Complaining about one bit of economics being made up nonsense to benefit the wealthy seems a little too detailed a complaint when you consider the whole.
2 Likes
Could you clarify this statement? Because I’ve seen many people who would love to get rid of it. For example, the current head of the EPA, and the leading Republican candidate for CA governor.
It’s why I dread the fact the surrounding cities are courting Amazon for their second HQ. 50k more people in a space that has some major highway projects and NIMBYism in full effect just means my rent will go up faster than it does now.
1 Like
Well, that research economist was wrong as hell. This is utterly false. From a theoretical perspective this is obvious. For supply and demand to work, you need a commodity that people can do without if the price gets too high for them. When housing prices go up, people sacrifice everything else to pay for housing, many people pay rent even though it means not having enough to eat.
But you don’t need theory. The real world just doesn’t bear this out at all. It is completely transparent that the places with the most housing have the highest housing prices. More housing keeps getting built, prices keep going up. Governments have tried all manner of public policy from one end of the spectrum to the other to see if they can get housing prices to be more affordable. Opening up tons of development has been tried in many places at many times, it doesn’t lower prices.
2 Likes
I’m talking about the people actually in California politics right now. CEQA has been proposed to be amended many times, by both Republicans and Democrats, but repeal has not been on the table for some time (basically for the reasons outlined here); CEQA EIRs cover a lot more than environment, they cover aesthetics, recreation, traffic, etc.–more than enough angles to be of use to people across the political spectrum. Of course, there’s always the potential for some moneybags to buy a repeal proposition, but within the standard channels, it’s pretty safe.
A small price to pay to keep you away from the rest of us, I guess.
I literally cannot make heads or tails at all of your “most housing = highest prices.”
Most housing relative to population? Because from what I can tell, the cities that build the most relative to their population growth actually have pretty reasonable rents. The cities that don’t have rent skyrocket.
Unlike things like education or health care, the demand for housing is, on a per person basis, a lot more finite. I’m hardly going to rent two apartments at the same time.
I think I’m going to stick with the research economist from UC Berkeley.
You know it’s not all about you, right?
2 Likes
That looks exactly like where my grandma lived through the 70s and 80s.
1 Like
Which cities do you have in mind when you think of big cities with affordable housing?
That’s why supply and demand makes absolutely no sense for housing. Everyone needs one. I made this point exactly. if there is little chocolate then people with more money can afford to pay more for it, meaning the price gets high. The entire theory of supply and demand relies on some people deciding that the price is too high so they won’t buy.
We all have our own epistemologies, I can hardly tell you what you should believe. I hope you’ll understand that while you find conversation with a guy on a plane to be a great way to understand the housing market, other people might not find the conversation a random person on the internet had with a guy on a plane to be very compelling.
3 Likes
That’s okay. All the farmers will be retiring soon. They won’t need the land.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
