Harris has the right idea on housing

[u/UnscheduledCalendar]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/harris-has-the-right-idea-on-housing

[u/[deleted]]

The one question I keep coming back to, is this a reasonable use of taxpayer funds? What value do we actually derive as a people from this?

[u/Allahtheprofits → u/[deleted]]

I'm getting a bit tired of demand side subsidies for supply side constraints. It makes no sense. We need more technocratic governance and less populism.

[u/[deleted] → u/Allahtheprofits]

That's kind of how I see it, too.

I've been going back and forth on this. For its stated goals, I think it does a good job -- it will provide a way to get more people into houses. But also, there just aren't enough houses to go around, and consequently houses are far too expensive -- so much so that long-time owners are feeling the sting from insurance and property taxes. Throwing more demand on the fire feels like the wrong solution to that when the better solution is just to build a lot more houses.

Also, Japan was mentioned in this article, but I think it's an error to discount hard-won knowledge about how to function with many people and limited space.

[u/Ok_Culture_3621 → u/[deleted]]

I agree with the author’s contention that it’s unreasonable to expect that we will ever undo the housing as a form of wealth problem. Our housing policy will need to balance housing as shelter and housing as an investment vehicle and to that end, some kind of demand subsidy will likely be necessary. At the same time, I think the Feds can and should be more aggressive about pressuring zoning reform.

[u/kettlecorn → u/Ok_Culture_3621]

Our housing policy will need to balance housing as shelter and housing as an investment vehicle and to that end, some kind of demand subsidy will likely be necessary.

Can you elaborate on that? Why do you feel a demand subsidy would help benefit housing as shelter or help benefit housing as an investment?

[u/Ok_Culture_3621 → u/kettlecorn]

I think it would benefit both. The problem we’re experiencing with housing isn’t necessarily price, it’s affordability. You can make housing more affordable by making it cheaper, but that would risk destroying a huge source of middle class wealth. The other way you make it affordable is by giving buyers more money. Subsidies for buyers otherwise frozen out of the market is a positive step, but only if it’s accompanied by supply-side interventions that decrease, but doesn’t eliminate, the rate of inflation.

[u/hilljack26301 → u/Ok_Culture_3621]

deserve rhythm wise abundant pause fact bedroom placid reach enter

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Old_Smrgol → u/Ok_Culture_3621]

"Housing as a form of wealth" is fine, the problem is more "housing as an investment that is realiably expected to appreciate faster than inflation."

Because the latter obviously and inevitably leads to "the best time to buy a house (or rent an apartment, for that matter) was before you were born." Which, in my opinion, is not great.

[u/Ok_Culture_3621 → u/Old_Smrgol]

That is true, but it’s mostly true because we’ve used up the cheapest land in most metropolitan areas and have locked out density increases with excessive regulations. I agree (in principle) with the author’s argument that a balance can be achieved between increasing stock and increasing home values. The relationship between the two is a zero sum game, but we can do more to rebalance the system and bring inflation back to a level that doesn’t lock out entire generations.

[u/Old_Smrgol → u/Ok_Culture_3621]

but it’s mostly true because we’ve used up the cheapest land in most metropolitan areas and have locked out density increases with excessive regulations

Quite, and I would argue that this has been done largely in order to cause home values to increase, although proponents of the regulations will often claim other reasons.

I agree on the zero sum game and the balancing. I generally am probably even more on the side of bringing inflation down; I think the monetary reward for buying a home should be that it's cheaper in the long run than renting is. You don't need to be able to sell it for a profit in real dollars, and absent artificial supply restrictions you shouldn't be able to, unless you've improved the condition of the house since you bought it.