Comment by appreciatorBus

Comment by appreciatorBus 4 days ago

9 replies

A lot of people over the last few decades have invested in electronics and computer manufacturing, and today electronics and computers are cheaper than they have ever been. If we’re going to have a theory about why housing is expensive it’s going to have to be deeper than just the idea that investing in something makes the price go up.

kingstnap 4 days ago

What a ridiculous comparison.

Electronics are made in a factory. Houses are expensive because land near cities and work is scarce.

  • potato3732842 4 days ago

    Housing is expensive in large part because of how illiquid supply is. This is in large part because the fixed compliance costs of doing work upon "land near cities" is high. I'm not talking the $50 permit. I'm talking the $50-500k worth of engineering and lawyers and whatnot you need to bulldoze a 1-family and put in an N-family even in a place zoned for it. You typically wind up going rounds with the city at every step just because while you're nominally allowed to do whatever it is you have to bicker over everything like parking and setbacks and whatnot that are nebulously defined for the purpose of allowing the .gov to extract concessions. This is why only big money 5-over N apartments get built. When you have a ton of fixed costs nothing less makes sense.

  • appreciatorBus 3 days ago

    People don’t live in land, they live in floorspace.

    We can manufacture as much floorspace as we need. We can even manufacture floorspace in factory!

mr_toad 4 days ago

The rapidly expanding supply of electronics and computing equipment drove prices down. Housing supply has not kept up with demand. It’s Econ 101.

  • MBCook 3 days ago

    Furthermore usable land, let alone desirable, is a far more limited resource than silicon chips.

    • appreciatorBus 3 days ago

      In every North American city facing rising housing costs, there is a literal ocean of usable, desirable land for housing, already serviced by municipal infrastructure.

      And every month, a percentage of that useable and desirable land comes up for sale, meaning it’s previous owner occupiers are voluntarily moving, and a new owner, if they chose, could redeploy the land in a way that provides homes to many more people, while not evicting anyone.

      Unfortunately, each of these cities has also made it illegal for this transition to happen, mandating that the only way you’re allowed to build larger buildings, (if at all) is by demolishing another large (and occupied) building first.

      We should change that!

      • mr_toad 3 days ago

        In New Zealand the central government tried to weaken the building height restrictions, but some of the local governments have blatantly and illegally stuck to the old rules.

em-bee 4 days ago

the key word is manufacturing. the article is talking about buying homes, not building them. if all those people would invest into building new homes as opposed to buying existing ones then the comparison would make sense and maybe the price of homes would indeed go down.

  • appreciatorBus 3 days ago

    Absolutely. I think one of the biggest problems in discourse around housing is this idea that housing “investment” can only ever about buying existing assets.