can you please explain how these graphics are supposed to support your argument? it's not clear to me and i'm trying to understand the georgist POV.
nonetheless, materials and the cost of labor are the most significant costs for new buildings. not land, taxes, or zoning regulations. here is one example where this is a fact: www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-23/uvm-halts-student-housing-project-construction-costs-workforce-shortage
Switch from "national level" tab to "metro level", and select los angeles for an extreme example. Look at the the figures right of the map, that says "share of SFD units build before 1980 with a land share of" and compare the figures between 2012 and 2024. Just by eyeballing the percentages, it looks like the land share went from 50-60% to 70-80%. This is confirmed if you sum up the figures in a spreadsheet, you go from an average share of 51% to 72%.
You can compare this to overall housing prices in the LA area[1], prices in 2024 is 262.7% of 2012 prices. Suppose you have a $100k house in 2012, that will worth $262k in 2024, an appreciation of $162k. Using the land value percentages above, the land value of the houses are $51k and $188k respectively, an appreciation of $137k. That means 85% of the appreciation was in land, not because building materials got more expensive or whatever.
it's the market dynamics that create under building, not regulations. if regulations are the problem, then how were builders able to build record number housing starts leading up the GFC? and after the crash, housing starts dramatically lowered. were there new regulations introduced during that time period?
nobody to buy at your asking price so you take the house off the market rather than match the market expectations, thereby increasing scarcity for potential buyers at a lower price who are instead forced to rent due to market dynamics
There's a floor. If you sell a home for less than your mortgage amount you have to have enough cash to make up the difference.
Also, selling for significantly under the appraised price decreases likelihood of qualified buyers because it may be a red flag.
Renting until spring is a logical option when there's no buyers, since that's when the supply of buyers is much larger. I don't want to be a landlord but I also don't want to pay money to part with my house. One home in my neighborhood finally sold for 60% of what they bought it for after 6 months on the market. I think only rich people or people who've been in their homes 20 years can afford that.
I keep wondering if the powers that be knew that low down payment percentages and low interest rates would have a major side effect: increased purchase prices (back then) and lack of initial equity that would make it really hard to sell. I think a lot of people who bought or refinanced back then are just stuck.
It doesn't feel as dire as the subprime mortgage crisis, but maybe that's because renting out your property for at least breakeven is a lot less damaging than defaulting on a mortgage.
This is a weird take. I get the desire to house people but someone choosing to rent rather than sell a home they own is not the crux of the issue. When there are corporations keeping swaths of housing empty to raise rent rates the real issue is market manipulation not small participants.
nonetheless, materials and the cost of labor are the most significant costs for new buildings. not land, taxes, or zoning regulations. here is one example where this is a fact: www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-23/uvm-halts-student-housing-project-construction-costs-workforce-shortage
reply