be a thing.
Your point on the college-educated bias against blue-collar work is apt; even if it's better money many simply don't want to accept that we paid through the nose for something that doesn't pan out economically.
Not clear on the meaning of your last sentence ie 'movement is measured in a country'. Do you mean PRC being totalitarian?
There are plenty of people from generationally-marginalized families and communities who would love to be hired for positions where they'd be well-compensated while developing valuable skillsets. They're fine with the work being difficult or non-"sit-on-your-ass" oriented. But when People of Influence jump to the solution of, "Import skilled workers that will not only compete for these jobs we need filled, but likely shut out existing residents who've never had access to the requisite training or networks, forever," it speaks to how well PoI truly intend to take care of, say, PoC. If you sense that your abilities won't be appreciated in the future, why spend the time and energy developing them?
At the end of the day, we pursue economic affluence for the promise of social stability it's supposed to bring. Selling out existing Americans, rather than investing in them, in order to save money and hit the ground running short-term, is likely a long-term demographic nightmare. I say this as a progressive, not because I'm anti-immigration, but because the solution suggested seems less about keeping the country open and more about maintaining the wealth of a few at the expense of their marginalized neighbors across the train tracks.
Remember how the auto industry brought a bunch of Japanese trainers over years ago and then threw their recommendations for developing the local workforce in the trash? Let's do the right thing this time.
At the end of the day, we pursue economic affluence for the promise of social stability it's supposed to bring. Selling out existing Americans, rather than investing in them, in order to save money and hit the ground running short-term, is likely a long-term demographic nightmare. I say this as a progressive, not because I'm anti-immigration, but because the solution suggested seems less about keeping the country open and more about maintaining the wealth of a few at the expense of their marginalized neighbors across the train tracks.
Remember how the auto industry brought a bunch of Japanese trainers over years ago and then threw their recommendations for developing the local workforce in the trash? Let's do the right thing this time.
On the off chance that this isn't just an academic exercise in moral posturing, and you in fact do progressivism or labor advocacy rather than just identify with it, and happen to actually know any of these "people of color", please do encourage them to apply for any of the numerous job postings which have hitherto rotted on the vine for a year or more. Even the People of Influence - to a man Trumpian troglodytes though they are - seem to me generally willing to take a shot at this point.
By the way, these postings most always include the hourly pay, which everyone earns, including the Ukrainian refugees and guest workers we have at our plant atm.
By the way, these postings most always include the hourly pay, which everyone earns, including the Ukrainian refugees and guest workers we have at our plant atm.
How long does it take to train an apprentice in your field? Let’s say for electrical
maintenance?
Electrical maintenance? We could start someone today and the rest depends on learning ability. You don't need a license to work in-house. In any case, it's rare to work alone, there's always someone older than you in the shop, at least until you become the aged master.
Controls/Automation engineer? I apprenticed for 4 years and still learn something every day.
Controls/Automation engineer? I apprenticed for 4 years and still learn something every day.
Not sure what state you are in, but in California community colleges are fairly good. They can provide trade education together with apprenticeship programs. This system can close the gap for many tradesman jobs. It is not gonna happen in a year, but over next 10 years. In 2012 Jobs told Obama that those jobs aren’t coming back, around the time Tesla was able to pull off Models S. Iirc 52% of it was US made, which seems impressive.
It’s been almost two years since the dependency on import from very few country for critical things was widely exposed due to pandemic. This would be enough time to train someone junior or have them be half way through their apprenticeship.
Now we want to move to alternative energy source, which most likely means that solar and lithium batteries alone aren’t gonna suffice. At the same time, EU is learning the hard way why it’s not ideal for the energy sector to rely to heavily on a foreign irrational actor.
I think there is enough momentum to push the needle and see results in 5-10 years.
It’s been almost two years since the dependency on import from very few country for critical things was widely exposed due to pandemic. This would be enough time to train someone junior or have them be half way through their apprenticeship.
Now we want to move to alternative energy source, which most likely means that solar and lithium batteries alone aren’t gonna suffice. At the same time, EU is learning the hard way why it’s not ideal for the energy sector to rely to heavily on a foreign irrational actor.
I think there is enough momentum to push the needle and see results in 5-10 years.
Thanks for the comment.
> most of them are immigrants
This proves my point: America has lost is manufacturing capacity. These people are not "Made in America". Of course you can import more of these people, but I'm not sure the half the population is into that given who we had as our last president.
> "working a skilled manufacturing job where your every movement is measured in a country."
Typo. I meant to say "company." If you work in a factory where you make motors or fencing, your output can be directly seen and measured. With desk jobs, the outputs are at times a little more unmeasurable.
> most of them are immigrants
This proves my point: America has lost is manufacturing capacity. These people are not "Made in America". Of course you can import more of these people, but I'm not sure the half the population is into that given who we had as our last president.
> "working a skilled manufacturing job where your every movement is measured in a country."
Typo. I meant to say "company." If you work in a factory where you make motors or fencing, your output can be directly seen and measured. With desk jobs, the outputs are at times a little more unmeasurable.
>I'm not sure the half the population is into that given who we had as our last president.
Their issue is with illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the border. The dream would be to let American jobs stabilize after addressing undocumented labor. Get everyone protected under the law and paying into the system. Then import people as needed.
The other half of the country seems to support a system of exploitative labor because not doing so sounds racist.
Their issue is with illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the border. The dream would be to let American jobs stabilize after addressing undocumented labor. Get everyone protected under the law and paying into the system. Then import people as needed.
The other half of the country seems to support a system of exploitative labor because not doing so sounds racist.
I agree immigration is a solution. US immigration is literally a trillion dollar bill lying on the sidewalk. For some mysterious reasons US doesn't want to pick it up.
It is likely because about 25% of the country would not like a more liberal immigration policy.
There are merits to immigration but the politics around this has become toxic.
I do not know how the US gets back on this horse without having bipartisan legislation.
Such legislation looks pretty hard to be supported by a majority of the republic party’s primary voters. So, the question is what gives.
Any one sided policy moves on this by the Democratic Party would likely face risk to be reversed.
There are merits to immigration but the politics around this has become toxic.
I do not know how the US gets back on this horse without having bipartisan legislation.
Such legislation looks pretty hard to be supported by a majority of the republic party’s primary voters. So, the question is what gives.
Any one sided policy moves on this by the Democratic Party would likely face risk to be reversed.
> It is likely because about 25% of the country would not like a more liberal immigration policy.
The blame isn’t just with the “build the wall” crowd, the majority of the other 75% of Americans do not place fixing immigration as a top priority, and immigrants are not voters in the short to medium term so they‘re not benefiting anyone in the next election.
The blame isn’t just with the “build the wall” crowd, the majority of the other 75% of Americans do not place fixing immigration as a top priority, and immigrants are not voters in the short to medium term so they‘re not benefiting anyone in the next election.
Also, immigrants aren't particularly likely to vote for you just because you let them in, nor do they even like other immigrants themselves so they're not going to vote for them either. That's how powerful American cultural imperialism is; we make them American as soon as they get here.
The politics of immigration have always been toxic, see the quota system, or Archie Bunker, or 'Irish need not apply'. I think that reframing immigration as probably our biggest strategic asset historically might have some potential. If Jewish physicists had stayed in Europe, would we have nuclear supremacy? If Chinese laborers hadn't gone to California, would we have the Transcontinental railroad? Where would NASA be without the stolen German engineers?
The Democrats talk about it like it's charity and the humane thing to do, and the Republicans come back with 'first we have to take care of our own'. HN seems to understand this, but it isn't what makes the news.
The Democrats talk about it like it's charity and the humane thing to do, and the Republicans come back with 'first we have to take care of our own'. HN seems to understand this, but it isn't what makes the news.
This is the case for essentially all US federal governance at this point. Something’s going to have to give; we will either plummet into fascism as 45% of the country seems to want or we will somehow back down from the precipice through some yet unforeseen series of events.
Totally off topic, but I don't think the events will be "unforeseen". There are so many plausible predictions of what the future will hold, it's unlikely we will be surprised. At least, science fiction readers won't be surprised. My personal bet is that Star Trek has the closest thing to accurate future-history. We go through some really bad times, then master fusion technology and suddenly there is enough of everything to go around. Clearly we have a lot of growing to do before being in a post-scarcity world means that everyone is well cared for. Fingers crossed.
> So why choose that career path for even $25 or $30 an hour? It's risky.
that's just a long way of saying the people aren't paid enough to go into the career.
Imagine if these manufacturer workers get paid as much as a doctor would. People would be rushing to join. Of course, the reason they can't be paid as high, is because their output isn't that valuable - the customers of their output expect a low price.
that's just a long way of saying the people aren't paid enough to go into the career.
Imagine if these manufacturer workers get paid as much as a doctor would. People would be rushing to join. Of course, the reason they can't be paid as high, is because their output isn't that valuable - the customers of their output expect a low price.
If the pay only lasts for a year, you might reconsider it as a career path.
But you would be a fool to do so.
We manufacture arms, ordinance , and aerospace craft pretty well. Also Toyota cars, believe it or not?
https://theaviationist.com/2022/10/05/south-koreas-f-35as-gr...
https://news.usni.org/2021/01/19/navy-calls-freedom-lcs-prop...
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchd...
Not very well anymore, we can't even keep the old stuff operational, let alone make new stuff that works.
https://news.usni.org/2021/01/19/navy-calls-freedom-lcs-prop...
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchd...
Not very well anymore, we can't even keep the old stuff operational, let alone make new stuff that works.
The first point about the f35 is controversial for a variety of reasons - look up the reformers. They're still around today, and they still criticize the f35s metrics in all the ways they don't matter. Secondly, the vast majority of strike craft aren't ready for war in peacetime. This might be seen as a remarkable problem with the f35, if it didn't apply to many other strike craft the air force operate.
Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked, because, frankly, the LCS is a jobs program. But here's some of the history of the problem: when the LCS program was started, the demonstrators had appropriately sized combining gears - although it was likely the company underbid a bit to get on the contract. Mid-construction of future vessels the company that provided these combining gears was bought by another company. They updated their leadtime to three years per unit (each ship needs two) and were thusly booted from the contract. The next best size combining gear (from another supplier) wasn't good enough. And now you know the history. On top of all this, the companies building these ships are now flushing the oil and remachining the combining gears to be more durable - so they're fixing this problem.
Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News). A slipping of the maintenance schedule would be natural with a full work schedule - and they have their hands full building the new Ford class supercarriers.
You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands.
Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked, because, frankly, the LCS is a jobs program. But here's some of the history of the problem: when the LCS program was started, the demonstrators had appropriately sized combining gears - although it was likely the company underbid a bit to get on the contract. Mid-construction of future vessels the company that provided these combining gears was bought by another company. They updated their leadtime to three years per unit (each ship needs two) and were thusly booted from the contract. The next best size combining gear (from another supplier) wasn't good enough. And now you know the history. On top of all this, the companies building these ships are now flushing the oil and remachining the combining gears to be more durable - so they're fixing this problem.
Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News). A slipping of the maintenance schedule would be natural with a full work schedule - and they have their hands full building the new Ford class supercarriers.
You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands.
> Secondly, the vast majority of strike craft aren't ready for war in peacetime.
If you can't maintain your aircraft in peacetime, what do you think will happen when you go to war? Aircraft become more difficult to repair because the op tempo increases and lower echelon maintenance must be performed in theater. There is a thing called 'readiness' and you're attempting to normalize the lack of it.
> Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked,
Yeah it doesn't look good for the defense industry when they knowingly build stuff that is overpriced and doesn't work as a 'jobs program.'
> Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News).
Sounds like my point still stands, we can't build new technology that works and we can't keep the old stuff going because of a lack of defense industry capability.
> You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands.
This might work to persuade some bureaucrats but when you go to war, the enemy doesn't care about why you can't keep your war machine functional, they just like it that you can't (because they get to win). These are just high profile instances of a general malaise. There are dozens of examples we could discuss.
If you can't maintain your aircraft in peacetime, what do you think will happen when you go to war? Aircraft become more difficult to repair because the op tempo increases and lower echelon maintenance must be performed in theater. There is a thing called 'readiness' and you're attempting to normalize the lack of it.
> Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked,
Yeah it doesn't look good for the defense industry when they knowingly build stuff that is overpriced and doesn't work as a 'jobs program.'
> Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News).
Sounds like my point still stands, we can't build new technology that works and we can't keep the old stuff going because of a lack of defense industry capability.
> You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands.
This might work to persuade some bureaucrats but when you go to war, the enemy doesn't care about why you can't keep your war machine functional, they just like it that you can't (because they get to win). These are just high profile instances of a general malaise. There are dozens of examples we could discuss.
> There are no experienced manufacturing workers… This isn't a matter of the price of labor.
Nonetheless the shortage may be addressed by increasing the price. Witness the proliferation of software boot camps.
I find myself confused this fundamental mechanism of free markets seems stuck for this market in this nation. Which hidden incentive(s) do I not comprehend?
Is it simply that decades of business acumen and planning assume cheap labor, anchoring executives’ expectations well below what is now required?
Nonetheless the shortage may be addressed by increasing the price. Witness the proliferation of software boot camps.
I find myself confused this fundamental mechanism of free markets seems stuck for this market in this nation. Which hidden incentive(s) do I not comprehend?
Is it simply that decades of business acumen and planning assume cheap labor, anchoring executives’ expectations well below what is now required?
>they have no guarantee their manufacturing job won't be shipped overseas again.
Indeed. This is all just temporary work until China recovers from COVID.
Indeed. This is all just temporary work until China recovers from COVID.
IMO China is on the way out. Their real estate market is crashing, and that is bring down the banking industry. The Zero Covid policy is crashing their economy, and the younger generations would rather "Let it Rot."
The CCP might not make it to the end of the 2020s. If they somehow get all the above sorted out, the demographic charts show that will be the time they run out of young people. But it is worse than that. The charts may have overcounted the younger generations by up to 100 million people.
The de-globalization that is going on, and the fact they can't feed their population, means they will have to make drastic changes. They may even have to de-urbanize large sections of their population to keep hundreds of millions from starving.
China is on the way out.
The CCP might not make it to the end of the 2020s. If they somehow get all the above sorted out, the demographic charts show that will be the time they run out of young people. But it is worse than that. The charts may have overcounted the younger generations by up to 100 million people.
The de-globalization that is going on, and the fact they can't feed their population, means they will have to make drastic changes. They may even have to de-urbanize large sections of their population to keep hundreds of millions from starving.
China is on the way out.
I typically do not respond to posts about China partly, because I simply do not believe I know enough about it to comment appropriately. Still, what I do know is that accurate information about China in general is a lot harder to obtain that information about US. From get go this means that any discussion about demographics, real estate or banking is more speculative than anything else. Worse, it is hard to rely on anecdata, because of how large China's population is and how ( as I learned recently ) un-united China's population is ( when compared to US ). Those two factors alone should make one hesitate with offering any major predictions on its trajectory.
I am not automatically saying you are wrong, but with exception of real estate, there is little I can find where somewhat verifiable data seem to support it.
I am not automatically saying you are wrong, but with exception of real estate, there is little I can find where somewhat verifiable data seem to support it.
I'm chinese (american born), I have a lot of chinese friends and relatives so I know about a lot of the on the ground anecdotal data. From that anecdotal data, I would say this video perfectly matches what I'm seeing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30VyMMce9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30VyMMce9s
I'm not Chinese American, or even American. I'm Canadian.
I never understood why people want another country to "collapse". It'd be such a humanitarian tragedy it would go from a quick moment of blind happiness to horror, think of the millions of elderly depending on pensions, already living on the edge. The kids depending on school lunches.
Our real enemies are at home, it's the corporations.
I never understood why people want another country to "collapse". It'd be such a humanitarian tragedy it would go from a quick moment of blind happiness to horror, think of the millions of elderly depending on pensions, already living on the edge. The kids depending on school lunches.
Our real enemies are at home, it's the corporations.
Americans love war.
From Vietnam to Iraq to Ukraine to Taiwan.
It's all a spectator sport for them. The USA has never been invaded by a foreign power since 1812.
From Vietnam to Iraq to Ukraine to Taiwan.
It's all a spectator sport for them. The USA has never been invaded by a foreign power since 1812.
It's easy to understand. Sports teams. It's the same concept. The US has literally been the best economy for decades. Now a 2nd place contender is rising up, it's natural for people to feel this way and latch on to every negative thing about that country and magnify it.
It happens on both sides, the Chinese feel the same way about the US of A too.
It happens on both sides, the Chinese feel the same way about the US of A too.
Analysis of electric lights at night observed by satellites normally correlates well with GDP, but in the case of China it doesn't. It indicates that GDP was being over-reported significantly:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3093296
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3093296
Here is some demographic info.
China's population numbers: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/researcher-questions-chi...
China's population numbers: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/researcher-questions-chi...
Never underestimate your enemy
China is not the enemy. That is illusory. China does not want your blood, The US does not want China's blood.
All China and the US want is to be better than the other. That makes them rivals. Very different from enemies. The irony is both rivals practically live in a symbiosis. We are rivals but survival for both China and the US involves mutual cooperation.
All China and the US want is to be better than the other. That makes them rivals. Very different from enemies. The irony is both rivals practically live in a symbiosis. We are rivals but survival for both China and the US involves mutual cooperation.
have you seen Chinese media? They want to become superpower and USA doenst want to loose that power thats how they became enemies as simple as that
Yeah, sure.
/s
/s
Maybe.
That goes on up the chain, though. The reason manufacturing left the U.S. was because it was no longer cost-effective to pay American wages at the prices prevalent in consumer goods industries. Had we kept manufacturing on-shore, the price of goods would've mimicked services like health care, law, and education, all of which have undergone very significant inflation, much more than the economy-wide average.
The result of this on-shoring craze (modulo automation) is that we're likely to see very significant inflation, basically taking us back to the cost structures we saw in the 1980s. No more cheap Chinese or Vietnamese goods at Amazon or Walmart; if we have to Buy American, expect to pay the differential between Vietnamese and American wages, roughly a 30-40x increase.
The result of this on-shoring craze (modulo automation) is that we're likely to see very significant inflation, basically taking us back to the cost structures we saw in the 1980s. No more cheap Chinese or Vietnamese goods at Amazon or Walmart; if we have to Buy American, expect to pay the differential between Vietnamese and American wages, roughly a 30-40x increase.
“No more cheap Chinese or Vietnamese goods at Amazon or Walmart; “
Sounds like paradise to me.
Sounds like paradise to me.
And hell for all the people that aren't rich and have middle or low income.
I think they’d have more money not spending it on useless junk ?
Asian produced goods aren't cheap plastic junk; they're better than American made because they're better at doing it and have all the support and supply chains there.
You can't get something the quality of a smartphone or mirrorless camera assembled in the US for the quality you can in Thailand for any amount of money. Shenzhen is just better at electronics than we are.
Of course, America does produce some of the components going into them, just like Japan and Korea and the UK do.
You can't get something the quality of a smartphone or mirrorless camera assembled in the US for the quality you can in Thailand for any amount of money. Shenzhen is just better at electronics than we are.
Of course, America does produce some of the components going into them, just like Japan and Korea and the UK do.
Being too poor to save for high quality things that don't need to be replaced as often is a tax within itself. That's part of why poverty is considered "cyclical".
There's a lot of good second hand things for very cheap available. See my other comment about coffee makers, for example.
What screws people without money is the expensive once off things that just always crop up. I have a decent job and I feel the burn, especially now with inflation, a once off surprise expensive can be deadly lately.
The accidental parking fines, the expensive medical bill, the new car tyre, the more expensive electricity etc. This IMO is more likely to create cyclical poverty than the ability to buy cheap things from Walmart(TM).
What screws people without money is the expensive once off things that just always crop up. I have a decent job and I feel the burn, especially now with inflation, a once off surprise expensive can be deadly lately.
The accidental parking fines, the expensive medical bill, the new car tyre, the more expensive electricity etc. This IMO is more likely to create cyclical poverty than the ability to buy cheap things from Walmart(TM).
"Useless junk" like food? I don't think you have a clear picture of what people buy at Wal-mart.
Food is not useless junk though
those people can have a higher income because they can get a domestic manufacturing job; its the people who aren't working and rely on subsidized social programs and welfare who would have to take the hit.
People who buy a new $10 coffee maker every 6-12 months when the last one clogs up would have to learn to clean them.
You just adapt, I can make great coffee with a 40 year old Italian Moka Pot that I can get for $5 at a second hand store and will last 200 years or more.
Do people still use drip coffee makers? I don't think any of the ways I make coffee are capable of clogging, and I have like four different ones.
Should descale the Nespresso though…
Should descale the Nespresso though…
Do people still use one of the cheapest and lowest time and energy investment ways to make coffee in an era of increasing pressure on time, money, and energy?
Yes.
Yes.
Well they should get a Zojirushi water boiler and an Aeropress.
That's a lot of trouble for a single cup of coffee. I think you imagine a different circumstance from those a drip coffee maker serves. It's not for making a nice cup of coffee for yourself while you relax before work. It's for making enough coffee for everyone as they rush around in the morning getting ready for the day, or for a whole office.
The way I mentioned is the fastest one I know of! It’s definitely faster than waiting for a drip machine to heat up cold water.
One cup. The point is you can make 12 (or more) while you do other things for the 10 minutes it takes.
That boiler comes up as over $100 minimum when I google it. I think you missed the part about cost. You can get a 40-cup coffee maker for less than that and still save more time than your Aeropress.
That boiler comes up as over $100 minimum when I google it. I think you missed the part about cost. You can get a 40-cup coffee maker for less than that and still save more time than your Aeropress.
It's expensive to be cheap
A bigger concern is that it's expensive to be poor.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/09/03/its-expen...
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/09/03/its-expen...
That article is about financial exploitation (a very real problem for which Bernie had a great solution - offer basic retail banking at the post office), not about inexpensive, sh*tty consumer goods.
The problem is, the poor can only afford the inexpensive goods, so they are "cheap" (i.e. they make cost-inefficient purchases) through lack of choice.
This
The coffee makers are now $30.
Not if you are paying 10x for the same quality.
> The result of this on-shoring craze (modulo automation) is that we're likely to see very significant inflation, basically taking us back to the cost structures we saw in the 1980s. No more cheap Chinese or Vietnamese goods at Amazon or Walmart; if we have to Buy American, expect to pay the differential between Vietnamese and American wages, roughly a 30-40x increase.
I theorise that it might also lead to a reversal of planned obsolescence and products with a short lifespan. Companies might compete by designing goods based around longevity to justify the higher cost. Household appliances, for example, might be a once in a decade (or longer) purchase as opposed to the throwaway approach.
I theorise that it might also lead to a reversal of planned obsolescence and products with a short lifespan. Companies might compete by designing goods based around longevity to justify the higher cost. Household appliances, for example, might be a once in a decade (or longer) purchase as opposed to the throwaway approach.
I have serious doubts that American companies can change their mindset and adopt this approach in any kind of timely fashion.
Companies don't really have a choice. Employees retire and are trained up. Companies die and new companies are created. Foreign companies can expand into new markets. If there is a change of circumstance that leads to new avenues of profit, they will be taken up.
It will probably include higher prices with loans and interest and warranty obligations
What hourly rate do you think is fair for them to pay their employees? $20-$30/hour is ~130%-180% of the median income for Allegheny County, where the company is located.
I honestly don't know what's fair for the jobs the company is hiring for. Maybe they're woefully underpaying! But at first blush it does not appear terrible.
A totally not in-depth look at machinist hourly rates (in Seattle) looks fairly similar to what they're offering.
I honestly don't know what's fair for the jobs the company is hiring for. Maybe they're woefully underpaying! But at first blush it does not appear terrible.
A totally not in-depth look at machinist hourly rates (in Seattle) looks fairly similar to what they're offering.
The rate at which people start applying for their jobs. Clearly, higher than "$20 - $30", which we all know means $20.
Something I left out in the interests of brevity is that there was no mention of taking people off the street and paying for their training. That is the indicator of staff shortages.
Something I left out in the interests of brevity is that there was no mention of taking people off the street and paying for their training. That is the indicator of staff shortages.
People are aware that every job you take or have to move for is an opportunity cost. Not just in getting paid, but also in other places you could live, or other skills you could be learning, or training you have to take.
In other words, if you only get this job for a year or two and then lose it, it's not worth the risk. You'd have to be paid enough to retire on, like football players or anyone else whose career is expected to be a few years long.
In other words, if you only get this job for a year or two and then lose it, it's not worth the risk. You'd have to be paid enough to retire on, like football players or anyone else whose career is expected to be a few years long.
Avoid using "fair" there is no fair rate because fair isn't really a measurable/definable thing.
We use the market rate instead (not that that makes it a "fair" rate, it's just what we use for pragmatic reasons). If they're unable to hire, they're not paying/offering market rate pretty much by definition.
We use the market rate instead (not that that makes it a "fair" rate, it's just what we use for pragmatic reasons). If they're unable to hire, they're not paying/offering market rate pretty much by definition.
> What hourly rate do you think is fair for them to pay their employees? $20-$30/hour is ~130%-180% of the median income for Allegheny County, where the company is located.
So?
Why is it that capitalists can't seem to understand supply/demand curves when it comes to wages?
So?
Why is it that capitalists can't seem to understand supply/demand curves when it comes to wages?
Playing stupid is a surprisingly effective negotiation strategy when you're holding the dough.
because they are neoliberal globalists, not capitalists.
This sentence has no meaning. It's just pejorative buzzwords. What are you trying to say?
I'm responding to this:
> Why is it that capitalists can't seem to understand supply/demand curves when it comes to wages?
If they were 'capitalists' they would use the same supply/demand curve logic to labor costs as everything else.
> Why is it that capitalists can't seem to understand supply/demand curves when it comes to wages?
If they were 'capitalists' they would use the same supply/demand curve logic to labor costs as everything else.
There also might be a shortage in training or apprenticeship. You don’t export jobs and experience for 40 years and then expect workers to magically have the necessary skills from the get.
Yes, you do, if you're an MBA grad. From what I've seen over several decades, it seems like they've long expected qualified people to just magically appear whenever they need them, even after a big layoff.
I have to believe that the quote must have been scrambled in the article. Why would an assembly line worker need to be experienced or understand the industry?
I could see them having two separate problems - not finding enough unexperienced workers at $20 an hour, and separately not finding enough experienced engineering candidates at any salary.
I could see them having two separate problems - not finding enough unexperienced workers at $20 an hour, and separately not finding enough experienced engineering candidates at any salary.
One of Trump's earliest actions was to stop immigrant work visas: that includes H1-2, EB1-3 visas. He was unable to block only Muslims, so instead he blocked everybody. That's about 2 million temporary workers that weren't able to come work here. The "problem" was building up before 2020, it has just come to be noticeable only after the change in administration.
Business owners are the last ones to blame here. With the current USD exchange rate, manufacturers are facing intense battle on both labor and supply fronts.
Here is the root cause:
> Panic led to lockdowns. Lockdowns led to fiscal stimulus. Stimulus led to inflation. Inflation led to monetary tightening. Tightening leads to recession.
> The panic wasn’t free - and the bill is coming due.
https://twitter.com/naval/status/1574638443237294080
Stimulate the hell of out the nation's economy to the point where we have the "Great Resignation". Then go on to blame business owners who are trying to bring manufacturing back to US. Just completely preposterous, illogical and misplaced.
Here is the root cause:
> Panic led to lockdowns. Lockdowns led to fiscal stimulus. Stimulus led to inflation. Inflation led to monetary tightening. Tightening leads to recession.
> The panic wasn’t free - and the bill is coming due.
https://twitter.com/naval/status/1574638443237294080
Stimulate the hell of out the nation's economy to the point where we have the "Great Resignation". Then go on to blame business owners who are trying to bring manufacturing back to US. Just completely preposterous, illogical and misplaced.
“Made in America” comes up a lot, then when it comes time to needing Americans for the work, these factories either downsize, close, or just move to some faraway country again.
It’s like the thing that gets people excited only to deflate again and sizzle out hope.
Then all that’s left is another pile of rust and a trail of tax credits…
It’s like the thing that gets people excited only to deflate again and sizzle out hope.
Then all that’s left is another pile of rust and a trail of tax credits…
I thought those jobs were never coming back!
All depends on the size of the factory. Too small - can't swallow the large pill which is automation (hiring engineers, consultants, very expensive equipment). But as soon as your payroll hits a certain figure, automation becomes cheaper and bang! small town everybody laid off.
And it isn't all that big a number really.
And it isn't all that big a number really.
I don't know if I believe this POV, from what I've seen automation is an enabler to branch into broader product base.
I agree. Back in 2013 Frey and Osborne published a paper saying that 47% of US workers were threatened with unemployment from automation.
Here we are nine years later, and the prime working age employment-to-population ratio is higher than it was then[1], and unemployment is under half the 2013 rate.[2]
If automation is happening, it's probably increasing employment.
1. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
2. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
Here we are nine years later, and the prime working age employment-to-population ratio is higher than it was then[1], and unemployment is under half the 2013 rate.[2]
If automation is happening, it's probably increasing employment.
1. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
2. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
Sure if 'employment' is slinging burgers.
The fact is in America at least, folks have been sliding down the occupation ladder for a generation. Somebody who used to manage a shift at a factory is now selling shoes or a security guard. An office manager becomes a McDonald's manager. And so on and so on.
So sure, be comforted by employment statistic, but remember that the govt has been obsessing over them for half a century, and they don't reflect wealth or happiness. Witness the fraction of us that can't afford a house.
The fact is in America at least, folks have been sliding down the occupation ladder for a generation. Somebody who used to manage a shift at a factory is now selling shoes or a security guard. An office manager becomes a McDonald's manager. And so on and so on.
So sure, be comforted by employment statistic, but remember that the govt has been obsessing over them for half a century, and they don't reflect wealth or happiness. Witness the fraction of us that can't afford a house.
Good points. Looking at one statistic in isolation is not going to give me a good picture. Thanks for the reminder.
Yes, automation causing unemployment is a myth that seems to be related to the "AI is going to eat us" Singularity people. Automation does the opposite, it creates employment.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/american-workers-need-lots...
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/american-workers-need-lots...
Nah. 'Creating jobs' means "this factory doesn't need you or have a career for you, so go work someplace menial instead to put food on the table"
Its just a plain fact that manufacturing has a tiny fraction of the people employed that it did a generation or two ago. Blurring that with hopeful 'employment' statistics that ignore what kind of employment, is PollyAnna stuff.
Its just a plain fact that manufacturing has a tiny fraction of the people employed that it did a generation or two ago. Blurring that with hopeful 'employment' statistics that ignore what kind of employment, is PollyAnna stuff.
> bang! small town everybody laid off.
The labor shortage is changing this calculus very rapidly. I’m not saying it can’t still happen but it’s much more likely that the factory is lacking people to fill in the wide gaps in the automation possible.
The labor shortage is changing this calculus very rapidly. I’m not saying it can’t still happen but it’s much more likely that the factory is lacking people to fill in the wide gaps in the automation possible.
This is probably the reason. There was a spike in retirements during covid. But more importantly, the number of retirees by year is above average too: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/january/great...
Let's not downplay the deaths due to covid and lack of immigration playing a role. It's almost never just the one thing.
The bulk of the baby boomers have just hit retirement age, we have a much smaller GenX to inadequately replace them on the experienced end, a career-stunted Millennial generation filing in the middle, and an even smaller than GenX Zoomer generation joining the lower ranks. It’s a mess, but if the Millennials catch up and have enough kids then we’ll have a light at the end of the tunnel in 20 years.
> if the Millennials catch up and have enough kids
This is a big "if" and as a millenial, I don't see any signs of people wanting to have more than 1 kid. They have struggled throughout our life and don't want to sacrifice more.
This is a big "if" and as a millenial, I don't see any signs of people wanting to have more than 1 kid. They have struggled throughout our life and don't want to sacrifice more.
Atlas - or, in this case, Xi Jinping - shrugged[0].
Chinese manufacturing went through three phases:
- We can save money by moving our jobs overseas. Sure, it'll blow up our lead times and we'd have to ship goods across the Pacific thrice, but China has 3x the population of the US and the Yuan depreciation makes paying them very cheap.
- We can't move our jobs back to the US! We're all tooled up in China, and everyone else followed us there. If we moved back to the US it'd blow up our lead times and we'd have to ship goods across the Pacific thrice. Plus, we literally can't hire enough people in the US, because China is buying our product just as much as they make it now.
- We are moving production back to the US because our Chinese factory has been shut down for three months due to COVID and it ate through our buffer for shipping delays at the ports. Again. Yes, we will be paying far more for fewer workers, but getting goods across the Pacific is getting more and more expensive anyway and we're losing on money from not having goods to sell every other week.
We are at the third step.
[0] Yes I am aware of the irony of using the title of a right-libertarian political diatribe to describe the actions of a left-authoritarian dictator.
Chinese manufacturing went through three phases:
- We can save money by moving our jobs overseas. Sure, it'll blow up our lead times and we'd have to ship goods across the Pacific thrice, but China has 3x the population of the US and the Yuan depreciation makes paying them very cheap.
- We can't move our jobs back to the US! We're all tooled up in China, and everyone else followed us there. If we moved back to the US it'd blow up our lead times and we'd have to ship goods across the Pacific thrice. Plus, we literally can't hire enough people in the US, because China is buying our product just as much as they make it now.
- We are moving production back to the US because our Chinese factory has been shut down for three months due to COVID and it ate through our buffer for shipping delays at the ports. Again. Yes, we will be paying far more for fewer workers, but getting goods across the Pacific is getting more and more expensive anyway and we're losing on money from not having goods to sell every other week.
We are at the third step.
[0] Yes I am aware of the irony of using the title of a right-libertarian political diatribe to describe the actions of a left-authoritarian dictator.
3rd step also includes political instability in China, an even riskier business environment, demographic headwinds along with rising wages and increased fixed automation costs everywhere. Globalization, once "inevitable", has been dead since 2019 and isn't coming back in the foreseeable future.
What happened in 2019 that caused globalisation to die? I remember the first volleys against it being the onset of the pandemic and border tightenings in Feb/Mar 2020. In 2019, COVID-19 still seemed like it might be a local phenomenon and most people outside of China had barely any idea that it existed.
2018 and 2019 saw increasing levels of tariffs apply to Chinese goods, all to force China into signing an FTA deal that never really got off the ground (and, IMHO, would never be fully adhered to by the Chinese side).
... for the supply of goods to the USA. For supply of goods to the Chinese Middle classes, India, Korea, Japan and emerging markets in africa (who mostly love Chinese investment in their economy without world bank moralisms) none of this applies.
Is the US market still the dominant target for Chinese factories?
Is the US market still the dominant target for Chinese factories?
I believe the emerging markets are mostly mad at China because, while they may not be moralizing with their investments[0], they're bad at managing them. Japan is actually silently doing better here.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/quality-infrastructure-jap...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/countries-are-reducing-belt-...
[0] better not say anything about Taiwan though
https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/quality-infrastructure-jap...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/countries-are-reducing-belt-...
[0] better not say anything about Taiwan though
Other than Korea and Japan, those markets will happily consume cha bu duo mediocre quality.
> We're all tooled up in China
And the PRC government forbids the export of tooling.
And the PRC government forbids the export of tooling.
Can I get a citation on this please?
AFAIK, China exports a lot of machine tools, factory equipment and are known as a place you can outsource production of tools, dies, molds etc (which are then exported).
AFAIK, China exports a lot of machine tools, factory equipment and are known as a place you can outsource production of tools, dies, molds etc (which are then exported).
After reading various comments by all sorts here, it is obvious that many do not know history nor do they understand the consequences of decisions made in the past that are now coming home to roost. Those decisions being approved by whatever political group was dominate at the time.
What we see today is no different that what was seen 2 millenia ago and many times since.
The problem is a "whole of society" problem and while we are tearing ourselves to shreds over "political" and "social" and "religious" differences, we all contribute to the implosion of society in general.
This is the lesson from history and as long as we do not learn, we repeat again and again those same mistakes.
What we see today is no different that what was seen 2 millenia ago and many times since.
The problem is a "whole of society" problem and while we are tearing ourselves to shreds over "political" and "social" and "religious" differences, we all contribute to the implosion of society in general.
This is the lesson from history and as long as we do not learn, we repeat again and again those same mistakes.
Thanks Biden.
On a more serious note, hopefully this will lead to business leaders advocating for better government support in terms of child care and healthcare. The former because it will make more women available to the workforce (because unfortunately women are still the ones who have to run the home in the US) and the latter to shift the cost of health from employers to the govt and the people.
On a more serious note, hopefully this will lead to business leaders advocating for better government support in terms of child care and healthcare. The former because it will make more women available to the workforce (because unfortunately women are still the ones who have to run the home in the US) and the latter to shift the cost of health from employers to the govt and the people.
> unfortunately women are still the ones who have to rub the home in the US
They don’t HAVE to. They might do so by choice. And it may be a perfectly reasonable and fulfilling choice.
They don’t HAVE to. They might do so by choice. And it may be a perfectly reasonable and fulfilling choice.
Are they assembling or manufacturing? If you need to import all your raw materials then you're not really manufacturing anything and I seriously doubt that anyone in this country is willing to do the dirty bad breaking work for low wages with no prospect of ever owning your home.
> If you need to import all your raw materials then you're not really manufacturing anything
China imports a large amount of raw materials[1] and yet it is a manufacturing powerhouse.
https://commodity.com/data/china/
China imports a large amount of raw materials[1] and yet it is a manufacturing powerhouse.
https://commodity.com/data/china/
> you need to import all your raw materials then you're not really manufacturing anything
What a weird and unorthodox definition of manufacturing. Do you expect every factory to also have an attached mine and lumberyard and smelter and mill?
What a weird and unorthodox definition of manufacturing. Do you expect every factory to also have an attached mine and lumberyard and smelter and mill?
>with no prospect of ever owning your home.
It's strange to me how often this gets repeated as if nobody can look at Zillow and do basic math.
I just checked a random suburb of Detroit (you know, since we're talking manufacturing) and in Warren MI right now there are 64 houses for less than $100k. There are hundreds more in the city of Detroit, but it's dangerous so people may not want to live there. Plus, there are a ton of factories in Warren, so what better place to look?
No prospects of ever owning a home? Or no prospects of moving straight into your dream home in a hip downtown area near the coast at 26 years old? Let's call it what it is.
It's strange to me how often this gets repeated as if nobody can look at Zillow and do basic math.
I just checked a random suburb of Detroit (you know, since we're talking manufacturing) and in Warren MI right now there are 64 houses for less than $100k. There are hundreds more in the city of Detroit, but it's dangerous so people may not want to live there. Plus, there are a ton of factories in Warren, so what better place to look?
No prospects of ever owning a home? Or no prospects of moving straight into your dream home in a hip downtown area near the coast at 26 years old? Let's call it what it is.
Now look at Indeed and do basic math. Looking at the job ads for Warren, MI indicate there are no manufacturing jobs that pay more than $20 per hour, and most of those are part-time or term-limited. They're even trying to pay certified forklift operators sixteen bucks an hour. Good luck saving up your 20% down payment on Warren, MI wages.
That forklift operator (certification by the way, is a one day training and test) could be 18 years old living at home and save up the $20k for a downpayment in a year or two. Longer if they're not really trying. So again, we end up with a non-college educated forklift driver being able to buy a home near where they work in a couple of years time.
Real estate people think location is so important they will say it three times. I wonder why?
"No prospect of ever owning a home (...in the absolute most desirable areas of the country)"
In other news, I'll probably never be able to afford a Bentley, so I guess I have no prospects of ever owning a car.
In other news, I'll probably never be able to afford a Bentley, so I guess I have no prospects of ever owning a car.
Part of the problem is when regulation and incentives push to make it so only Bentleys are profitable to make.
My friends owns a house on five acres in a city in Montana. They wanted to carve out an acre or two for their adult kid to build on. They must put in a road, sidewalks, connect to sewer, and city water even though they are on a well and septic. Light poles, geologic surveys, and wildly expensive permits. They were not prepared for over $200k of development and fees before even laying down the house foundation. Now the land stays empty. The land itself is sellable apparently for several hundred thousand dollars. A developer would be insane to buy and develop the land and sell a house for anything under a cool million.
Originally they thought they could spend about $70k and let their kid build. Nope.
My friends owns a house on five acres in a city in Montana. They wanted to carve out an acre or two for their adult kid to build on. They must put in a road, sidewalks, connect to sewer, and city water even though they are on a well and septic. Light poles, geologic surveys, and wildly expensive permits. They were not prepared for over $200k of development and fees before even laying down the house foundation. Now the land stays empty. The land itself is sellable apparently for several hundred thousand dollars. A developer would be insane to buy and develop the land and sell a house for anything under a cool million.
Originally they thought they could spend about $70k and let their kid build. Nope.
> Part of the problem is when regulation and incentives push to make it so only Bentleys are profitable to make.
I’ll second this. Almost everywhere you go in the US are mandates that dramatically increase the cost of developing your own property (i.e. as a taxpaying individual, not as an incorporated developer). I own property and want to develop it for elderly low-income family members to enjoy, incidentally creating low-income housing consistent with the area, but permits and fees are roughly 40% of my costs. The building permit costs extra because the materials used (mostly dirt!!!) are non-flammable ! The square footage is based on the perimeter of the structure but I’m building with stabilized adobe (AKA DIRT!!!!) thus building code requires a wall thickness of 14”, resulting in substantial percentage of unusable square footage contributing to the permit cost and later property tax. Flood control district required mitigations are founded on an incorrect hazard map which results in extra expense and extra permitting costs. And so on, e.g. road access fees for roads which are never built in 25 years of fee collection, new fees for water service maintenance supposedly covered in past bills but audits kept confidential for security, legal costs to sue the county to follow it’s own rules...
(edit: wow, my knee really jerked on this one. So infuriated)
I’ll second this. Almost everywhere you go in the US are mandates that dramatically increase the cost of developing your own property (i.e. as a taxpaying individual, not as an incorporated developer). I own property and want to develop it for elderly low-income family members to enjoy, incidentally creating low-income housing consistent with the area, but permits and fees are roughly 40% of my costs. The building permit costs extra because the materials used (mostly dirt!!!) are non-flammable ! The square footage is based on the perimeter of the structure but I’m building with stabilized adobe (AKA DIRT!!!!) thus building code requires a wall thickness of 14”, resulting in substantial percentage of unusable square footage contributing to the permit cost and later property tax. Flood control district required mitigations are founded on an incorrect hazard map which results in extra expense and extra permitting costs. And so on, e.g. road access fees for roads which are never built in 25 years of fee collection, new fees for water service maintenance supposedly covered in past bills but audits kept confidential for security, legal costs to sue the county to follow it’s own rules...
(edit: wow, my knee really jerked on this one. So infuriated)
I think a lot of this is intended well. Like, a house with no road (and therefore emergency vehicle access), built on unsurveyed geology, could be a disaster waiting to happen. Requiring septic probably means the town invested heavily in the sewer system (a worthwhile investment as a former septic user) and allowing individuals to opt out breaks the financial picture.
Trailers aren’t taxed like this because they have wheels. That is also why they are so popular
"The American Dream" has also slippery sloped itself from a house with a white picket fence in a safe suburban neighborhood to if I don't become Elon Musk then there is no American Dream.
This is a bizarre take. You’re saying if you don’t grow the cotton, your textile factory doesn’t count as manufacturing?
we need to try to get more immigrants to move here
Here: a thread about moving manufacturing to US quickly becomes another boring thread where people bitch about US real estate market.
Now I long for the morning that they realize
Brutality and unjust laws cannot defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organize
When the bosses send their lackeys out to cheat us?
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union
Brutality and unjust laws cannot defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organize
When the bosses send their lackeys out to cheat us?
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union
How would a union help here? For all their benefits, unions don't generally increase labor participation.
Union, fornicate thyself.
or is there illiquidity in labor markets, and ensuing stagnation?
you realize that was one of the big reasons manufacturing left in the first place? yes hmm why not go unionize right away so nobody moves back after all.
If the only way to bring manufacturing back is to copy the inhumane and dehumanizing conditions of "cheap labor" economies, then we're better off not bringing it back. By outsourcing our cruelty and indifference to suffering we can have the fruits without staring at it every day.
The southern states are doing manufacturing without unions and without dehumanizing anyone. This isn't a binary choice.
Yeah I'm sure those Kentucky warehouse workers felt human when that tornado helped the roof meet their heads
wow pretending that that's the only way it would happen without unions. the conditions there are more due to lack of health and safety regs than unions.
and pray, how do you think OSHA and friends came to be ..?
Oh god: HN parroting CNN parroting Biden. Reminds me of tonight's Last Week Tonight episode in several ways.
Big picture: Xenophobic, isolationist tendencies are leading indicators of downfall of a society's openness, net positive immigration of talent, technical superiority, and leadership in the world. China is America's factory. There is little technical know-how left in America to make things at scale, and there's no way to do it economically. 98% of the supply-chain is global. "Factory owners" might as well give it a go to get some grants and then outsource it to Africa.
Big picture: Xenophobic, isolationist tendencies are leading indicators of downfall of a society's openness, net positive immigration of talent, technical superiority, and leadership in the world. China is America's factory. There is little technical know-how left in America to make things at scale, and there's no way to do it economically. 98% of the supply-chain is global. "Factory owners" might as well give it a go to get some grants and then outsource it to Africa.
Trying to lower your dependency on an increasingly hostile and totalitarian partner is not isolationist, it's prudent.
Ask Germany how well the continued dependence on Russian gas, despite the increasing authoritarianism and belligerence of Russia, has panned out.
Ask Germany how well the continued dependence on Russian gas, despite the increasing authoritarianism and belligerence of Russia, has panned out.
[deleted]
CNN is an unreliable place for information. Without doing further research I assume they are spinning things for democrats to make things look better than they actually are. (Same thing goes for Fox News and any other biased media)
You're out of date, CNN is under new ownership who are turning it into a center-right news channel.
Factory workers are often not really a thing, factory slaves would be more accurate.
Use robots.
Use robots.
you sure have a rose colored view of slavery, dont you?
Do those slaves live on the plantation around back? In China they often do, but not in America.
It's not that the factories are being cheap (at least not in all cases), but the gov has to step in and bring real estate price under control, this is often the biggest economic gap that hurts our generation.