8 ms·

This is a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend people don't need places to live. More people are born, hence more housing is needed.

suoduandao3 2y ago
but it's not necessarily needed in dense urban centers. Plenty of laptop class people could secure housing in rural areas for a fraction of the cost of what they're paying now.
- b112 2y ago
  One of the many things contributing to pricing, is that not enough road corridors are being built or widened. It's harder live further out, when traffic slowdowns extend commute time 10x. And governments love the idea that expensive roads can be waved away using environmentalism as an reason. Yet these same governments don't build fast transit either, and without fast amd efficient transit, trips take far far longer than a car. At this stage we should be building both, as we're that far behind.
  - hindsightbias 2y ago
    Why would the laptop class need to commute?
    - b112 2y ago
      I didn't say they would. The point is, there is a move for 'dense urban areas'. Pack 'em in. Increase that housing density. Yet there is another way in North America, where there is often an endless bounty of space. Better transportation corridors. Better transportation corridors means that housing costs plateau, because it's just easier to drive 10 minutes more, 20 minutes more, than spend 4x for housing. That said, even the laptop class often does need to commute: * Many remote workers have to attend once a week, or more often. * People make lives, friends, contacts, have relatives in specific areas. * Every once in a while, you may need to go to "the city" for something important. Medical treatment or specialists, specialty products, etc. Not everything can be shipped, or is shipped. Anyhow, it seems you sort of missed the point, that is... the faster you can get into a city, the further you can live from the city and still be part of it. This reduces housing value close/in the city.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Because their employers force them to.
      - suoduandao3 2y ago
        then they're desktop class.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
kurthr 2y ago
Actually, California population (for example) has fallen by >400k over the last several years. The first falling year was 2019, 2020 saw a small rise (<50k), 2021 saw a fall of >300k, 2022 a fall of ~150k, and 2023 a fall of ~50k. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/california/population# https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/california... That includes both births/deaths and in/out migration. Population growth rate has been generally falling since 1990 (except for a peak in 2000) and significantly so since the GFC in 2009. However, prices have skyrocketed. China has overbuilt their population by 10-100million (yes, and there are even more outrageous numbers) homes over the last 10-15 years, and yet prices in Shanghai/ Beijing/ Shenzhen still exceed NYC or SF by 50%. They have a falling population. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_price_rankings?itemId=100 https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_price_rankings?it...
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  China has the confounding issue where it has both poor social security systems and a mistrusted, dysfunctional stock market and financial system, so everyone shoves money into real estate for retirement. This is not even a new problem. The imperial landed gentry was so named because bureaucrats would shovel their money into land.
- nostrademons 2y ago
  Crowding is huge in California though. The starting point was "multiple unrelated families living in one house." If the population has dropped by 1% but you started with 3 families per house, you still have (to some rounding error) 3 families per house.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- closeparen 2y ago
  The price finds whatever level it needs to maintain a population that fits within the housing supply. Obviously population can’t grow that much against a fixed housing supply; once the vacants and spare bedrooms are filled up, people just get priced out. This is Malthusian NIMBY policy working exactly as intended. Population geography also shifts from rural to urban and from declining to rising cities even as the total population size holds constant or shrinks. The fact that there is space for you on a farm or in a coal-mining town is cold comfort to someone with a STEM degree and a job offer at a corporate headquarters.
QuarterReptile 2y ago
How much more housing? More housing is being built. Average house size has increased significantly over time. Average household size trends broadly downward, with rare counterexamples. When is "better" also "more"? Because better costs more, just like more area costs more. What resources should be redirected from quality to quantity?
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  Definitely hasn't increased everywhere. UK house sizes are actually decreasing over time, down to an average of ~800sqft.
WorldMaker 2y ago
Did you forget to factor in that it is a replacement rate? Sure, more people are born every year, but plenty of people pass along in one way or another (mortality, downsizing, various care facilities).
MrMan 2y ago
[dead]

suoduandao3 2y ago

but it's not necessarily needed in dense urban centers. Plenty of laptop class people could secure housing in rural areas for a fraction of the cost of what they're paying now.

b112 2y ago
One of the many things contributing to pricing, is that not enough road corridors are being built or widened. It's harder live further out, when traffic slowdowns extend commute time 10x. And governments love the idea that expensive roads can be waved away using environmentalism as an reason. Yet these same governments don't build fast transit either, and without fast amd efficient transit, trips take far far longer than a car. At this stage we should be building both, as we're that far behind.
- hindsightbias 2y ago
  Why would the laptop class need to commute?
  - b112 2y ago
    I didn't say they would. The point is, there is a move for 'dense urban areas'. Pack 'em in. Increase that housing density. Yet there is another way in North America, where there is often an endless bounty of space. Better transportation corridors. Better transportation corridors means that housing costs plateau, because it's just easier to drive 10 minutes more, 20 minutes more, than spend 4x for housing. That said, even the laptop class often does need to commute: * Many remote workers have to attend once a week, or more often. * People make lives, friends, contacts, have relatives in specific areas. * Every once in a while, you may need to go to "the city" for something important. Medical treatment or specialists, specialty products, etc. Not everything can be shipped, or is shipped. Anyhow, it seems you sort of missed the point, that is... the faster you can get into a city, the further you can live from the city and still be part of it. This reduces housing value close/in the city.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Because their employers force them to.
    - suoduandao3 2y ago
      then they're desktop class.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

kurthr 2y ago

Actually, California population (for example) has fallen by >400k over the last several years. The first falling year was 2019, 2020 saw a small rise (<50k), 2021 saw a fall of >300k, 2022 a fall of ~150k, and 2023 a fall of ~50k. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/california/population# https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/california... That includes both births/deaths and in/out migration. Population growth rate has been generally falling since 1990 (except for a peak in 2000) and significantly so since the GFC in 2009. However, prices have skyrocketed. China has overbuilt their population by 10-100million (yes, and there are even more outrageous numbers) homes over the last 10-15 years, and yet prices in Shanghai/ Beijing/ Shenzhen still exceed NYC or SF by 50%. They have a falling population. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_price_rankings?itemId=100 https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_price_rankings?it...

bobthepanda 2y ago
China has the confounding issue where it has both poor social security systems and a mistrusted, dysfunctional stock market and financial system, so everyone shoves money into real estate for retirement. This is not even a new problem. The imperial landed gentry was so named because bureaucrats would shovel their money into land.
nostrademons 2y ago
Crowding is huge in California though. The starting point was "multiple unrelated families living in one house." If the population has dropped by 1% but you started with 3 families per house, you still have (to some rounding error) 3 families per house.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
closeparen 2y ago
The price finds whatever level it needs to maintain a population that fits within the housing supply. Obviously population can’t grow that much against a fixed housing supply; once the vacants and spare bedrooms are filled up, people just get priced out. This is Malthusian NIMBY policy working exactly as intended. Population geography also shifts from rural to urban and from declining to rising cities even as the total population size holds constant or shrinks. The fact that there is space for you on a farm or in a coal-mining town is cold comfort to someone with a STEM degree and a job offer at a corporate headquarters.

QuarterReptile 2y ago

How much more housing? More housing is being built. Average house size has increased significantly over time. Average household size trends broadly downward, with rare counterexamples. When is "better" also "more"? Because better costs more, just like more area costs more. What resources should be redirected from quality to quantity?

dukeyukey 2y ago
Definitely hasn't increased everywhere. UK house sizes are actually decreasing over time, down to an average of ~800sqft.

WorldMaker 2y ago

Did you forget to factor in that it is a replacement rate? Sure, more people are born every year, but plenty of people pass along in one way or another (mortality, downsizing, various care facilities).

MrMan 2y ago

[dead]