America’s housing shortage is widely acknowledged, but estimates of its scale range wildly, from about 2m homes to as many as 20m. The divergence reflects differing assumptions about vacancies, household formation, affordability and how constrained building is by zoning and regulation. Some analysts argue the shortfall stems mainly from underbuilding since the 2008 crash, while others say the problem is concentrated in affordable housing rather than overall supply. Republicans and libertarian economists contend that strict land-use rules have artificially inflated prices, implying the country would have built far more homes in a freer market. A minority of scholars insist there is no true shortage at all, only a mismatch between where people want to live and what they can afford.
homerpezdispenser on
JessePinkmanHeCantKeepGettingAwayWithIt.jpeg
Last week Trump said “I don’t want to bring house prices down.” Don’t let anyone think that supply-side thinking and land use regulation are solely for conservative and libertarian economists here, or Republicans’ domain by extension.
Evidence-based thinking on housing policy is the best part about this sub! It’s what brought me here! Keep owning the zoning side of the debate, libs! Build, baby, build!
caroline_elly on
What a silly article. It doesn’t matter if we need 2mil or 20mil if prices are still way outpacing income and price of goods. We know directionally that we need more housing and loosen zoning laws.
There’s no disadvantage to overshooting a little. Builders will naturally pull back when prices reflect an oversupply.
hucareshokiesrul on
>Maybe there’s no shortage at all. Urban planning professors Kirk McClure and Alex Schwartz examined 900 U.S. metropolitan areas and found that only 19 had added more population than housing since 2000.
Hmm, I wonder if something might be limiting how many people live in those metros.
4 Comments
America’s housing shortage is widely acknowledged, but estimates of its scale range wildly, from about 2m homes to as many as 20m. The divergence reflects differing assumptions about vacancies, household formation, affordability and how constrained building is by zoning and regulation. Some analysts argue the shortfall stems mainly from underbuilding since the 2008 crash, while others say the problem is concentrated in affordable housing rather than overall supply. Republicans and libertarian economists contend that strict land-use rules have artificially inflated prices, implying the country would have built far more homes in a freer market. A minority of scholars insist there is no true shortage at all, only a mismatch between where people want to live and what they can afford.
JessePinkmanHeCantKeepGettingAwayWithIt.jpeg
Last week Trump said “I don’t want to bring house prices down.” Don’t let anyone think that supply-side thinking and land use regulation are solely for conservative and libertarian economists here, or Republicans’ domain by extension.
Evidence-based thinking on housing policy is the best part about this sub! It’s what brought me here! Keep owning the zoning side of the debate, libs! Build, baby, build!
What a silly article. It doesn’t matter if we need 2mil or 20mil if prices are still way outpacing income and price of goods. We know directionally that we need more housing and loosen zoning laws.
There’s no disadvantage to overshooting a little. Builders will naturally pull back when prices reflect an oversupply.
>Maybe there’s no shortage at all. Urban planning professors Kirk McClure and Alex Schwartz examined 900 U.S. metropolitan areas and found that only 19 had added more population than housing since 2000.
Hmm, I wonder if something might be limiting how many people live in those metros.