I really don't understand why governments around the globe just throw their hands in the air and pretend housing is an unsolvable problem for which they have no obligation to fix.
It wasn't always like this - in 1922 in Australia we realised there was a shortage of 25,000 homes, so they just made it happen [1]. Why are we so impotent today? Do we just not care enough? Are the vested interests too powerful?
There seems to be a general lack of political will for big projects in the west.
Looking at Asia now is like what the west used to be like.
I am unsure about the cause but I suspect that a lot of it is that people seem a lot more worried about consultation with locals and such.
In the past the government might just decide “we are building a highway here” or “we are building all this infrastructure for houses there” and there seemed to be a lot less consideration for how people affected would feel about it.
Media has gotten more pervasive, so we might imagine that politicians are more concerned about things flaring up there, but Asia has plenty of media access too, so that doesn’t really explain it.
> There seems to be a general lack of political will for big projects in the west.
We don't need big projects. If popular US cities like Seattle and San Francisco simply allowed people to build 5-story apartment buildings in all the space that's currently set aside for single-family detached homes, you'd see people building millions of small projects to easily meet the demand.
The difference is that the Bay Area apartments would be new initially vacant apartments that could compete with existing apartments.
New York already has had high density for a century+, but has not been adding apartments at a rate that would match population growth (and income growth) for decades.
In the Bay example, presumably if the new apartments were a one off, prices would initially come down, but would then start to rise again as more people move in and add to demand.
The solution would be to continuously add sufficient new apartments to match population growth (which could be done by liberally allowing builders to build more density to meet demand).
Which is roughly "new units decrease price if there's excess demand". Which is the classic microeconomics theory of how the price point shifts due as the increased supply sets a new equilibrium.
And also the city would turn into a horrible place to live with tons of pollution and congestion. Similar to large Asian cities where you can barely breathe, the noise is unbearable and it's a mission to get from one part of the city to another.
Nevermind issues like "can our sewage pipes handle it?".
Paris is definitely not a place where you can point to an example of abundant, affordable housing. Are you kidding me? Adjusted for wages, Paris purchase prices are more unaffordable than London or New York.
I moved to Paris to start a new job recently, and the housing situation sucks so much.
The prices in Paris are fairly high, 1000€ for a 30m² flat. But that's the relatively small heart of "Paris intra muros", excluding the "banlieues" (suburbs) which are cheaper and 30 minutes to an hour with the Métro (or the RER). That doesn't sound more unaffordable than London, not on a tech salary and colleagues have told me co-habitation is not a thing here (whereas most of my friends and colleagues in London lived in shared flats, for example).
What makes Paris impossible to rent in, is the absolutely insane demand for housing that frees real estate agents to do whatever the fuck they please. I spent three weeks calling every day, multiple agencies, only to be told by each and every one of them that they wouldn't let to me because I am a salaried worker in a trial period ("salarié en periode d' essaie", a three-month trial period mandated by French law). Even with my company offering to be my guarantor (which means they would shoulder all the risk of rent arrears) they would not let to me. Not one. My contacts list is still full of numbers of "immobiliers" (real estate agencies), I know 80% of the agencies and I have masochistic fun pointing them out when I pass outside them with friends. Not one of them would let to me. Not. One!
That's without all the absolutely insane amount of documentation they require (three months of recent rent receipts, proof of having paid taxes in France in the last year, etc) which you won't have if you haven't already lived and worked in France for a while, and the complete bollocks demand of earning three times the rent in salary, and being able to afford two times the rent in advance (as a guarantee; we'll see if I get mine back). But I think that's all par for the course in big cities.
In the end I was only able to find an apartment because an estate agent who's friends with my boss did me a favor. And even he wouldn't talk to me until I barged into his office. So I got 15 m² with a 3m² bathroom with no sink (there's a 5lt washing machine in its place) and a "kitchen corner" that's barely enough to make breakfast cereals, all for the price of 720€.
For the record, I'm an EU citizen and I have a doctorate in a tech subject. My French colleagues have shared similar rental horror stories. I have no idea how people manage who are worse off financially, or come from outside the EU.
tl;dr: no, you don't want the housing situation in your city to be like that in Paris.
I feel your pain. And you still don't realize the worst part: things are going to get far far worse thanks to the new laws regarding energy "performance".
Basically, laws now mandate every flat to have good thermal isolation, otherwise you can't rent them.
Which means approx 30% of the housing in Paris will be banned from the renting market in the next 3 years. It started this very year.
PS: and because we're french, the diagnostic for "energy performance" of a housing is full of boggus formula which overestimate the consumption of your flat by a factor of 3 ( at least).
Thanks. Well, I didn't know that. I had thought, when I finally moved here, that the French would have free energy on demand like in Star Trek, what with all the nuclear stations. I guess not.
I like the French. It's true there's mad amounts of process and bureaucracy everywhere and as usual, none of it works. I don't think it's really worse than in other places, c'est seulement que les Français aiment grogner plus que les autres. C'est Français ca, grogner :)
Btw, je parle bien Français alors je me demande si sa serait pas encore pire si je cherchais un appart en Anglais. Aie.
>Which means approx 30% of the housing in Paris will be banned from the renting market in the next 3 years. It started this very year.
Sorry, but what stopped the landlords/building managers from insulating the apartments in due time?
I'm assuming there was a notice period given and the insulation mandate didn't spontaneously come out of nowhere.
Could it be that most landlords are just greedy rentseekers who want to have their cake and eat it too by making easy money without investing a dime in maintenance?
If you’re genuinely interested , it’s a very long story, but let me sum it up :
- in 2019 a law was passed, scheduled for being in effect starting 2023
- in 2020 they changed the way the evaluation was performed. Instead or relying on energy bills, they decided to create a formula with a tons of parameters.
- in 2021 they realized the shity formula was overestimating consumption waayyy too much, making a lot more housing improper for renting than expected (people saw their mark going from « C » to « F » or even « G »). They adjusted it.
- in 2022, the new formula is still bogus, but nothing changed
As an example, i live in the best insulated appartment i’ve ever lived in Paris (lived there for 40 years). It’s rated G (the worst), simply because it’s on the top floor.
And here we are, in 2023, with the first batch of housing being unauthorized for rental.
That sounds like a huge fuckup on the government authorities that made this decision. Such mandates should give at least 5 years notice for owners to have time to upgrade their apartments.
Yes. But see, it’s coming from the same government that ended up closing the underwear section from supermarkets during covid « for sanitary reasons », or ended up forbidding drinking inside trains (that one lasted only for a few days, because it was too crazy even for them).
We now even have a word for the country they’re turning france into : Absurdistan.
It's in large part (almost entirely?) because the laws make it extremely difficult to evict a tenant. It can take a very long time, so there's a lot of pressure on the tenant to prove they're not a future liability.
That's the big downside of heavy tenant protections - it goes so far, landlords take protective measures like torturing you with requirements.
Sure, there is a 'shortage' of housing - but all desirable, popular international tier 1 cities have this, so the word shortage is a bit of a misnomer. Although, Tokyo has something interesting to say about that, seeing that they are dealing with it better. That said my point above about purchase prices remains: you want to buy in Paris, you pay Manhattan prices with France wages. Good luck if you're not already a foreigner (partial topic of the news we're responding to) or very rich.
International rich like to buy and warehouse apartments in Paris for occasional use.
> It's in large part (almost entirely?) because the laws make it extremely difficult to evict a tenant.
I was given that explanation by at least one letting agent, but I don't believe it because I was turned down repeatedly even though I told all the agents that my employer offered to be my guarantor. That means they would have to pay rent if I didn't.
In fact, my employer is currently my guarantor, for the apartment I finally rented. My boss had to sign a contract that in the event that I stay in the house without paying rent the company will pay the rent for one year. I'm pretty sure that also includes any costs for repairs if required. That should pretty much take care of all the risk there could possibly be in renting to me. And yet, nobody would rent to me.
So the risk is not the problem. The letting agent who gave me the apartment I'm renting commented that it's just too much hassle letting to someone like me, who doesn't have all their documentation in their "dossier de locateur". It really looks like the only reason nobody wanted to let to me was that they don't give a shit whether I find a house or not and they have plenty of takers. As the French say, ils ce foutent de ma geule.
> For the record, I'm an EU citizen and I have a doctorate in a tech subject. My French colleagues have shared similar rental horror stories. I have no idea how people manage who are worse off financially, or come from outside the EU.
Having read all of this, I have no doubt that the experience you're relating is true, nonetheless, it makes me wonder how Paris's immigration boom is happening. When I was last there, most of the people I spoke to didn't have Parisian accents, and were mostly recent immigrants. There is no way all of these people outrank someone with a doctorate in a tech field, statistically speaking. I'm curious what other factors are at play here.
> it makes me wonder how Paris's immigration boom is happening [...] There is no way all of these people outrank someone with a doctorate in a tech field, statistically speaking. I'm curious what other factors are at play here.
Because a lot of immigrants who come to Paris (and any other big metro areas like London, Berlin, New York, San Fran etc.) have no standards regarding housing and don't care about these issues. They're just happy to be in a big rich city with economic opportunities (legal and otherwise) so they can make some money and send to their families back home, regardless if they live in slum like conditions.
That makes some sense, but from my point of view my housing situation is not ideal, either: the apartment I'm renting is half the size and twice the money of what I was renting before, although I didn't live at a capital city then.
I understand your skepticism, I myself find it very hard to believe I couldn't find a place to stay in Paris.
Btw, if you're thinking of "other factors" like something dodgy about my personality, there aren't any. If there was something about me so dodgy that nobody wanted to rent to me, it would affect my ability to be employed, first. And yet I got an offer from the first startup to which I applied in Paris, so it can't be that.
Perhaps the recent immigrants you spoke with were comfortable with less ... formal? ways of renting? For example, searching for "why so hard to rent in Paris foreigner" on duckduckgo, I find this account of similar difficulties as mine:
<< I arrived in Paris thinking it would be easy to find a place to live, and the end result ended up being years of dodgy landlords, questionable agencies, and a string of short-term leases which made me feel like I always had to be ready to pack up at a moment’s notice. >>
I'm guessing there are many people living in similar precarious accommodation. I didn't want that, so I guess I played on hard mode to begin with. But the point is that the hard mode is hard, and I'm not playing some game, I'm just trying to rent a place to stay and work in a European capital. It shouldn't be hard.
Berlin is far from a shithole. It's a beautiful international city with some problems, but compared to Paris' banlieues or New York filth and trash, all of Berlin's troubles are absolutely minute. For comparison, while there is some "gang" activity in Berlin, rival gangs beating each others in public swimming pools makes national news.
I like it too but only to visit and party every now and then, since, due to the massive liberal and expat/immigrant population there, it's the only place in Germany where I feel comfortable and at home, and not in a conservative conformist dystopian nightmare, despite me being fluent in German.
But with the general poor state of the city despite the high income taxes, and that terrible housing market over there I can't ever see myself moving there to live permanently today. In hindsight maybe 4-5 years ago, when housing was still easier to find, would have been the better time for that but not in the current housing market. If you lucked out and got a nice flat before housing went to hell, good for you. But then good luck next time you need to move again.
Unless all you care about is tech start-ups and wild parties with drugs and cheap food and beer, the housing market there and general poor state makes it a bad place to live if you're used to high quality of life cities that are well kept, like Vienna for example.
I'd like to live in a place where finding housing that isn't overpriced and poorly maintained, isn't a full time job in of itself where you waste dozens of hours calling agents and fighting with hundreds of people hunger games style just for the opportunity of living in an overpriced shitty uninsulated flat that hasn't seen any renovations or modernization since the early '80s (if you're lucky).
Maybe I'm getting old, but since I'm not a student anymore, the party scene doesn't make up for that huge hassle.
>but compared to Munich rent is still affordable in Berlin
I hear this a lot, and this may still have been the case 4 years ago or so, but I feel this is mostly coming from people who found housing in Berlin before Covid and aren't experiencing the current market.
Gosh, how do you reckon bigger cities manage it? Oh right, they just do. And you aren’t the last one in the door, so stop gatekeeping new entrants before you’re forced to stop.
> There seems to be a general lack of political will for big projects in the west.
The spectacular thing about the housing crisis is that you don't even need any big government projects. It just needs to be legal for private actors to build housing. On most plots of land today it is not legal to build anything but a single-family home, so cities are no longer able to naturally densify over time (just like every single modern city did 100 years ago, so that they could become the cities they are today).
My impression from the UK, which seems to have a similar housing shortage and restrictive zoning laws, is that there is another piece to this jigsaw, namely infrastructure.
There are a fair few housing developments in the UK which provide the quantity and density needed, but eg don't have sufficient roads to support the increased traffic, causing gridlocks. Similar story for schools or shops.
I want to believe this, but my personal experience shows the opposite. I live in Berlin, and there's a severe housing shortage, even though Berlin is very big geographically, and 5 story buildings are the norm, many even as mixed-use.
Why is this? Because there's a strong inflow from all over the world and not enough building. Meanwhile prices are going up without regard to incomes, and it is incredibly hard to get even a viewing, let alone be offered an apartment. On top of that, most of the stock is old and not modernized at all.
Even for private owners, it is better to not build and let scarcity drive the price of their investments higher, than to take the risk of building and potentially see rents or prices fall.
Decades ago when the West was developed, there was very little value placed on the existing stuff. Five people died constructing the Empire State building. Do you imagine the uproar if that happens today? I bet human life was valued much less back then. Similarly, lots of neighborhoods were erased to make way for highways, railroads and industrial plants. Nowadays, try constructing an industrial plant in a major city center and you will discover that people care a lot of their clean air and clear water.
There is also a related but separate aspect where environmental activists erected barriers to slow down any development. You still feel its effects today where CEQA is weaponized to slow down a small apartment housing.
If the highway were there the cultural epicenter would just be elsewhere. It doesn’t really matter where your infrastructure is. You need X infrastructure for Y people and development will naturally happen to take advantage of it.
In Boston they did the reverse of your example. They took a subway and moved it in to fill the void where a highway was supposed to go before it got cancelled. If they hadn’t cancelled the highway that subway would still be where it used to be. As an aside, the people who cancelled it really have a lot of blood on their hands because a bunch of major surface streets got developed into main thoroughfares as a result and we all know how good it is to have a highway speed road that isn’t grade separated from cross streets, pedestrians and cyclists…
To be fair with both the lower and mid manhattan expressway plans, they were at one point planning for buildings being built above and below the elevated grades. It wasn't just going to be dead space.
> Five people died constructing the Empire State building. Do you imagine the uproar if that happens today?
People still die on construction projects all the time, on relatively uninteresting things even. eg, in 2019 four people died when a crane working above a Google office building in Seattle collapsed. It was local news for a few weeks, but I'm not sure it had any other effects, regulatory or otherwise.
> Looking at Asia now is like what the west used to be like.
There is a huge property bubble in China, so I'm not sure if that is good example for us to follow. Japan is a better model, where a declining population and weariness of a huge real estate bubble that popped in the late 80s has made investing property not very feasible.
Property "bubbles" only matter when housing is scarce and therefore treated as an investment. We all understand why the recent run-up in used car prices was bad for most people, even if it meant that the people who owned a car enjoyed a sudden spike in the value of that "asset." We don't want the things we buy to be more expensive. We want them to be less expensive. Falling prices are good.
I lived in Beijing for 9 years and literally could look through unfinished peepholes of apartments (which would be called condos in the states) and see that they weren't even renovated yet. The building would be sold out years ago, but only 25% of the apartments were being lived in. And you really need to look at rents: if a 8 million RMB apartment that is on the market is also renting for 5000 RMB/month...ya, something is wrong.
It never made sense for me to buy property in China (which I was eligible to do after being there for 6 years), since rent prices were so cheap in comparison.
I’ve gotten downvoted for mentioning this on HN before but I’ll say it again - all we would need to do to largely stabilize housing prices would be to secure our borders. Our population growth is largely due to immigration, and right now we’re letting in over a million immigrants a year who will statistically have more children than the people that are already here.
I don't think immigration is strictly our problem. Well, it actually might be: it is really hard to find people to build houses right now, and legal immigration of skilled construction workers from Mexico and Central America would really do a lot to solve that problem. But then we might be screwing those countries.
That seems unlikely. A difference of a million or so out of 350 million Americans is not going to have much impact on stabilizing housing. Further, poor immigrants are not buying houses. Perhaps we have to look at regulating foreign buyers, you know, folks with money. But blaming immigrants seems misplaced.
"Last year, 912,000 single-family homes were built, according to building permit data from the US Census. The US population grew by more than 3 million people in that time."
Cutting that population growth by 1/3rd (or more, really, considering children) sure would help that number, would it not? A huge, huge portion of our population growth is due to illegal immigration.
It's more than a million. And there are delayed effects, like family members coming and of course a higher reproductive rate. Just more people to house in general. Of course immigration is a good thing overall, but let's get skilled workers in first and then fill the rest of the space fairly.
You picked a very good anecdote because it was precisely the era of governments razing entire neighbourhoods to arbitrarily build highways without the support of the locals who lived there that induced the backlash in the 70s against top down government planning.
Basically government poisoned the well itself and has still yet to really deal with the consequences.
Now things have gone too far, what was once local activism has been taken over by established wealth interests, and development is paralyzed.
While I don't think it was due to foresight as compared to, say, nimbyism, those parts of the world that are putting the brakes on development may be making the right choice. World population will peak later this century, and it has already peaked locally in many places. Some infrastructure will become a white elephant going forward once the population it was built for declines.
I feel bad for those who are stuck without adequate or inexpensive housing in the meantime, but in the aggregate it may be wise to not overbuild now.
The problem in a place like the US is mostly the distribution of jobs. There are places with abundant housing that also lack for jobs.
> Looking at Asia now is like what the west used to be like.
China has the political will for big projects. China also gets them done, and done fast. Yet China also has a housing problem, much greater than the West.
In China's case, the government deliberately creates a shortage of supply by restricting the usage of land. They also printed money directly into the housing market in 2015 when the housing bubble looked likely to burst. It is not a lack of ability to control housing prices. Instead, they have the ability and does control housing prices, by controlling them upwards.
It's NIMBYism. Most people in a state like California will agree that more affordable housing needs to be built, but no one wants it in their back yard.
Supply is artificially controlled by voters who don't want density to increase, masked behind preservations, environmental concerns or just plain corruption
It’s the other way around. Zoning changed dramatically and local governments began to aggressively intervene in the residential housing market.
Before 1900, the governments more or less stayed out of the details of residential housing. There were restrictions on what could be done with a piece of land, but the government generally did not get too involved in whether a single family vs multi-family apartment could be built on a specific parcel.
The 1926 SCOTUS case, Euclid vs. Ambler, changed all this. The SCOTUS ruled it was legal for cities to ban certain types of homes, such as cheaper, denser, apartments. By creating an artificial shortage of homes or by directly forbidding types of homes, the wrong type of poor minorities could be kept out of neighborhoods without officially banning them. Back then this was mainly blacks, but nowadays it’s broadened to include any type of poor minority in disfavor, such as college students.
College students are an excellent apolitical example - these are people who are guaranteed transient, hate the population who actually live there ("townies" amirite?) and on top, they're loud, party a lot, and do other forms of criminal activity.
Houses form a large portion of someone's net worth, moving costs a lot of money and besides, the person you want to force to move may be unable to move.
Why would they vote to let you build university housing next door to them?
Every single aspect of that dorm negatively impacts their quality of life, and further reduces their ability to afford to live anywhere else.
You can say this is "shortsighted" because of urbanist sympathies, but the reality is that voters are basically perpetually punished for allowing any kind of building. Over time, cabals of "absolutely not" form.
I doubt housing was such a hot-button issue in the past. I expect it's mostly financial: for most homeowners, their home is by far their highest-value asset, dwarfing any other savings they might have. As home prices have gone up, the effect of this has increased, and homeowners have become more and more fervent (politically) about protecting the value of their homes.
Any government proposal to increase the housing supply directly threatens this. These days, government officials who talk about doing things that decrease existing homeowners' property value get voted out, immediately.
It's incredibly short-sighted, but people vote against their long-term interests all the time.
I just bought a condo three years ago, and while it wouldn't feel good if its value decreased below the purchase price, I would gladly "pay" in that way for a more livable city, and more housing is key to that. I expect in the long run, making the city a nicer place to live would be better for my home's value anyway. But people won't care about their higher home value in 15 years if it drops for the first 3-5.
The 30 year mortgage became standard. Homes are now a significant portion of retiree's net worth and there are a lot of retirees right now who plan on leveraging their paid off homes for retirement income by downsizing.
Why would the Australian government intervene in the housing market when they can just ride the wave of infinite foreign investment instead? If the goal was actually to ensure that Australian families could afford a reasonable quality of life they would have done something about the housing market 40 years ago.
A full half of the voting base, or more, fervently vote against their own best interest. Seems like it’s happening in Europe and has taken deep roots in places like Brazil, too. People can’t really be surprised that bad things are happening when they explicitly vote for bad things to happen.
>A full half of the voting base, or more, fervently vote against their own best interest.
You really shouldn't assume you know more about half a voter base's own interest than they themselves do, regardless of their "side" in an election. People are driven by different things and put different weights on said things than you do.
The only thing this kind of thinking does is infantilize adults at best and demonize them at worst, which is pretty silly when you're talking about half the voting population.
If you think being taxed is a good thing you really don’t understand what taxes do. I’m very sympathetic to the argument that they are a necessary evil of a functioning society but to call taking peoples resources under threat of violence good implies a perverted moral compass to put it mildly.
Regardless, that’s not the point. The point is that there’s a double standard.
Taxes in a fiat currency system only exist to remove currency from circulation to prevent excessive inflation. There is no real connection between tax revenue and government expenditure since any shortfall can simply be printed. If you are a US citizen every dollar you've ever given to the federal government has been thrown into a 30 trillion dollar black hole never to be seen again, I wouldn't characterize it as a good thing
They don't though, that's what I'm saying. Take a look at https://www.usdebtclock.org- the US government is funded by debt, not taxes. If the government accumulates so much debt that it becomes a mathematical impossibility for tax revenue to ever pay it down then what is the actual purpose of paying those taxes? The purpose is to remove privately held currency from circulation, which is necessary if you want to print trillions of newly-created dollars without instantly triggering hyperinflation. If that were not the case, they could stop collecting taxes altogether and operate exactly the same as before- the only difference being the national debt rising at a faster rate. In the US at least, taxes exist solely as a release valve to enable shockingly irresponsible monetary policy
That only holds up if there is only a single tax recipient that is controlled by the same entity as the entity that controls the money printing. That is almost never the case, as there are local taxes, rebates, fines, deductions and exemptions. In fact, even the central and local governments pay each other.
I'd rather have politicians steal it and use at least a sliver of it for some good than for private individuals to sit on top of their pile of gold while people are in tents outside their compound.
What part of demolishing a home is violence? It's property, not a person or a pet. It's important to properly understand and communicate what's going on and what you're upset about. Are you upset about the displacement of the people who lived in the homes, or just about houses being demolished? What was built in their place? If a single-family home was demolished to build multi-family housing, that's a good thing for the housing crisis!
But about half of average Australian household assets are held in the value of the home, accounting for an average $A509,000 out of a total average household assets of $A1.1 million.
My hypothesis has been that renters stopped voting. They tend to be transient, younger, non-voters while landowners tend to be older, rooted and vote fervently. Density hurts landowners by decreasing property values and landowners vote.
The younger owners tend to also vote based on social "wedge" issues which means they don't need to be catered to on this issue whereas asset owners tend to vote based on their interests and have to be catered to otherwise they'll vote for the other party.
I believe this also explains the rise of progressive political factions that propose a lot of policies that seem to favour the disenfranchised but in reality benefit the rich and the asset owners. Their policies let the rich and the well off virtue signal without any consequence to their income or wealth. Voting patterns in large cities in Canada, for example in Toronto, supports this.
> I believe this also explains the rise of progressive political factions that propose a lot of policies that seem to favour the disenfranchised but in reality benefit the rich and the asset owners.
This, so much. Segregation has once again become overt Democrat Party policy, only now it's disguised as "fighting against gentrification".
> My hypothesis has been that renters stopped voting.
Who are these renters who stopped voting? I can only speak for Australia, however the average age of renters has been rising for decades. Most of Gen Y have come to terms with the fact they will likely never own property in a major city. These people keep voting, but their vote isn't accomplishing anything.
> Density hurts landowners by decreasing property values and landowners vote.
How does density actually hurt landowners? If you own a house in a heavily consolidated urban area your property value will hardly have decreased. Look at the value of houses in Ultimo, Chippendale, Pyrmont, for instance. Also consider that maybe people just don't want to live in a highrise legoland, or think that endless urban consolidation is a good thing for our cities.
> How does density actually hurt landowners? If you own a house in a heavily consolidated urban area your property value will hardly have decreased.
Correct because, and I can only speak for America, those big cities stopped building. San Francisco alone is short about a quarter million homes, like 33% of the existing population. There’s a whole Wikipedia article on it. That’s why it’s so unaffordable.
> Also consider that maybe people just don't want to live in a highrise legoland, or think that endless urban consolidation is a good thing for our cities.
This is a pretty funny position to take. Those cities didn’t get to high rises because nobody wanted to live in them. You know those buildings are full … right? If nobody wanted to live there prices would be way lower and they never would have built denser housing.
Tokyo is a great example of a major metro where supply and demand are roughly equal and they haven’t seen houses increase in price since 1990. Their units cost a bit more than cost of construction. This is the power of federalizing zoning rules so city councils can’t get between you and building a house on your property.
> San Francisco alone is short about a quarter million homes
If they added a quarter million homes, do you think they would still be short another quarter million homes?
Not saying densification is bad. But in some cities the density can keep increasing and not have any drop in demand. Apartment prices in dense cities don’t drop?
> If they added a quarter million homes, do you think they would still be short another quarter million homes?
Not in this market, haha. The number was based on the quantity of houses added vs the quantity of jobs added in SF and the surrounding area. (From [1]: "For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units") But over time? Maybe.
> Apartment prices in dense cities don’t drop?
There are very few cities where supply of housing is allowed to meet demand for housing - but as I mentioned, Japan is a great example. Japan hasn't seen an increase in the cost of housing since edit: [1995, not 1990 as I mistakenly claimed in GP post]. [2] Compare to the US. [3] What happens is that they stop going up in price.
Yea, also adding more homes or more units will just increase rents and prices anyway, especially with higher interest rates.
At the end of the day a lot of people have this very wrong idea that living in the best weather and in the epicenter of a global city with top-tier jobs, food, etc. will ever be “affordable”. It simply will not be. Ever.
Tokyo has all of those things, and yet. Why do you think supply and demand do not exist in the housing market? Why is this the one market on earth where it won't ever work? If you have as many houses as jobs in the nearby area then it will be more affordable. That's just facts.
Further higher interest rates lead to lower house prices, to an extent (but only to the extent supply exceeds demand) because people buy houses based on monthly mortgage affordability.
People have looked into this. Here are the results. [1]
> The resultant high demand for housing, combined with the lack of supply, (caused by severe restrictions on the building of new housing units) caused dramatic increases in rents and extremely high housing prices.
I'm not saying you'll be able to live in SF for the cost of living in a shack in the corn belt, but there's no reason it'll be "unaffordable forever and there's nothing we can do about it" when that historically wasn't the case and there are other global counter-examples. And a ton of research was done on this.
> Why do you think supply and demand do not exist in the housing market?
Why would you think that I think this? That's really confusing.
I think the issue you have here is that you are thinking in extremely simplistic terms and not really accounting for real supply and demand in this particular market. Instead of looking to Tokyo (which is a generally bad example because Tokyo and Japan are not great generalized models) you should look to New York City to see what will happen if you continue to build housing in the Bay Area. It won't get cheaper, in fact, the more you build the more expensive it'll get for a few of reasons:
Interest rates
Housing standards (environment, earthquakes, etc.)
Developers do not want to build low-margin housing so they'll only build "luxury" housing with cheap, but perceived higher-end finishes so they can charge more rent per sqft
Lack of available workers
As developers build additional housing they'll only build for higher rental rates, but because there is a near infinite demand for housing in San Francisco and California as a whole, as additional units come onto the market they'll raise the median rent, but it won't make existing housing cheaper, it'll just be the new floor. If you could build a million units or something in a year, you may be able to reduce prices, but construction doesn't work that quickly. Demand far outstrips supply and will continue to do so.
Tokyo is incomparable for a few reasons, but you can start by examining Japanese birth rates, immigration policy, and California's comparable car-only infrastructure.
Historical examples aren't very useful here because historically there were far fewer people, travel from the highly populated east coast to California was long and arduous and the benefits were "unknown", and people had a lot less money and stronger family ties. Trying to do global comparisons is generally suspect as well. But I guess if you want to see what things would look like, New York City, Hong Kong (pre commie China takeover) and the similar extremely high housing costs and density are appropriate versions of the future of the Bay Area real estate market. With that being said, who knows what will happen with remote work and the like, but probably won't have much in the way of price reductions there anyway over the longer term.
If you want less expensive housing you'll have to live somewhere else. That's just how the world works.
I mean here's my responses to each of the four points you raised:
1) Interest rates make existing housing stock less expensive as people are unable to afford a property of the same price based on fixed monthly payments.
2) Housing standards are relatively consistent, and you know Tokyo is on a fault line right?
3) Developers will happily add any kind of unit they think they can sell, just look at what the city of SF is rejecting on a regular basis. But even if you only build luxury housing, that pushes existing wealth out of less fancy units opening them up to lower wealth tiers. New supply is new supply. Period.
4) Lack of available workers factors into cost of construction, but cost of construction is absolutely dwarfed by market prices. If we were close at all to it, we could include (4) but we're just not.
> Tokyo is incomparable for a few reasons, but you can start by examining Japanese birth rates, immigration policy, and California's comparable car-only infrastructure.
This constrains demand, but the point remains that in their market supply and demand meet. Supply and demand can meet by increasing supply or by decreasing demand. Btw, Japan’s immigration policies are actually very lax, but the perception of their culture as unwelcoming to outsiders creates little actual demand. The US immigration policies by contrast are significantly more stringent.
Density and transit are a chicken and egg problem. More density however allows you to invest more in transit.
> If you want less expensive housing you'll have to live somewhere else.
This wasn’t the case historically and there’s no reason to think it can’t be the case in the future except for lack of zoning reform. Anyways if you want to take up the supply/demand thing feel free to take it up with Wikipedia, which cites plenty of sources that provide contrasting examples.
> That's just how the world works.
I disagree, but thanks for your perspective.
I look forward to your treatise on why supply and demand stops working when it’s nice outside ;) Especially since during COVID rents fell massively in SF as supply outstripped demand - even thought the weather remained lovely.
> Interest rates make existing housing stock less expensive as people are unable to afford a property of the same price based on fixed monthly payments.
You are making overly-simplistic assumptions. Interest rates are one factor that can lead to prices going down to balance monthly payments, but you're forgetting that developers have to borrow money as well to build new housing or new condos or apartment units, renovate existing properties, and other things including running their businesses. This causes their IRR to change, and where a fixed monthly income from a new 35 unit apartment for rent or condo building or housing development makes sense at 0% or 1% rates, it may become unattractive at a higher rate or prices and rents have to increase to account for IRR. Don't make the mistake of assuming that higher interest rates simply lead to cheaper housing across the board. Even so, higher rates don't necessarily mean that housing prices go "back" to some historic price, and even then you have to account for various markets. San Francisco is going to be different than Denver, or Miami, or Topeka.
> Housing standards are relatively consistent,
Housing regulations, build rules and quality, size, etc. all these factors are consistent across the US and Tokyo/Japan? If so, that's news to me. I don't recall Ohio where I live having the same environmental reviews (for example) as California, or the need to build to withstand earthquakes. Or are you saying that Tokyo and San Francisco have the same housing standards?
> Developers will happily add any kind of unit they think they can sell, just look at what the city of SF is rejecting on a regular basis. But even if you only build luxury housing, that pushes existing wealth out of less fancy units opening them up to lower wealth tiers.
While it's true that San Francisco in particular may be rejecting units, you are making a mistake by equating "developers will happily add any kind of unit they think they can sell" with "developers will happily add any kind of new unit they think they can sell at an internal IRR based on interest rates and market conditions".
You are also mistaken because you believe that adding "luxury" housing creates a drop in prices for other housing, that does not necessarily follow when there is pent-up demand at the cheaper price points. What you do is just increase the median rent price, not lower it, in markets like San Francisco or New York or other highly desirable areas.
> New supply is new supply. Period.
Overly-simplistic and you can show that this isn't the case by a simple thought experiment where a developer builds nothing but $50,000/month condos or $5mm homes - supply is added but doesn't alleviate housing shortages.
> Lack of available workers factors into cost of construction, but cost of construction is absolutely dwarfed by market prices. If we were close at all to it, we could include (4) but we're just not.
What do you mean "cost of construction is absolutely dwarfed by market prices"? Are you saying that it's cheaper to build new housing and sell it than it is to sell existing housing?
> This constrains demand, but the point remains that in their market supply and demand meet. Supply and demand can meet by increasing supply or by decreasing demand.
Sure but you are oversimplifying things and you can't generalize Tokyo to the US or San Francisco. Do the same thought experiment with Hong Kong, Singapore, or London.
> Btw, Japan’s immigration policies are actually very lax, but the perception of their culture as unwelcoming to outsiders creates little actual demand. The US immigration policies by contrast are significantly more stringent.
I'm not sure this is true anyway, but it doesn't matter if the effect is the same = fewer immigrants. Difficult to compare Japan versus anywhere really so I'm not sure why you continue to do so.
> Density and transit are a chicken and egg problem. More density however allows you to invest more in transit.
Yes but it is still an existing problem which is why I mentioned it. Hard to build new housing when you have mandatory parking minimums and such (I believe but could be wrong that these were removed in California as a whole last year).
> This wasn’t the case historically and there’s no reason to think it can’t be the case in the future except for lack of zoning reform.
By that rationale land in California should be free/extremely cheap because it used to be in 1880.
> I look forward to your dissertation on why supply and demand stops working when it’s nice outside ;)
So climate isn't a factor in housing prices? Why are you taking such extreme positions? "supply and demand stops working" who said that? Certainly not me.
> Especially since during COVID rents fell massively in SF as supply outstripped demand - even thought the weather remained lovely.
I mentioned COVID already but it also primarily applies to office vacancies. San Francisco in particular is still very expensive to live in even despite COVID for obvious reasons - it took a global pandemic and entire shutdown of the city to get rents to drop. Populations ebb and flow, markets go up, they go down, etc.
This idea is pure fantasy. This condition of classifying people as NIMBYs if they disagree with you on this topic is incredibly toxic. There are a plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth.
> plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth
Totally agree. But the counterpart of that is rising housing costs. If you accept that tradeoff, you aren't a NIMBY. This covers many homeowners. But renters opposed to development while complaining about housing costs are trying to suppress their housing costs by increasing others'. That externalization is textbook NIMBY.
Thank you for taking the time to make a nice reply, and for not taking my criticism of your post personally. I really appreciate that.
I feel like you have a very arbitrary definition of NIMBY. I'm writing this post right now from the 14th floor of a highrise building in Sydney's inner city, in the apartment I rent from a landlord who lives in mainland China. There are still rows of historic terrace houses in the nearby suburbs that have been heritage listed. I'm sure property developers would love to turn these into more highrise apartments. Even though I'm renting, I don't want these to be replaced with endless new apartments. I could list a dozen reasons too. For one, I don't think this would help create a city that people would actually enjoy living in.
I've been told by people who would know that one of Sydney's big problems is that property developers are able to artificially inflate property value by staggering the release of newly developed property onto the market. So more development isn't necessarily going to solve any of this country's problems with property value. It hasn't so far.
> There are still rows of historic terrace houses in the nearby suburbs that have been heritage listed. I'm sure property developers would love to turn these into more highrise apartments. Even though I'm renting, I don't want these to be replaced with endless new apartments. I could list a dozen reasons too.
Funny, I would have the opposite opinion. Just because someone was alive and rich back in 1950 or whenever these cute little houses were built, doesn't give them more of a right to live in that area than others, in my opinion.
Let's face it, most of these cute litte historic houses are probably owned by the same mega-rich investors and CCP party members as your apartment building.
1 person having a garden does not justify 15 families not being able to live there.
NIMBY means not in my backyard. As in, I want the benefits of a thing but not its cost. Wanting affordable housing while denying development is NIMBY. Saying no development because you want higher property prices is not NIMBY, it's prohibitionism. (Depending on the environment, it could be reasonable and/or heartless.)
> been told by people who would know that one of Sydney's big problems is that property developers are able to artificially inflate property value by staggering the release of newly developed property onto the market
This is prudent pipeline management. Why would you bid up the cost of materials and labor only to dump the finished product at a loss?
On supply and demand: American house prices are elastic, but over long timelines [1]. In Sydney, dense housing is more elastic than detached housing [2]. The abundance of those historic terrace houses, together with long development approval times, cause the high prices and relative price inelasticity.
Doesn't this contradict your central thesis? If the supply of housing doesn't exceed the demand, the price isn't going to drop. How can urban consolidation actually benefit the renter class if property developers are able to artificially increase the value by restricting supply until mechanisms like immigration cause demand to catch up?
No. In development-constrained world, particularly one with long approval timelines, you need to make money on margin. In a less-constrained world, you can bring to force economies of scale and make money in volume.
The thesis is: if you have an anti-development environment, developers will maximise margins. This isn’t a conspiracy and it isn’t artificially increasing value. It’s survival. If ten houses will get built but there is demand for twenty, and everyone pays the same for labour and materials and lobbyists, all those houses will be as high end as the market will bear. You’re competing in getting the right to build; the market is inelastic. If anyone can build twenty or thirty houses without years of approvals, you’re going to prioritise your costs, because there is a chance you don’t sell every single house. You’re competing on price and value; the market is elastic. (You also get a learning curve.)
This is why Sydney has price inelasticity for detached housing. The scarcity is a policy choice.
This sounds intuitively correct with regards to the economics of property development. I'm not a property developer though. I'm not really that concerned about their profits. I'm a young person renting an apartment in a city that is rapidly becoming unaffordable for the average Australian. The point of my post above was: If property developers are legally able to artificially constrain supply to maximise their profits, then how does all this YIMBYism actually benefit me? The main argument I hear for urban consolidation is that increasing supply lowers the cost. If this doesn't actually happen, then what's in it for us again?
> There are a plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth.
There really aren't, though, in the sense that the costs (both societal and individual) drastically outweigh the benefits. Of course prohibitions on new construction are narrowly beneficial to specific individuals. Who wants some guys starting up new construction at 7AM next door? If you like your quiet little block, then why on Earth would you want it to densify? Somebody else's construction project is little more than an annoyance, after all. If you can ban it, then great!
The problem is that these individual preferences come with enormous costs, both economic and with respect to individual freedom. When weighed against the downsides, those banal individual preferences about densification are no longer compelling.
In short, yes, people do have rational, coherent reasons to oppose growth, but, no, those complaints are not in the end valid.
Everything in your post is just your own personal opinion.
> The problem is that these individual preferences come with enormous costs, both economic and with respect to individual freedom...
What if I don't agree with increasing the population? If I don't want to increase the number of people in the city I'm living in, then why on earth would I want urban consolidation? Does anyone actually enjoy living in a tiny apartment, as opposed to being able to afford a house with a yard? The need for endless population increase is not just some foregone conclusion. Not everyone here is an SWE living in SF, with SF problems, and SF opinions.
> In short, yes, people do have rational, coherent reasons to oppose growth, but, no, those complaints are not in the end valid.
I don't agree with your opinion. Should I just classify all of it as 'invalid'?
> What if I don't agree with increasing the population? If I don't want to increase the number of people in the city I'm living in, then why on earth would I want urban consolidation?
I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for with those “what if” questions. What if you preferred that the human race go extinct? I suppose the answer to all of these “what if” questions is simply that other people will disagree with you and oppose you in various ways.
> Does anyone actually enjoy living in a tiny apartment, as opposed to being able to afford a house with a yard?
In order to answer this question for yourself you need to first accept an iron law of economics: because decisions are not made in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an abstract preference, only constraints and tradeoffs.
My preference is that I have a 10,000 square foot single-family home located on an otherwise empty block of land just south of Central Park. That way I get everything great about single-family living and access to the economic and cultural superpower that is Manhattan.
But, and I mean this technically and in the kindest way possible: literally who gives a shit?
Everything in life is tradeoffs. The NIMBY position is that tradeoffs can be wished away by legislation. But they cannot. It only deranges the situation.
>What if I don't agree with increasing the population? If I don't want to increase the number of people in the city I'm living in, then why on earth would I want urban consolidation?
In the case of the western world, what population growth? The amount of couples in the first-world having children has slowed to a trickle in the last few decades. This seems to have spooked governments in the western world into enacting policies to encourage immigration, ostensibly to prevent a decline in economic growth coinciding with a shrinking population. The only place where the birth rate is actually increasing is Africa.
My personal theory (which people are free to disagree with) is that the decline in birth rate in the first-world is a reaction to overpopulation. Although I acknowledge that extrapolation from this example is risky, we know that some animals lose their desire to breed when population density increases, and in captivity. Is it so strange that humans could be similar?
> What public policy do you endorse that has the ability to significantly reduce the number of people being born?
I'd endorse free contraception.
Options I'd oppose but others might favor include not requiring insurance to cover fertility treatments, prohibiting IVF entirely, mandatory birth control until marriage, sterilization as punishment for crime, and removing the child tax credit. Plus restricting immigration and increasing deportations which have a similar effect on the people/housing ratio.
(But I'm in favor of more people being born, and building lots more housing)
Increasing the level of education for women. Increasing the access to pre-natal care for women. Decreasing the poverty level generally and specifically for young families. Moving more people out of agricultural work.
Those things are highly correlated with lowered birth rates, though I suspect the last one is probably not applicable to the US.
The birth rate in the US is 1.64 children per woman. It’s already a significantly shrinking population, replacement rate is around 2.1 children per woman. The US only maintains its population through immigration.
The public policy you want to reduce population growth is simply development. There’s a strong negative correlation between HDI and birth rate. The US, Canada and virtually every other developed nation would lose about 20-40% of its population in a single generation were it not for immigration.
I think non-participation has been the standard since primary elections were established. The 20% who do reliably vote in them tend to be home and business owners, whose concern over their housing investment has increased.
I don't think renters ever voted significantly. That being said, this is true. 60% of LA county rents, yet in local elections, 60% of voters are homeowners, and only half of eligible voters participated in the last election despite everyone being mailed a ballot by default and having almost a month to fill it out.
Density also helps landowners, lots that are zoned for multifamily are worth more.
The Federal Canadian government used to aid the construction of tons of housing, both market and non-market all through the 60s and 70s. It ended with the austerity budgets in 1993 of the Liberals under Jean Chretien, at which point the Federal government pretty much entirely got out of housing and left it to the provinces.
Provinces didn't fill in the gaps the same way. Shrugged their shoulders and mostly downloaded the problem to municipalities.
Municipalities didn't have any sort of revenue generating capacity to build social housing at all, nor did they have the ability to incentivize market housing, so only a limited amount of very profitable market housing gets built.
The rich used their money and power to get their cronies and puppets elected to governments the world over so they could rewrite rules to their benefit.
Just look at the increase in corporate money and lobbying in politics to see a pretty shocking corollary with pretty much every major ill the world is suffering from these days.
If people can't choose who they socialize with they'd rather just not socialize.
Most of what you're seeing in the US is the result of one group pushing another group on a third group and the third group deciding that it's just not worth bothering.
Because today houses are not for living in. They are investments.
There's multiple issues that need solving now.
1) Being able to purchase a house without ever setting foot in the country. NZ decided to stop foreigners buying houses. There were websites you can go in and people from China would buy houses without ever setting foot in NZ... The buying power of alot of people from China and India is huge. This drives up prices.
Let's not forget, most countries in Asia you literally cannot buy property if you're a foreigner. You have have to have a spouse or buy via a 3rd party who owns it and you pay them fees to hold it for you.
2) Houses are no longer valued based on your income, they are based on what you can earn.
This is difficult to solve. You need rentals to assist with foreign labour. But you want to remove rentals to prevent houses being investment properties.
Maybe they should cap the number of houses a family can own, and a business cannot rent out a home. It's built for sale, not built for rental.
3) Housing shortages. Housing supply should be assisted by the government via BTO's. Built to Order. Rather than taking huge loans from banks, you can buy a house from the government at a fixed price, that you will pay back. If you don't pay the government takes it back, otherwise you cannot sell that house for the first 10 years of ownership. You cannot rent it out for the first 5 years of ownership. Somewhat similar to how Singapore runs their BTOs.
If there was a car-note interest deduction like there is a mortgage interest deduction, you can bet that every car owner would apply pressure to shutter car factories, effectively shifting value to the spare parts market to remain sustainable.
Care are not investments, however classic cars can fetch high prices with collectors. Housing has become an investment as many of us have discovered the hard way. The government can address the housing crisis by building new housing at scale together with regulations to prevent speculation.
it's tough to engage with this kinda stuff i feel like, its either disingenuous or delusional. the brain rot is somewhere else, this is just a symptom.
> The reasons we don’t have enough homes is because governments have made it illegal to build enough new homes to meet demand.
> You are essentially say that the presence of car collectors leads to car shortages.
The price of a old car, a new car, a cheap car, and an expensive luxuary car, all vary greatly. Cars are more or less open for purchase by everyone.
Houses a fixed in a location, you cannot pick it up and move it. Let's look at each point.
1) If a house in a street costs $200,000. And you have a ton of money and go online and find the house and for you it doesn't even tickle your bank account. But you want to get some money out of your own country and into another country as a safty net or investment. Or maybe you move to said country and your buying power is much greater than the locals.
"Oh, its ONLY 200k? Heres cash"
The house next door is like "huh, the market value of this street is 170k and he sold his house for 200k? I'm gonna list mine for 220k"
"Oh, it's ONLY 220k? Heres cash"
The house next door is like "huh, the market value of this street is 170k and he sold his house for 220k? I'm gonna list mine for 300k"
"Oh, it's ONLY 300k? Heres cash"
Mean while the locals are like "oh I only needed a 20k deposit, now I need 30, 40... 100... 200k deposit"
Locals are getting priced out of their own country. This happened in NZ and Australia.
2) This I don't know how you can dispute. It's a fact that 100 years ago, houses were an asset, not an investment. Why do people need to own more than 2 houses? There are people who own, 5, 10, 30, and even more. There are businsses setup around buying property to rent it out.
What has happened is people got into the market early, with houses that cost 100k, 200k, maybe even close to 1 million dollars. And each time they buy and remortgage the house to leverage buying another property, to rent it out, use that to pay the mortgage payments, which in alot of cases rent is MORE than the mortgage.
Yet the people PAYING Rent are not in a position to get a loan to buy the same house. You often here "oh just buy a house, because renting you're paying someone elses mortgage". How to you do that when you cannot get a loan to buy the same house? How is it fair?
3) Housing Shortage. 100 years ago, people would buy property, and pay a builder to build a house on it. At some point this more or less got flipped and its builders and property developers who buy property, build a house, then sell it.
You do not need governments to build houses to solve the problem. People are simply priced out of being able to build houses. It's MUCH harder to buy an empty lot, and get a loan from a bank to build a house on that lot now.
Can governments assist with housing shortages, ABSOLUTELY. But you cannot simply blame the government on the housing shortage aspect because they aren't building enough. There are much bigger issues causing the problem.
Your’e confused about this specific conversation and the US housing market in general. I read your post several times, and can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say. Sorry.
I will make one point: in the US, it’s never been the government’s job to build homes. That’s always been left primarily to the private sector. Right now however, governments won’t allow the private sector to build enough homes. They’ve made it illegal, especially apartments.
It’s like if the government banned the production of new cars. In a few years time, a 1995 Honda accord would be worth $20,000.
The US obviously has its own problems, and I absolutely don't know the US market well enough. My comments are based around canada banning foreigners from buying homes and my knowledge on similar issues in NZ/AU.
The US however is a huge plot of land with varying housing prices across the country, even if you had foreigners buying properties, it doesn't have the same impact on the country as it does in NZ/AU/Canada.
Yes, I agree that NZ’s much smaller size makes it a more challenging case. NZ will be more affected in the short term by large swings in demand from foreign buyers.
I think you are more right than you realize. The US Federal government still to this day subsidizes and promotes home ownership. The mortgage tax deduction, the Home Sales Tax exclusion, and even the fixed rate 30 year mortgage itself - without which most of us could never buy a home in the first place - subsidizes home ownership.
But the actual building of homes is left to the private sector, which is frequently banned from building new homes by local governments.
It’s a strange situation: the Feds promote home ownership, while local governments make home ownership difficult by limiting the number of homes that can be built. It’s little wonder the housing market is so dysfunctional.
> How to you do that when you cannot get a loan to buy the same house? How is it fair?
if they cannot get a loan to buy a yacht, or a lambo, how come you don't make the same argument?
Owning a house is not some natural right. Being able to afford shelter is, and renting accomplishes that. If rent is skyrocketing, then there's a problem and the gov't needs to address it. But rents have not grown in relation to the cost of the house - in fact, rent is cheaper in most cases.
> You do not need governments to build houses to solve the problem.
no, but not because of the reason you said. It's because the gov't (or more correctly, the local councils) is preventing new builds via zoning, as well as cultural preferences for standalone house, rather than dense living in high rises.
> "Oh, it's ONLY 300k? Heres cash"
i dont know if you've been misinformed, but foreign buyers haven't been a problem in australia (and NZ and canada) for a while - ever since 2018-2019. Most of the demand for real estate are from locals. Using foreigners is a scapegoat.
> if they cannot get a loan to buy a yacht, or a lambo, how come you don't make the same argument?
> Owning a house is not some natural right. Being able to afford shelter is, and renting accomplishes that. If rent is skyrocketing, then there's a problem and the gov't needs to address it. But rents have not grown in relation to the cost of the house - in fact, rent is cheaper in most cases.
Its in your best interest for someone to own their own property. Owning property is one of the key aspects of retirement. If people have no money or property at retirement then you end up as a tax payer, paying for the persons retirement. That causes you to need to have higher taxes to fund peoples retirements.
Owning property is also a safety net, if you lose your job, atleast you have a roof over your head. If not, well, youre gonna pay for it as a tax payer by giving the person the benefit or dole.
> i dont know if you've been misinformed, but foreign buyers haven't been a problem in australia (and NZ and canada) for a while - ever since 2018-2019. Most of the demand for real estate are from locals. Using foreigners is a scapegoat.
Just because after 2018 they didn't influence prices doesn't mean the market didn't get inflated because of them. I've met people in Singapore who are not PR or Citizen in Australia who own property in Australia and just rent it out to make more money. I've met 1 person from China who owns multiple properties in NZ and AU. Who had holidayed in AU but never been to NZ.
------------
The main problem here is people don't want to pay taxes, but want the government to bail them out at every possible road block. They want the government to protect them when it suits them, but 'fix' it if it suits someone else but not them.
So if you remove the government then you need property ownership to go up, if you want more government involvement, you need higher taxes and more rentals at lower costs.
This appears to be the US? It’s not as easy in NZ/AU. While you can do it, the average joe would probably throw in the towel on the whole process.
Also the US still has states you can find good jobs in with houses that are still 200k. In the likes of NZ You have Auckland and wellington and prices that far exceed majority middle income workers.
While getting FHA 203(k) might be easy, the details are a pain in the ass. I got one to get a new roof on my first house.
Imagine all the usual shitty mis-communication and last-minute paperwork of dealing with a mortgage agent... plus last-minute fun with contractors, who are used to answering on a very different schedule. E.g. "Oh, I need 2 more competitive quotes for the same work in the next 2 days, even though you've already found your contractor" or "Oh, these quotes don't specify exactly the same work, so need to be redone."
At the end of the day, the process requires you to waste a lot of contractors' time soliciting bids for work you're never going to hire them for.
Hindsight 20/20, I would encourage finding any other method of financing work. Make your mortgage as simple as possible, so there's a chance the agent might not @&$# it up. Then deal with contractors on your own timeline.
Opposite anecdote: I walked into a model home, talked to the builder, chose a plot of land in the community, chose a floor plan with the options I wanted and had a brand new house built on it within 6 months.
Ironically, this was in metro Atlanta as well. I'd note that it was for reno work (roof and some deck) rather than new build.
I'd hope the new build market is a little more professional.
Although I saw a couple strip-to-frame-and-rebuild houses worked on and then failed code (word on the street was improper framing nailing, ouch) near another house in Kirkwood, so I guess there's dipshits the world over.
> Houses tend to increase in value, Cars tend to decline in value.
this is an observation that may be mostly supported by data right now, but also is not super meaningful.
WHY do houses appreciate? why do cars depreciate?
The answer is supply and demand: supply of housing is far more regulated than supply of cars - height limits and zoning are frequent reasons, but any sort of building approval process with unnecessary hurdles can increase supplier risk and cost. Most of these processes aren't set up with demand in mind. whereas if you are an automaker and want to churn out another 10000 cars, there's no laws stopping you (fuel efficiency / emissions requirements notwithstanding).
The problem with houses is that since a large portion of the population thinks they are investments, anything that would increase supply would devalue their investment, so fixing the regulations around them is a political quagmire.
I suppose cars, as machines, also have increasing maintenance costs over time. the same is true of houses, just over a much longer timescale... if houses depreciated instead of appreciated, we might see more torn down after 30-50 years rather than always repairing everything. Certainly the tradeoffs would start to look different.
In what way? The public registry of who owns what? The long transaction times? The high transaction fees? The rampant speculation beyond any sensible value? The "buy now or be forever poor" messaging?
Sorry, but no. Land sometimes appreciate in value. The homes built on the land nearly always depreciate in value.
And when land appreciates in value (aka by being near schools, hospitals, and well-paying jobs), we distribute the higher cost of the land among multiple homes by building taller, denser types of housing. This is presently illegal in much of the US however.
Many SFH's here in Seattle are being torn down to build multiple 3 story town homes with no yards and rooftop decks (I live in one). They still go for a million, but there are plenty of people here with that purchasing power to buy them.
Still cheaper than a 2 bedroom apartment in Beijing.
Yep, tell me about. Part of the reason is that the market is still out of whack from decades of under-building. However, the bigger reason is that new homes have always been relatively expensive. The construction costs have to be immediately recouped for one thing, and they’re often located in more desirable areas.
The beauty of new homes is that they give the Amazon tech bro something to buy instead of coming into your neighborhood and bidding up the price of the older homes. That’s the good things about new homes: They help keep old homes cheaper.
> Part of the reason is that the market is still out of whack from decades of under-building.
In the USA, anyways, many people left the home construction industry after the 2008 crash, and didn't come back when things picked up again. That means...no apprentices were trained up, experience was lost, etc...so labor costs have shot through the roof because experience is quite limited.
And try even renovating an old home! You get quotes of like $150k just to do a kitchen.
Can you edit out the nonsense bit from both our comments? I didn’t think there was anything wrong with his comment and think it prompted good conversation.
Appreciated! I've followed philliphaydon's suggestion and edited that bit out of both your comments. This way I can mark the moderation scolding off topic and collapse it.
Normally I'd never do that without getting your permission first, so if you object, please let me know and I'll put it back forthwith!
If it is just a matter of supply and demand, how come that increase in house prices have outpaced population growth by huge margins in many places? I mean look at places like, e.g. Germany which has a pretty stable population (it would be contracting if it wasn't for immigration), but house prices increased significantly over the last 10 years, pretty much throughout most of the country.
I don't know details about Germany, but you can't just look at national population trends. In the US for example, the problem is made worse by a trend of people moving from rural areas into cities.
And re the "huge margins" the relationship between supply and demand isn't linear. If you have 10% more households than homes, bidding wars will drive prices up way more than 10%.
There are several reasons; here’s a few, some US specific:
1. While the overall population may not have increased significantly in some countries, people have been migrating to cities from rural areas. This influx puts price pressure on urban housing. The US, for instance, likely has enough housing overall, it’s just spatially misallocated. A derelict, vacate home in Detroit doesn’t help someone in SF.
2. Many forms of denser housing are now illegal or have been torn down. Boarding houses are gone for instance. Boarders now compete for studios or one bedroom apts.
3. Smaller family sizes. It’s no longer common for a six person family to live in a three bedroom house. This used to be commonplace. Those six people are now two couples with a child each.
4. Related to point three, governments have made it illegal to reconfigure or replace larger homes with smaller homes more appropriate for smaller families or empty nesters. Think of the retired Boomer living in the 6 bedroom single family home, or the childless couple in a three bedroom condo with two of bedrooms being an office or guest room. Closely related, people often demand more space than they did 80 years ago.
5 This a big one: higher urban wages. After decades of wage stagnation, wages have been going up, especially in places like SF, NYC, and Boston. This is a GOOD thing. Not so good, is that these same places have kept their housing supply relatively static, forcing those with good jobs to compete amongst themselves for housing. The old joke: VC $$$ ——> Startup —-> Developer ——> Landlord, has a lot of truth to it.
1) I agree here but I have a feeling it would be unpopular policy on the democratic side of the asile if it tried to be done here in the US.
2) I am unclear why one would cap the number of houses or prevent rental. Or how that would solve the problem. Affordablity is only one reason people rent. There are alot of people that do not WANT to own. Hell I am a home owner and have often thought about selling and going back to rental. I might if I ever need to move cities again
3) Price fixing and having government take over the housing market is not a solution to what is largely a government created problem in the first place. Zoning, non-saftey based building standards (i.e min square footage, min lot size, bans on Multifamily, etc) and other government actions are the direct cause of the housing shortage. Change Zoning Laws and allow builders to only have to adhere to actual safety based building standards and housing shortage would be over.
Government putting its hands on the scales of the market for over 50 years is the root cause of the problem, everything from FHA to Fannie/Freddie, to Zoning laws all created this problem.
2) I think the vast majority of people want to own their own home, have somewhere to live when they retire, or something they can sell for some money and move to a smaller place.
There will always be a need for rentals. Moving to another city/state/town/country, etc, will require rentals so people can live. What I'm against is people owning MANY homes for the sole purpose of renting them. If you had a balance of people owning 1-3 homes, or people who rent their home out while they live somewhere else maybe for work or they retired. It would be ok.
When I was 20, just before I left NZ, I bumped someone I went to school with who had just bought his 7th house, he had quit his job because the rent income exceeded his day job and he was beginning to look for an 8th house. I'm not considering moving back to NZ as I have a family now, and looking at the prices I'm questioning if I can afford a house at all... Looking at the prices over the last 10 years, houses that wer 190k are now like 1.3 million...
3) Governments just building (or in this case not building) houses isn't the problem. Theres many government level issues to resolve. Absolutely fixing zoning laws, development laws, etc. 3 is a huge topic that could branch out into like 20 different things. I'm simply suggesting in terms of building aspect is taking some ideas from Singapore around the way BTOs are done and restrictions in place to prevent profiteering.
Well, from my point of view, regulating has never gone well. There are all kinds of example that can be cited, often called "unintended consequences" which I believe are not actually unintended at all
Government: If you think you have problems now, wait until you see our solutions
Houses are only good investments if you can rent them for a price that will yield an attractive return.
People will only rent a house for a price that they're willing to pay therefore this isn't a bubble as you imply (people are only buying because prices go up), so presumably it's a supply / demand issue.
It's extremely easy to say "reee, why don't the government build more homes!!", but where exactly do you build more homes in central London?
Oh no, sorry, you meant build more homes where there's free land? Sure, but people don't want to live there.
The issue is actually far more to do with urbanisation than anything. For example here in the UK there are plenty of places that are extremely affordable to live, the issue is that they're in rural and generally undesirable areas so no one wants to live there. When people say house prices are too high, what they actually mean is that they can't afford a house in London or some other attractive city they want to live. It's not that an average wage wouldn't get you a decent house in say Middlesbrough where the average property price is ~£150k - it's that an average wage won't get you a decent house in a nice city location. A first time buyer could easily get a two bed house in Middlesbrough for around £100k.
In my opinion the solution is counter intuitively to stop building more houses in cities. The more you build in cities the more jobs and more people relocate there. And that feeds on itself because then more people want to live there because that's where all the action is.
If instead we invested in places like Middlesbrough and offered employees incentives to relocate we could distribute the demand for housing away from over populated cities.
We could also couple this with investment in public transportation and incentivise remote working which would allow people to comfortably live further out of city centres.
Though, I suspect this is understood fairly well by governments. I think they actually see urbanisation as a good thing because it's more efficient for business to have a pool of labour and consumers concentrated in a small geographic area. The only real cost is congestion and house prices, but that's a cost to humans, not businesses.
A lot of this can be solved by simply updating zoning code to allow for more housing. Housing is only a lucrative investment because its been made artificially scarce through restrictive zoning.
I don’t necessarily see a problem with point 2. Renting a house often creates supply. The owner will create a basement suite or a nanny suite over the garage.
If housing shortage was solved then that also kills the profit motive of renting out all but the most ideal houses for renting.
The root cause in Canada is the neoliberal policy that started in the 90s that ended government building low income housing. They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because that’s profitable for builders and largely left the poor/young to be screwed.
>They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because that’s profitable for builders and largely left the poor/young to be screwed.
Is that true? I'd imagine building a big block of, say, 100 units to be far more capital efficient than building a few freestanding homes, if zoning laws allowed it.
The plethera of shoebox condos in Toronto attest to this fact. Then people wonder why birth rates are so low when the only options are having a baby while living in a 1 bdrm condo with a galley kitchen, or moving hours away from your job.
I honestly donno a lot about the US and it’s “projects”, but my understanding is large blocks of units in the US or the west tend to be built and left to rot.
Other than Singapore are there any blocks of units that don’t get run down over time and left to rot? (Seriously question as I’m curious)
Oh 100 units are still built. But they are sold as condos targeting upper middle class as those are more profitable for builders to sell. And these are not affordable for many.
We need policy that requires mixed units. Some for the affluent, some for service workers, etc.
this misses the point. The root of the housing shortage problem in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is zoning. Zoning plus NIMBYs make housing wasteful by allowing only single family houses in vast areas of prime land.
This is a simple supply-demand problem, not anything complicated. The solution is equally simple - make zoning laws basic and limited in scope.
Is this meant to argue against a limit on the quantity of properties that one individual can own? If corporations were not permitted to own property, and other individuals were allowed only two properties (what real need would there be for more), the quantity of available property for purchase would skyrocket. The prices would plummet, and far more people would be capable of owning their home.
I don't disagree that there is disincentive for developers to build mid-level properties. They want huge expensive homes or the ability to cram many people into one space. I think this is a problem, but is not the only reason for the lack of availability, as described by the grandparent and in my former paragraph.
In Singapore HDB flats are still being used for investment and my generation (30s) and younger are still feeling the pinch. IMO there’s (at least) one part missing to the BTO sauce: you got a government subsidy, you don’t get to sell on the open market. I don’t know what the alternative is, whether it’s selling back to the government (adjusted for inflation and depreciation somehow) or what, but currently there’s a significant cash transfer from the government to people who won the BTO ballot lottery, just ten years later.
Yeah it's not a bullet proof system but I think it still works relatively well.
If I understand correctly if you own a HDB, you can buy a Condo? But if you have a Condo you cannot buy an HDB? And then in some scenarios you must pick which one you will keep.
Since I'm not Singaporean I'm not well versed in the ins and outs of the system but I do think on the surface its much better than most other countries.
I think that’s right. I’m in the same boat but it’s hard to talk to anyone my age and not get an earful about the housing situation haha. Definitely better than other places I’ve seen, agreed.
Do you think the situation would improve if they were... bad investments?
Because it seems to me that we can probably find all kinds of ways to reduce a house's market value without reducing its livability. Especially if its owners are on a different continent and not around to stop us. Once they cave and sell at a loss, we've got the local cost of housing going down and whatever the deficit is stays in the local economy.
> most countries in Asia you literally cannot buy property if you're a foreigner.
This makes me wish we had a reciprocity rule. E.g., "A foreigner can only buy a house in America if Americans can buy houses in the foreigner's home country".
Having lived in both NZ and Singapore I can second these comments. Although the 'a business cannot rent out a home' bit would probably not work in practice. There's definitely an ongoing need for commercial landlords, although govt's could do more to ensure this model is sustainable and fair for both landlord and renter, usually it swings in favour of one or the other.
Commercial landlords aren't the problem, per se. Ownership concentrated in a few massive entities is.
Outlawing owning >x% of a market's housing supply (for some low x) doesn't sound like the worst idea.
What we'd want is there to be (a) enough rental housing stock, (b) enough rental owning companies of comparable size to create a healthy market on rental prices, & (c) a sane balance between the number of rental and owner-occupied homes.
Part of the current imbalances are a consequence of low interest rates though, as investors could get a lot more leverage to acquire properties for rent.
Finding a balance is very difficult, any way you tip the scale its difficult to stop it from continuing to tip causing new problems :(
It's easy to point out problems, difficult to come up with solutions.
One thing I believe is that mortgage payments, and accessible mortgages should always be lower than the rental price so those who want to own rather than rent, it makes it a easier/better option. (does that make sense?)
Why is there such an emphasis on ownership? Yes I’ve owned five properties - two to live in permanently, one to live in half the year (the other half we travel), and two investment properties. The tenants I had in my rental properties were in no position to buy a home or for that matter to rent a whole house. I rented by the room.
I actively discourage young people from buying homes. They need the flexibility to move to where the jobs are.
Besides, are you really going to discourage building multi unit housing for rents? How is that going to help housing affordability?
You kinda prove my point, you rent out a room, you can afford a high mortgage repayment and combined income from your rentals covers mortgage payments.
Preventing anyone from ever owning a home. Mortgage payments should be less than rental payments.
Also not EVERYONE will be able to afford homes. But when the middle class are priced out of owning a home, as is the issue, thats a problem.
Edit: you also seem to ignore that house prices have sky rocketed while income hasn’t. So thank you for contributing to the housing issue that causes young people to not be able to afford a home.
So, I prevented someone from owning a home that could only barely afford $80-$135/week with all utilities included?
Isn’t that the ultimate “let them eat cake”?
The alternative would be for the eight people to be homeless?
Are all of the people buying property and focusing on student housing also keeping people from buying houses? Were the college students with no income who were only going to be in town for four years and living off of student loans also going to buy houses? Should they have also been forced to buy homes or be homeless?
> So thank you for contributing to the housing issue that causes young people to not be able to afford a home
I assure you those eight people (two houses) were happy to be able to afford to have a roof over their head.
Do you suggest no one be allowed to be renters and everyone buy a home?
Do you think if income grew at the same pace as house prices, those paying $80-135/week would be able to afford a house and mortgage on a smaller home?
Do you think everyone in your perfect world would be able to or should buy a home no matter what their circumstances? Including the recently divorced single guy who found odd jobs, the ex convict trying to get his life together, etc?
The guy with the cheapest room was paying less than $4200 a year all utilities included. Did I do him a disservice?
Are you saying that renters shouldn’t exists or do you think no one should be allowed to rent a single family house under no circumstances and you should either rent an apartment or buy a house?
Providing a service doesn’t change that you’re contributing to a problem. You really sound like you don’t want people to own homes. You would rather houses be expensive so you can provide a service to more than to a few or to people who don’t want to own a home etc.
I don't think everyone should be forced to buy - I think that the tax code should be changed in order to not favor buying so heavily over renting.
A few ideas to start
1) Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction
2) Tax imputed rent same way that rent payments are taxed (so you would have to pay tax on the money you would have paid to rent from yourself)
3) Get rid of capital gains exemption ($250K per person, 500K for married couples)
or the more extreme version
Land Value Tax.
In Switzerland, 58% of the population are renters. Notably, the tax advantages of owning above are missing in Switzerland, making renting a more attractive proposition. That's what should be fixed. Don't push everyone to buy a home, but don't keep shoveling money in regressive transfers to those who do.
(I didn't even mention prop 13 in California here which locks in your property tax - that is a complete abomination and should never have been passed. It's a regressive giveaway to homeowners)
> In Switzerland, 58% of the population are renters. Notably, the tax advantages of owning above are missing in Switzerland, making renting a more attractive proposition. That's what should be fixed. Don't push everyone to buy a home, but don't keep shoveling money in regressive transfers to those who do.
I don't know how familiar you are with Switzerland, but if you are trying to paint this as a good thing, it is not. Go to www.homegate.ch or www.immobilier.ch and see how much a house costs. Hint: very few are below 1 mio CHF for a family home in a good area. That's an insane amount of money, even for a good earner. People in Switzerland don't rent long-term because its a great financial decision, they rent because they can't afford to buy.
Interest-only mortgages are common here. That means you take out a mortgage and don't even try to pay it back fully, only paying back the interest your whole life and then when you die, the bank sells the house and takes its share of the capital back. There are also some tax rules around (2) from your point above, plus negative interest rates for a long time, leading to Swiss property prices going parabolic the last few decades.
Just a useless talking point. Especially with the changes in the tax law, the standard deduction is so high, most people don’t take advantage of the interest tax deduction.
> Tax imputed rent same way that rent payments are taxed (so you would have to pay tax on the money you would have paid to rent from yourself)
So now increasing taxes are going to help make houses more affordable?
And if you do that, and want to start treating home ownership as if you are renting from yourself at “market rate”, you are now back to also allowing deductions from ownership as you would if you were a landlord - interest deduction, expenses, deductions for depreciation where you can depreciate the cost of your house over 17 years, etc
> Get rid of capital gains exemption ($250K per person, 500K for married couples)
If you make it more punitive to sell, less people are going to be willing to sell their house when they outgrow it. That makes for less housing to come onto the market.
> That's what should be fixed. Don't push everyone to buy a home
Central planning caused the problem so central planning will fix it?
I think this is upside down.
Canada has a migration policy completely at odds with reality, and, foreign home ownership as a form of international export which is a deeply corrosive to civil life.
There is a much easier way to solve the problem and that is to limit the externalisations.
Migration returned to normal levels (and 'normal' for Canada is still higher than most other places) and a total ban on foreign ownership of residential policy that should have been enacted 30 years ago.
As the world 'globalises' things like 'homes' in wealthy, well-run countries become global commodities, which is extremely bad for the population - they need to be removed from that context. FYI we might be able to sell foreign investors something else. Or - we could introduce a heavy foreign ownership tax that made the situation actually net beneficial to Canada as a whole to make more of a 'win-win'. If foreign entities want money to be in something 'safe' we should be able to provide that.
On the migration side, since half of the Canadian migration policy is oriented around goodwill and helping others, Canada should probably seek to export the one and only real thing Canadians do well and that is consistent, b-grade governance: nothing is done very well, but almost everything is done 'well enough' and that creates some very prosperous conditions. I think there is a ton of good that could possibly be done, especially in places like the Caribbean with some deeper economic and social integration. And win-win economic outcomes as well, aka 'money to be made', a bit of prosperity and surplus for everyone if we can just get things working bit more consistently.
Who sits on these boards, lobby, and vote on zoning regulations? Homeowners in the area.
The first thing that happens when a company announces a new building projects, is that they get deluged with protests from the neighboring homeowners. Sometimes this process will take years and years - there's no worse sin than taking away sunlight from neighbors, "visual pollution", and what have you.
I think the even crazier fact that explains the housing crisis is that the perception in Vancouver is that the city allows tons of new housing. If you ask residents, they'll tell you all about how much the city has changed. People are naturally conservative with respect to their immediate environment.
There are a lot of answers, but they all stem from one core answer: Because governments do not want to fix it, because those with wealth (largely) do not see it as a problem.
Three generations of people (silent, boomers, and gen x) were told that real estate was the best investment they could make for their ENTIRE LIFE. Millennials also heard this growing up.
In the US we even took extra steps to make sure that homeownership was "the thing". We created non-market solutions (the 30yr mortgage via Fannie & Freddie) that made homeownership available to every American, and then kept going and essentially turned homeownership into the forced savings and retirement program.
Now, *decades* later, home values must go up. They must go up always and forever. The entire world economy revolves on the appreciation of homes in highly developed countries like the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. People with homes need those homes to go up in value or they can't borrow against them. They can't retire. Governments need the value of homes to go up for tax revenue.
The entire world monetary system, as least as it relates to the dollar, pound and euro needs homes to continue to appreciate and the easiest way to do that is by limiting the supply of homes.
If someone waved some magic wand tomorrow that removed all building restrictions and made it so people could easily build homes, and those homes would be sold at market rates, average home values would plummet and global markets would collapse.
The only "solution" that is ever going to actually happen is more government subsidization. Longer loans. More federal guarantees. More federal tax credits.
Home values must go up. Supply must be kept scarce. Our system is built on this.
Except we know they can't and won't go up forever in those countries as they mostly have a declining birth rate, a long with many other countries. So going to be a fun crash?
That can, and will, be pushed out for generations. It's a declining birth RATE—there are still more people. Plenty more people. And we will continue to limit the number of homes. If we need to, we will shrink the number of homes available.
Home values must go up. They will go up. You should bet on them going up. Because if, for some reason that were to reverse global finance implodes and nothing else really matters.
A permanent, long term downward trend in home values may as well be the end of "money" as we know it all together. And it sort of would be, literally, since much of money creation these days is via mortgage loans.
This, unfortunately, is correct. The birth rate means jack shit. People with the capital to do so will just buy multiple homes. Holiday homes, homes closer to work, rental properties etc. If the crash ever came it would be so bad it would make the Great Depression look like a picnic. This is why governments will go to ludicrous measures such as bailing out the banks during the financial crisis and then pumping the markets with money for an entire decade (!!!) afterwards. The problem is that the system might well collapse anyway. Here in the UK we seem to be right in the center of it and it’s not looking good. The health system is on the verge of collapse and almost every public profession is striking or in the process of voting to strike and there’s now talk of coordinated action between the unions for maximum pain because the government is flat out refusing to talk.
I’ve said it before but I will say it again: the government came out and said during Covid that we were essentially running a war time economy. And the war in Ukraine and the disruption it is causing means we’re essentially still in one. During WW2, tax on the wealthiest in society was around 90%. To be quite frank, that kind of tax rate for a few years on the super rich and the globo corps is the only thing that is going to turn the ship around. No-one expects that as a long term solution, no-one is saying that is how it should always be, but in times of real, actual crisis like this, the super wealthy have to step up and take responsibility to save the system they have profited from. Temporary, very high tax rates to get some normality back and then the cycle can start over again. The poor cannot shoulder the burden anymore because they’ve been shouldering it for the last decade. They have nothing left to give and there is nothing left to cut from public services.
The problem we have today is that the super rich now have very little ties to their own countries. They are hyper mobile with private jets, multiple passports, secret tax havens, and armies of lawyers and accountants to hide money and assets. They don’t have the same pride or sense of civic duty they once did in 1939-1945 where many of them took command positions in the war or oversaw industrial production. Nowadays, they are all snapping up mansions in New Zealand and other perceived safe havens in case shit goes sideways and governments decide to play hardball. Getting them to pay their fair share to keep the system running would be exceptionally difficult, perhaps even impossible.
So where does that leave us? With either a form of brutal neo-feudalism and potentially a peasant revolt or, perhaps most likely, a technology driven dystopia where enough of the populous is given just enough support to survive. Creative can kicking accounting from the civil service to quell the threat. To make it more tolerable, the populous will be plowed with endless distractions to sedate them into compliance. Bread and circuses, quite literally the standard playbook for millennia.
Eventually, once the surplus older generations have died off and the global birth rate has declined sufficiently everywhere, all of the world’s wealth will have been concentrated into a smaller set of hands and enough resources will be in circulation that life will be comfortable once again. A generation or two will go by with no direct experience of the hardships of the past and they will start living large again. Borrowing from tomorrow to pay for today. And thus the cycle continues…
Ultra-high tax rates during WWII, when governments used tax to raise the money they needed, may have made sense. Ultra-high tax rates in an unbacked fiat currency world are purely an attempt to punish the ultra-rich (which ends up punishing the upper-middle class as the ultra-rich can afford to either package their income or escape to a lower-tax jurisdiction). In an unbacked fiat currency world, income tax rates are used to heat & cool the economy, not really as a fundraising tool for government works.
So what is your suggestion then, to punish the poor some more? Is there not enough homeless on the streets of San Francisco for you? Are the slums of Bombay too small in scope?
As I said in the comment it would be very difficult or perhaps impossible to achieve and the dangers are high (you don’t want a USSR situation happening). You might even need coordinated effort across multiple governments and there is evidence that this is kind of happening with the move towards a global 15% tax rate on corporate business.
At the end of the day, steps need to be taken to tax capital at the same rate or higher than labour. Until that happens inequality will continue to grow. As the scales have been out of balance for so long I don’t think having capital gains and other taxes at parity with or a couple of percentage points above income tax is really going to cut it. A couple of short, sharp years at 90% and all of it invested into major, physical public infrastructure projects to create jobs and filter the money down. Whatever happens, if we continue allowing wealth to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands we are going to end up with a dangerous situation.
And the problem is that it is being framed as “punishment” in the first place rather than as an opportunity to be the actual hero and save your country and fellow citizens from being thrown to the dogs. Once upon a time men used to follow leaders into battle because they had faith in them as leaders. Would we do the same today? Probably not because they’re not acting like leaders, they’re acting like arseholes who would rather get in pissing contests over the length of their super yacht than invest in making their cities and countries a better place.
It's a very complex topic, which sadly I don't have time to delve deeply into at the moment. My intent with the previous comment was only to point out a fairly large flaw in the "tax the rich" argument as previously implemented, not to suggest that the actual ultra-wealthy shouldn't pay more than they are currently.
In theory there are steps that could be taken to fix the massively broken housing market in most of the Western world. Unfortunately the vested interests and massive financial house of cards built on top of property prices make these steps politically impossible. Therefore, what can't continue forever (unsustainable house prices) will not continue forever, but it will end messily & at some unpredictable future time.
Also, "A couple of short, sharp years at 90% and all of it invested into major, physical public infrastructure projects to create jobs and filter the money down."
I'll go out on a limb & guess you weren't in the UK in the 1970s...
I was born in & lived in the UK, but I was only 7 when the 1970s ended, so my viewpoints are of limited value. From what I could gather from my parents & teachers, income tax rates peaked at 90% (and apparently 98% for "unearned income"), which drove high earners who could escape to move overseas, and made the highly-paid but unable to move, unwilling to work many hours. There was obviously a lot more going on (high inflation, growing unemployment, industrial unrest / industrial decline etc), but the ruling political party at the time of these simultaneous debacles would not be elected again for 18 years, and the fallout from their 1970s policies is still being used to attack them 5 decades later.
The couple of short sharp years at 90%, even if it were politically possible, may not actually generate as much extra revenue as you'd think (leaving aside the fact that this isn't really how governments raise operating funds in an unbacked fiat currency world) - unless you force the ultra-wealthy and high-income earners both to stay in the country and to carry on working hard, while taking away most of what they perceive as the fruits of their labors - how do you think that would go?
BTW I suspect you and I have very different opinions and politics. I find it rare these days to be able to have a civil debate "across the divide", kudos for that.
> The couple of short sharp years at 90%, even if it were politically possible, may not actually generate as much extra revenue as you'd think (leaving aside the fact that this isn't really how governments raise operating funds in an unbacked fiat currency world) - unless you force the ultra-wealthy and high-income earners both to stay in the country and to carry on working hard, while taking away most of what they perceive as the fruits of their labors - how do you think that would go?
I do agree it's not likely to work. I think the war was unique in that it was an existential threat to the rich e.g if you assets are the properties and factories in a country that's being bombed then you have no choice but to do something about it unless you want to lose all your wealth. Now everything is so globalised, even war isn't the existential threat it was. I do think we need to raise taxes on earnings through capital/assets somehow though, at least to parity with income tax.
> BTW I suspect you and I have very different opinions and politics. I find it rare these days to be able to have a civil debate "across the divide", kudos for that.
I used to be left leaning when I was in my teens and early twenties but I've consider myself non-affiliated now. I think that both sides are right and that the approach that should be taken is the one that best suits the situation at hand. I actually think that what this country (UK) could do with at the moment is a cross party government with ministers from multiple parties in ministerial roles to get rid of this nasty divisive streak we've got going on atm and start leveraging the experience and knowledge of everybody for the greater good.
I imagine my original post comes across as quite left wing. I was trying to avoid that by stating that I only saw the high tax rate as a temporary measure but the entire post was quite emotionally laden as well which didn't help. I am quite angry because I think politicians have been leading very poorly over the last decade or so. I feel like they're not only failing to help people maximise their potential, but they're actively sabotaging it with their policies. There are so many lives being wasted as a result.
What do you mean by "escape to a lower-tax jurisdiction"? Isn't it ok that the ultra-rich should be forced to go live in 2nd/3rd world countries if they want to escape tax?
South Korea might be the country to watch. In Korea too, for many decades people have been sold on the dream that homes will always be a fantastic, high-return investment. But the lowest birthrate in the world means the population already shrunk last year. Covid will have played a part by causing excess deaths but those were quite low in Korea. Adversion to immigration as a potential solution is even higher than in the US and this seems very unlikely to change as well. It will be interesting to see what happens to the housing market giving the extremely rapid aging of the population that is already happening.
It's because the current entrenched rules and regulations surrounding the housing markets in pretty much every western nation were written by landlords and property developers and the current system, like pretty much every system in the world these days was designed to exclusively benefit the already wealthy. Governments do nothing about the "Problem" because to them its a feature rather than a bug. The system is designed to protect the wealth and power of the wealthy, rather than provide public goods like housing.
I mean if anyone could build housing wherever they wanted, that would make land and house prices go down, which would mean rich people who own lots of land and lots of houses would therefore be less rich, so that will obviously never happen. Much better for the rich to stay rich and for the rest of us to be homeless according the powers that be.
Sydney's metropolitan area is already oversized. People are already regularly commuting for well over an hour to the city center on congested public transport, or driving on congested roadways. I don't think Melbourne is much different Where would we put 25,000 new homes today?
Rob Adams, former City Architect at City of Melbourne, did a study a little while ago that showed you could fit in 1 million more residents if you filled in grayfield sites with medium density, and without impacting on existing heritage zoning. Grayfield being existing under-utilised land (i.e open carparks that can could be built over).
It's been a while since I watched this video but the proposal is for 5 storey high developments along transport corridors that do not tower over suburbs like high density developments, but which also serve to engage with street life more effectively than existing low density.
It can be done. But obviously needs a departure from existing low density suburban sprawl, and a tight control over overdevelopment. But it can actually result in better amenities, faster transport, for residents.
Shanghai has lots of high rises; well, they are mostly 30 story apartment buildings that can be reliably built with concrete and unskilled labor. Yet, there is a lot of speculation market in the China so prices are still high even if supply expands (and many apartments are empty because they are just being used as speculative investments). One of the reason I didn't look at Shanghai was commute times (Microsoft's Shanghai office is in the boonies vs. Beijing where the office is at least inside the 4th ring rood).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "high rises", but I don't think this is true. I live in Tokyo, inside a 10+ floor building, that's surrounded by similar buildings.
Just off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of places with multiple blocks full of high rises, such as Ginza, Shibuya, Akihabara, etc
The solution is to peg it to job growth. Today in nyc you have nimbys in greenwich village who hope it stays as it looked the last 50 years for the next 50 years. Such a neighborhood near so many jobs and transit cannot remain a mid rise tenement district until the end of time.
Why do so many people here take for granted that living in Asian-style megacities is inevitable, or even remotely desirable? I really don't want to live in such a place.
You don't have to. All it takes is a few that will soak up the population that want affordable housing. 99% of the rest of the land will be left for you to live in as you see fit. Just don't expect your housing to be an investment or subsidies for your extra cost of infrastructure and energy.
The downside to making home ownership popular by making it a “no brainer” asset is that you have to keep making it a “no brainer” asset indefinitely.
2008 was people finding the boundaries of the equation (“just how quickly can we make prices go up?”) and the foreseeable future is a slower continuation of that game: housing will keep getting more expensive but not better because current asset holders will pull all the levers they can (outright blocking supply, making it more expensive to build via things like below-market-rate requirements, etc) to keep the train rolling.
Honestly the inevitable fallout is probably one of the greatest risks to the current societal structure (probably tied with climate change).
Let's say, for the sake of argument, there is some city called Fan Sanfrisco.
In this city, all the people that own houses are worth at least a million dollars, because they have a house that's worth that.
Now, a bunch of uppity kids want to build a TON of housing. What's that going to do to your property values based on supply and demand?
Oh right, it's going to drop.
Doesn't matter if you are a republican or democrat, if you're a home owner you defend your home values. When they say "all politics is local" THIS is what it means.
A property value drop means:
1) you are underwater in your mortgage (for newer buyers)
2) you are losing a lot of your retirement savings (for older voters, and boy howdy do they like to vote and protest)
As a Canadian I can tell you my views of what is wrong here.
NIMBY - Any time anything is proposed the locals consider how it could remotely impact them and protest.
They protest ANYTHING. As a quick example - we built wind farms, people protested, we built Solar farms, protesting..
Try building anything in Canada and you will meet NIMBY protesters. I ride my bike a lot and there are areas where they can infill and proposed a modest three story unit. The entire area is full of signs about how this small unit "doesnt fit with the area"? This very same area is desperate for housing?
Politicians dont care about the citizens, they care about getting reelected so they qualify for their gold plated pensions.
Trying to address the NIMBY issues and actually build housing could cost them an election so inaction is their best strategy.
Well, you know, there's nothing preventing you from switching from SWE into the trades if you consider it to be more lucrative. Why not jump at the opportunity while it's still hot?
Snarky notwithstanding, my point simply is that if the trades are not a desired occupation, that must be for a reason, likely a socioeconomic one. You cannot force people to enter an undesired occupation.
Because values have to climb in order to keep the real estate shell game going. Buildings depreciate, so increasing demand is the way to make magical money. The old technique, redlining, is illegal.
Commercial real estate is architected around tax avoidance strategies. 1031 exchanges, depreciation rules, etc. In many cases, it’s literally possible to build a commercial development with zero out of pocket. Residential is all about building asset value through mortgages.
Key markets like California are distorted to be even worse because the property tax laws encourage holding and not improving property. Unless there’s a constitutional convention or ballot, you’ll have homes worth $100M in 2080 paying property taxes based on a $100k valuation in 1980.
Regional and cultural specificities aside, as the population pyramid becomes more inverted the incentives of older citizens (who are more likely to own property) should be expected to outvote the interests of younger citizens (more likely to rent).
It's pretty much always the vested interests. Paige Saunders made a decent series on the problem with a Canadian slant (since he lives in Montreal, which is usually in Canada, depending on who you ask and in what language).
1. Corporate lobbying has insane control over decision making.
2. Highly vocal and critical constituents who are spurred on by propaganda and hatred.
Now politicians who want to survive pass the buck and pass toothless laws like the one in Canada claiming to making housing affordable while adding fire to the crisis by bringing in 1,000,000 immigrants a year to stave off a recession which would hurt the corporations.
In Holland we're seeing that we've made such a mess of environmental (nitrogen in particular) and neighbor objection laws (NIMBY) that evening just takes so extremely long to proceed if it does at all. And these are all artificial hurdles.
Sure the environment is important but people need a place to live and this crisis is totally out of control.
In Vancouver is pretty common to buy homes and sit on them empty as organization mean. Can you blame them? The price is meant to double on 10 years, but any apartment or house quadrupled in price over the last 15, giving incredibile yields...
I don't have access to the data, our realtor showed us many times data across the last 50 years.
Why would you do something when you can do nothing and get elected and paid? It's cynical but that's it. There is no punishment for poor performance, so why would people try?
Vest interests absolutely one way to put it. Not yet fully vested property wealth dependent influencers at the heart of business, politics and media culture and revolving door regulators makes relatively a simple problem that has been solved innumerable times and contexts in the past seem far more complex and challenging to address than it needs to be. It's difficult to convince someone of something or even create a discourse that entertains something is doable if their livelihood depends on them not believing it is.
Perhaps we need a reshoring powered return to a higher growth productive economic topology in the west rather than the predominantly rent seeking norms, so that boomers, pension funds and REITs have someplace else to shift their capital attention when cashing out their chips.
The answer is capitalism, plus a bunch of terrible incentives that come from capitalism as a philosophy. We could also solve homelessness and have known we could for less money than we spend avoiding the solution, but government spending money for actual people and their wellbeing isn’t consistent with bootstraps and whatnot. Everyone has to suffer for some homage to personal responsibility that has never existed.
Perhaps because like everything that appears simple it’s complicated.
Having a large number of new dwelling requires an infrastructure to support the people. The growth in housing rate needs to match the rate of infra growth
A large influx of properties will affect the property market which will affect the industries that affect the housing industry and the consumer confidence and wipe out retirement funds
With all due respect and not in anyway being rude, Is this fundamentally different from Saying let’s print more money and give it away to people (directly or indirectly)
It wasn't always like this - in 1922 in Australia we realised there was a shortage of 25,000 homes, so they just made it happen [1]. Why are we so impotent today? Do we just not care enough? Are the vested interests too powerful?
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlSIML5aYAAVmvf?format=jpg&name=... https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2947838631/view?sectionId=nla.obj...