I am going to push back on this point. When you have ancient diseases once eradicated, like typhoid the problem has gotten very bad. And it is affecting regular folk.
Maybe I don’t have an answer to the problem. Maybe my solutions aren’t going anywhere. But the problem is bad. Apocalyptic would be hyperbole, but homelessness rising 75% in 6 years if has gotten pretty damn bad.
And people have been forced to move and\ or move their businesses, its not a good situation.
What do you propose?
Ever seen a duplex? Residents(usually) can’t afford the entire place. Divide it in two, and both can.
So do you have an example of standard free market development decreasing the cost to live in an area when that area has massive demand ala CA?
I’ll give you any time in the history of America. Doesn’t even need to be CA level demand.
Right. Those telephone poles planted themselves. Free market was stepping up left and right.
Beyond that you’ve got compounding advancement with massive subsidization to the entire industry starting with its creation up to today.
I mean free market sans govt subsidies when I say standard free market. Ala the market did this thing, and didn’t require taxpayer funding to keep it floating during launch.
There’s a thousand+ examples of the free market creating and ballooning something into a huge success without intense govt funding. Telephones and TVs just obviously aren’t 2 of them. Fwiw, TV probably only as a biproduct of funding tech companies.
A Manhattan(NYC; not Kansas) apartment or condo is cheaper than the building. There’s a somewhat high demand in Manhattan, if I’m not mistaken.
If cell phone and television improvements can’t be attributed to it, I really can’t think of any free market successes. I always thought they were examples of things the market COULD do(you know, frivolous things-not really important stuff that really requires central planning), but I guess I was wrong. Socialism FTW, I guess.
Why are these people homeless? I mean, it can’t be a lack of housing because there are houses, apartments, long term hotel rentals, everywhere.
Couldn’t find it, but here’s a similar story I could find.
No, the story I read and the story I linked is just a story of a builder trying to build within the existing policy framework. Watch it, it’s completely insane. Layer after layer of policy that needs to be complied with.
I can’t think of anything on such a large scale. Sure seems like our policy choices have put is in a really tough spot, doesn’t it?
You also can’t say that NYC is a bad example, because the development of the city lifted millions of people out of poverty and into increased prosperity. It’s also NEW YORK CITY, and not in an arrested state of development that would have surely created the same conditions we see in much of the West Coast today in regards to high demand/low supply housing. Imagine how much a single family ranch home on 1/4 acre lot would be worth if you replaced any given building in lower Manhattan with it today.
A billion? Hell if I know, but it would be a LOT.
Me neither. Un-fucking a lot of bad policies and the outcomes they’ve generated will take time and cause a lot of discomfort.
If you accept for a moment the idea that single mother rates might have something to do with bad outcomes, would you entertain the idea that welfare as we’ve known it is a policy failure? If you could examine the outcomes of the people receiving state aid (who could work) today, including the outcomes of their children, and compare it to the conditions the same populations generally faced in 1964, would you still pass the policy?
If Thomas Sowell’s facts and arguments are to be believed, that might have been a terrible choice. I believe the same can be said about many, many other policies.
Progressives have a tendency to compare the state of things at any given time to utopia. You just did a form of it in the post I quoted. No, changing or abandoning government policies will NOT result in immediately good outcomes. In fact, it can’t guarantee anything of the sort.
Policy outcomes play out over years and even decades, and examination of these long-term outcomes is vital to understanding the merits of any given policy.
I don’t think of myself as a progressive but that’s ok. I think the left has tons of issues. I’d describe myself as a moderate though I will admit leaning left on social issues (gay marriage, weed, etc).
I wasn’t comparing it to a utopia. Merely saying that I don’t believe government is the reason this isn’t happening.
I think it’s short sighted to think of government as the solution to all problems and also to think of government as the reason for all problems.
Did the price to live in NYC decrease as a result of the development? Serious question. I personally see the highest cost of living anywhere in the country, bar none. It’s also heavily subsidized with a number of govt programs to cover the cost of rent. When I think of NYC housing development I think of rent control. Easily the most authoritarian and govt involved living area in the country.
Also, ironically, NYC did not see free market development. It saw massively subsidized ‘freeish’ market development.
https://projects.propublica.org/subsidies
Sure. They can be partially attributed to the free market. In the way military advancement can still be partially attributed to the free market. What everyone is suggesting in the thread/convo back and forth is such that the govt step aside. My comment has been that the level of development needed to see price decreases would REQUIRE massive govt subsidization.
NYC had massive subsidization, and it’s still the most expensive place to live in the city. You have to MURDER demand with supply to move prices that naturally inflate, and in most places faster than income growth.
Of course not. Because the concept doesn’t exist in the real world. When demand exists at all price brackets, with no added value of servicing the lower brackets, only an idiot would do so. The number of idiots with access to tens of millions in capital is exceedingly small. Especially when nearly all commercial development is financed.
It did. And I’ve been with you every step of the way (on the record) to shit on the locals that don’t want to become NYC, and tell them tough shit, move if you don’t like it.
Crime rates, stop and frisk, organized crime, BEING NEW YORK CITY. You act like it’s irrational to not want to be in NYC. The vast majority of Americans don’t want to live that life, or they would be doing so.
I sure as shit wouldn’t want to live in NYC, or a copy of it.
…this isn’t how supply and demand works. or basic economics.
I keep saying it. I’m down to heavily subsidize the building in CA (which is a requirement it would seem, even in NYC). They would just need to raise their already massive state taxes, and/or get some heavy help from the federal govt. Which I’m down for. Shit in the streets is bad.
It does exist. Right now on the west coast. That’s not the only place with high demand and low supply , but a supply solution is much more accessible there than it is in an already heavily-developed place like Manhattan. You can only build so high.
It isn’t necessary to directly service the lower brackets to benefit the lower brackets. Building more housing at all levels will ease prices across the board. There’s no quick fix to this, but any fix will either require building more housing or forcing people to go somewhere else. One of those sounds better to me than the other. Let people build what suits them best, but I’ll deviate from conservatism to agree that measures are necessary to ensure the building and its occupants won’t perish in an earthquake.
Fair enough. I’ll accept the notion that interfering with your neighbors’ private property development can be very beneficial to certain neighbors. More power over others is, after all, quite useful. I just can’t get my head around the notion that these policies are at all congruent with the rhetoric of the politicians who see to their implementation. It is the very definition of using government force to serve special interests over the common interest.
Yet people seem to vote for more of it. I understand why this is so, but I hope at some point the breaking point of ludicrous policy will be reached. It can either be rolled back to more reasonable levels, or break.
Going back to my original post, I’m particularly concerned that we are very close to a major breaking point. Typhus is very serious, and it’s back. If building an apartment building takes over 5 years just to break ground, how long does it take to clean up the shit and kill off the rats?
I didn’t either, so I moved to Maine.
I think this is a terrible solution.
I’m sure many policies could be fine tuned that I’m not aware of, but it seems to me like we should remove some of the barriers to building and just…
Build. We need to build. The people have already come, in spite of not building. Think of what would happen if you build it.
Prices continue to rise on the east coast. Even with already massive govt subsidization
You’ll need to deviate on the source of funding too, if the entire history of America is to be believed.
The rhetoric of all politicians is to cater to the wealthy. They donate to campaigns
The funding isn’t pulled from people’s asses. I think it’s a terrible solution too, but every free market idea for this is hilariously devoid of basic economic principles.
The locals seem to have thought about it. You reached the same conclusion yourself.
How do we convince people to WANT to become NYC? I sure as hell don’t know how
Its the wrong question to ask as, as a general rule demand in a low supply environment drives prices up. Anybody who’s taken a basic economy class knows this and so do you, so its strange to me that you ask it, since you already know that. You won’t find a single example because such a thing does not exist in free market capitalism.
What I have seen is massive building in the face of huge demand and supply quickly out pacing demand cause a crash in housing prices. Number 1 example is Las Vagas.
Which is what I am merely suggesting LA to do. There’s tons of room LA is so spread out. I am not suggesting builders build themselves into bankruptcy, but what is stopping them from building? Is it blasphemy out west to pay less than $1G a month for a place to live?
Will building turn LA into heaven on Earth? Of course not, but it has to relieve some of the pressure. I just don’t see how building more housing wouldn’t help? It won’t be perfect, but people having a place to go is a nice start. At least opposed to having no place to go. Isn’t it?
The reason I ask, which is painfully obvious, is that real estate doesn’t follow traditional supply and demand patterns when it comes to new build development. If it did, there would be a single example of what you’re suggesting working any time in American history.
Which is why I’m saying the govt will need to subsidize the shit out of it, AND force the locals to eat shit over what they’re voting for.
I’m aware. The only way prices decline with real estate is for supply to GREATLY outpace demand.
Do you have an example that isn’t 2007? I wasn’t aware Vegas saw a housing price crash outside of the recession.
The locals not wanting to turn into the next NYC.
In California? With a new build? It’s mostly a cute suggestion. Nothing is ever pushing California rent down to 1k again. That’s not how rent/housing prices work without a crash.
Oh of course. And I’m suggesting the same thing you are. A very authoritarian and socially funded act of force against the residents of California, by which we ignore the will of the people with the intent of creating more housing.
But I’m openly saying it’s authoritarian and socially funded. I’m also saying I’m a huge hypocrite and would ABSOLUTELY tell the rest of the country to fuck off if it was happening in my back yard. I don’t want to live in the next NYC.
The Atlanta market is another example of supply outpacing demand. It’s tough to work around 2008 since it was not long ago, but even before that they built like crazy and couldn’t fill the neighborhoods. Commercially they did the same thing. We have tumble weeds blowing through strip malls that never had a tenant. And prices plumeted. You could get a great big house for not a lot of money. They actually slashed prices.
We are advocating the same thing, you want the government to do it I want the free market to do it. But of course government has to be involved rezoning and pulling off restrictions. But after that let folks build and make a buck while they are at it.
We both agree they need more roofs in LA. So we agree on the solution and mildly disagree on the method.
When exactly did that happen outside of 2007?
The difference being, I recognize the free market can’t do it without massive subsidization. And that’s on top of an already massively subsidized industry. Arguably the most subsidized industry on the planet.
We do. But fwiw, both of our methods require a very authoritarian push from some type of govt entity to overrule the will of the people. Short of convincing people to willingly become the next NYC, that’s the only option left.
Which tbh I’d be fine with. I don’t even agree with the concept of HOAs existing. I live in one now, and would also be prohibited from building a multi unit property unless I lived in one of the units. That’s just what CA would turn to if the laws failed. Many of these high end neighborhoods realize they’re protecting their way of life.
It happened for years after. Fulton county is hardly a good example as that includes Atlanta, Buckhead, John’s Creek, Alpharhetta, Roswell, etc. All the richy, rich areas are in Fulton County. The Metro Area got over massively over built and a lot of spaces are just now getting filled as these damn yankees keep planting their flags in our precious Rebel soil. The job market didn’t suffer as bad in GA as it did in other areas, but buying was stagnant as is, naturally discounts followed. By how much depended on where.
Why? I don’t understand why there has to be subsidization for builders to build. Without looking at charts and stuff, I can still feel pretty comfortable that the majority of dwellings in the country have been built with private investment.
Are you talking about subsidies for people to occupy the dwellings or subsidies to build. And if build why?
And that word is a bit sticky, because it can merely mean tax breaks, to vouchers, to investment, so what kind of subsidy are you talking about?
Authoritarian to overrule the preferred zoning of the ruling class or authoritarian to convince people to move from disease infested streets to real dwellings.
Me either, if I were a billionaire, that would be a pet project of mine, dragging those entities through courts to prove that because you cannot opt out, they are unconstitutional. If not unconstitutional, monopolistic or violate anti-trust laws.
So… during the housing crash & recession.
I’m down for another recession to drop home values, but given recessions hurt poor people the most, we might be at a net loss here.
You should look into how subsidized the housing industry is. Coming from the mortgage industry, looking into even a little will probably shock you.
I’m saying the free market, intentionally, doesn’t produce supply at a level that tanks prices. That’s not how home prices work outside of a recession. You’re not arguing with me. You’re arguing with basic economics and freedom of capital.
If you want to lower housing prices, ESPECIALLY in such a high demand area (which high demand at all income brackets), you have to completely crush demand with supply. Without a recession, that hasn’t happened in the history of this country.
The voting class***
Removing those zoning laws won’t accomplish this. NOBODY is building for low income people when demand for high income housing exists. Even less people are building for the homeless.
And how does that nullify the reality on the ground? It doesn’t. You want a housing crisis look at the late 70’s when interest rates were 20%.
And we don’t need a recession, nor a drop in current home values. The recession of 2008 was partially because the housing values were ridiculously over valued. And the mortgage companies happy to give loans for those overvalued houses that never recovered and never will be as high as they once were.
I did. I am not shocked it’s about what I expected. You were giving the impression, or I took the impression that this was happening on the supply side, which does happen but to a much lesser degree.
The demand side I wasn’t even questioning. I know there are people with housing vouchers in hand and no place to cash them in. I expected the demand side to be heavily subsidized. California has a lot of money, they should have no problem providing those subsidies to the people on Skid Row.
I am not advocating building for a class. There is plenty of money to be made in affordable housing. There does not need to be a loss. And it’s not a zero sum thing. They can build both high end and affordable housing at the same time. Especially with such demand.
I do have an idea though, we can move Skid Row to Neverland! Just let them take over. Out of sight, out of mind. Plenty of room.
Because it doesn’t address my comments. My statement was that standard (freeish market) development NEVER causes price drops in high demand areas.
So you point me to Atlanta, which did not see price drops from development, but from a housing crash.
We do if we’re using the entire US history as an example.
Did you find that single example of standard development causing price decreases yet? Obviously Atlanta was a huge miss.
It is. Both by way of subsidizing homeowners, mortgage holders, and by way of subsidizing the entire industry through interest rates that the free market can’t achieve on its own.
At the end of the day, the entire housing market (ie, prices) is reliant on the govt institution of backing the loans.
Neither am i. The free market does that just fine on it’s own. Trickle down and all that.
I thought we had the economy 101 discussion on supply and demand, being that demand drives prices up, of course your not going to see that, ever. If supply out paces demand, then prices drop and yes that happens.
There is nothing to address because high demand does not lead to price drops, ever.
Atlanta wasn’t a miss, you just looked at the wealthiest county in the area in one period of time. In the '90’s in a metro counties they over-built thinking people were just going to buy, buy, buy. The problem is they didn’t. Many relatively new neighborhoods were just pretty much empty. Starting in the early 2000’s many of those places are taken over by immigrants illegal and legal. The areas closed up shop, now driving through the signs are all in Korean or Spanish, when 15 years ago it was bustling, but over built. Immigrants were able to get those places for peanuts, because they were never really occupied.
Atlanta is a sprawl, the city is just a tiny part of what we call Atlanta. And Fulton county is by far the richest county in GA.
Okay, then we have no disagreement here, just a misunderstanding on my part.
Edit: Here is a short description of what I am talking about from 2005:
http://www.avoc.info/info/article.php?article=2414
These directly contradict each other.
High demand can lead to lower prices if supply is even higher. Thats econ 101 as well.
Can you point me, specifically, the the counties that saw prices drop from standard development?
I seem to be missing it.