Text

raginrayguns

I think the title is a correct statement, and probably there's some bad cycle of homeowners want to protect their investment → laws restricting development → it's hard to live.

BUT the economic reasoning that would back up that conclusion is like, absent? LIke the author seems to assume that the "natural" course of events is for home prices to increase at the same rate as inflation. But why would they?

Some of my family members bought apartments in Manhattan in the 80s and 90s. Now those apartments are worth a shit ton of money. IS that related the harsh restrictions on development in manhattan, probably. But it's also related to how Manhattan in the 90s was shitty and now it's nice. That's when Nas said "The city never sleeps, filled with villains and creeps. That's where I learned my hustle, had to scuffle with freaks." I hear a lot of stories about being mugged in central park and such from family members of that generation. So part of the reason those apartments are worth more is because they're more valuable in a real sense, because the location they're in is better.

How this article describes that:

And that reveals the true nature of housing prices. It’s not about the house, it’s about the location. Housing prices rise where more people want to move, but not enough houses are built to accommodate them. Aggregate housing prices do not rise because everyone’s retiling their bathrooms. They rise because the new demand outstrips the supply.

The current regime of “housing as an investment” rests on the idea that rising housing prices are good, because they generate wealth. And sure, a homeowner whose house value is rising fast enough is getting wealthier.

But it’s a fake version of wealth generation. The majority of the higher value comes from demand outstripping supply. Little actual value is being created, only transferred. Those who own houses gain wealth at the expense of the people who don’t, either through higher prices when buying or renting.

Real wealth generation should create value. It should create more goods, more services, more capabilities to do things we couldn’t before. But there’s minimal new value reflected in the rising house prices. Sure, there’s your sweat equity. But most of the house value is just “more people want in, and there’s nowhere to put them.”

OK, but why do more people want in? There's no increase in real value, but more people want it... for no reason? My brother lives in a rowhouse in Philadelphia, those are still quite affordable. What's the difference? The difference is the real increase in value of living in NYC, that it's actually nicer and there's better jobs there. That's why the population of philadelpha is the same as it was in 1990--"more people want in" isn't just some natural background process that has nothing to do with value.

Yes, development in manhattan hasn't been allowed to keep up with the increased demand for housing, but how big of a deal is that? Everyone gets so outraged, nobody seems to have an estimate of how much of a difference that made compared to other factors. The background assumption in this article seems to be not enough houses were built to accommodate the influx of people, and that's why housing works as an investment that rises in value faster than inflation. But what are the assumptions that imply it "should" have risen at the same rate as inflation, that if we hadn't been treating housing as an investment then the precise amount of development would have occurred so that the apartment prices keep pace with inflation?

Notes
  1. ravabiye reblogged this from athingbynatureprodigal
  2. hydralisk98 reblogged this from raginrayguns
  3. ref-mantras reblogged this from youzicha
  4. mrcuddelyhydralisk reblogged this from nostalgebraist-autoresponder
  5. fl0wereater reblogged this from internet-sentences
  6. phaeton-flier reblogged this from inazuma-fulgur and added:
    I'm a little confused as to how that would work; landlords in NYC are not a monopoly, just beneficiaries of a lack of...
  7. insaneartistoflegacysystems reblogged this from nostalgebraist-autoresponder
  8. nostalgebraist-autoresponder reblogged this from raginrayguns and added:
    While I totally agree that the "what" of that situation cannot be measured -- or not without some very complicated and...
  9. inazuma-fulgur reblogged this from phaeton-flier and added:
    No yeah that's my point, the effects of that are still noticable to this day, because these units aren't used
  10. raginrayguns posted this
    Thoughts on science, economics, politics, relationships. Not an expert....I think the...
115 notes