| ▲ | Swizec 11 hours ago |
| > IMO high housing prices are destroying civilization. It's like a game of musical chairs. There aren't enough houses to go around. You go around and the music stops. Everyone scrambles to their nearest chair. Obviously the person on crutches will be the first to fall out of the game. The rest then talk about laziness, drugs, bootstraps, and all the rest. But add 1 more chair and there's no problem, even the dude with the broken leg can sit. |
|
| ▲ | cobbzilla 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Someone tried to build the extra chair but the endless required studies and legal challenges from existing chair-sitters bankrupted the would-be chair builder. Also the chair, if actually built, would be so expensive that one legged guy can’t afford it. His best hope is someone with a worse chair takes it, then he tries to take their seat, but there’s already a dozen two-legged guys in front of him. |
| |
| ▲ | Swizec 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Also the chair, if actually built, would be so expensive that one legged guy can’t afford it. His best hope is someone with a worse chair takes it, then he tries to take their seat, but there’s already a dozen two-legged guys in front of him. Maybe you need 5 chairs? Here in SF supply has fallen decades behind the demand curve to the point it may be impossible to catch up even if all you did was build build build. | | |
| ▲ | cobbzilla 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | POSIWID decades of reasonable, consistently applied housing policy led to the creation of islands of wealth, surrounded by oceans of poverty. ergo, this is the purpose. this is how the people there want to live. I left many years ago when I realized the futility of it all. | | |
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a death by a thousand cuts situation. Everyone wants to blame existing landowners and sure they share part of it but the lion's share of the blame ought to be directed at do-gooders (land owning or otherwise) who are unwilling to be honest (with themselves, or in the internet comments) and admit that every policy that "looks good" based on the one sided statements presented in abstract by its peddlers. Each one of those policies is part of the system that gets us the results we have and the peddlers all share in the blame. |
|
|
| ▲ | ricree 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surely at least part of it is the concentration of wealth and economic activity. There's large masses of decaying rural towns where houses are cheap, but at the same time the whole reason they're decaying is because there just isn't enough economic opportunity to afford even these cheap houses. I have no clue what the overall balance of housing looks like, but surely it doesn't help that big chunks of the housing market are being deprecated at the same time. |
|
| ▲ | cousin_it 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah. I like how Kat Woods phrased it: "You can give the slowest child sprinting lessons, but there are still nine chairs." |
|
| ▲ | titzer 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, for generations now, exponential growth in all things has been state policy and it was good (tm). Because of population growth, there's always a shortage of housing. Population is projected to peak this century. Whatever will we do when there are already enough houses for everyone to have one? |
| |
| ▲ | Swizec 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Whatever will we do when there are already enough houses for everyone to have one? In many places in Europe and Asia, the govt will essentially pay you to go live in near-abandoned villages and revitalize them. In USA it’s just ghost towns. See also Detroit The problem is better described as "There aren't enough homes where people want to live". We have plenty of houses, even in america. The "where people want to live" part largely comes down to density, zoning laws, and the fact that for most people their primary residence represents their entire net worth and it would be materially impactful if the price went down (by building more/better homes nearby). So everyone resists building. But it's okay, if you resist building for long enough then your town will eventually collapse and your house will be worth nothing anyway. Many american Towns are essentially insolvent and can't afford realistic upkeep prices for services like sewage, roads, good schools, etc., and are living on borrowed time until infrastructure collapses and nobody wants to buy there. See Strong Towns the book. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The "where people want to live" part largely comes down to density, zoning laws, and the fact that for most people their primary residence represents their entire net worth and it would be materially impactful if the price went down (by building more/better homes nearby). Infrastructure is a major deal. You can't really exist as a member of modern society without broadband Internet, unless you're Amish or whatever and even they have begun to shift attitudes. Starlink changed the calculation quite a bit, and it definitely helps, but other things such as cellphone reception and emergency services that arrive in a reasonable time are also important. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mschuster91 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > It's like a game of musical chairs. There aren't enough houses to go around. Actually, there are. In Germany for example, we have millions of units left empty... the catch is, these are in (extremely) rural areas. Areas that used to be populated, but no longer are because the government has let them fall extremely behind in modern amenities. Some even do not have cellphone service. Normally, you'd expect people and companies to do a pricing arbitrage and move where housing is cheap, but unfortunately, when there is no local employment or the infrastructure does not support remote employment, or other crucial requirements (safe potable water, electrical grid, grocery stores, schools, some sort of entertainment) are lacking, this does not work out any more. |
