[HN Gopher] Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopol...
___________________________________________________________________
Solving the housing crisis requires fighting monopolies in
construction (2020)
Author : jseliger
Score : 62 points
Date : 2022-06-04 18:48 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.minneapolisfed.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.minneapolisfed.org)
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Unions. One of the major set backs for building more in Bay Area
| and San Francisco is not NIMBYism or zoning. It's because
| construction unions have a big say with the counties and they
| have a big voice during elections.
|
| Anything that involves mortgages and the govt has to necessarily
| support unions and work with them. They don't like modular homes
| as automation will replace union jobs.
| eesmith wrote:
| The author doesn't single out unions like you do:
|
| > Many groups were, and still are, opposed to factory
| production, including building contractors, building craft
| unions, building code inspectors, architects, materials
| producers and politicians (who are supported by the traditional
| industry). While these groups are sometimes at odds with each
| other, they all join together to fight factory production of
| homes. They form a mega-monopoly, composed of their individual
| monopolies.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| https://calmatters.org/housing/2022/05/california-housing-
| cr... : example..more recently as to how unions control
| housing supply..
|
| [..]Anti-worker or pro-worker? Why labor unions are fighting
| over a housing bill
|
| The bill, which has the support of Assembly Speaker Anthony
| Rendon, would allow housing that is 100% affordable to low-
| income households to be built "by right" on areas now zoned
| for offices, retail and parking. That means skipping many
| city council meetings that tack on costly delays as well as
| the state's premier environmental law many blame for its
| housing woes. Livable California, a local control group, has
| already dubbed it "the worst bill of 2022."
|
| The bill would also allow mixed-income housing, with a
| minimum of 15% of units affordable to low-income households
| for rent or 30% of units affordable to moderate-income
| households for sale, along commercial corridors such as strip
| malls. [..] The Carpenters and the Trades are at loggerheads
| over how much unionized labor developers would have to use to
| take advantage of the streamlining. The Trades are pushing
| for language requiring a certain amount of the workforce be
| graduates of an apprenticeship program, which effectively
| means union members. That's common for public works, but
| unusual for residential construction. [..]
|
| Still think 'NIMBY'ism and Prop 13 is why we have housing
| shortage. California is controlled by Unions. We just live in
| it and pay taxes.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Looks like he does? There is California building and trade
| council as well as the separate San Francisco building and
| trade council..umbrella for multiple building and
| construction unions from trades like carpenters and plumbers
| and electricians to construction workers.. all of them wield
| tremendous clout and can deliver the vote banks to any
| politician standing for public office.
|
| These are the same people who build roads and bridges and all
| public utilities. Their power shouldn't be underestimated.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Where the money comes
| from..https://calmatters.org/politics/california-
| election-2020/202... (2020)
|
| Teachers and realtors(not developers) each had contributed
| over 2.5 million each. Prison guard union 3.7 million. Other
| unions: about 3.5 million
|
| Building industry is about a million but that's pre 2020
| numbers. It has since gone up.
|
| The article explains who gives how much and what they want in
| return. There are also overlaps.
|
| NIMBY and zoning complaints are smokescreens. Look at
| campaign donations. It's all public record.
| donthellbanme wrote:
| I'm a inactive General Contractor, and union electrician.
|
| I'm not going to read a 49 page pdf today.
|
| There are two things that really affect supply.
|
| 1. Government regulations is number one by a huge margin. We all
| know what that includes; zoning, persnickety council members who
| literally debate where a window is placed, the wood or stucco you
| can use, down to hedges, and even the color of your home. Look at
| what Bill Mahar had to go through in order to build a shack in
| his backyard.
|
| (Gavin Neusome made some great changes these last few years. They
| arn't being used though. Why? It's still dam expensive to build
| anything. I've noticed a a few well off wealthy guys in my county
| using ADA units to increase the sq. footage of their homes. But
| most folks don't have the money to build.
|
| 2. The cost of constructing is high. Every-time a new code goes
| into building it just adds up. And I know how most of you love
| these safety codes.
|
| The problem with over coding is the law is the law.
|
| My father once got a failed final permit on the electrical
| Service installation. The law states you need 30" of space around
| the panel. The Service was in a concrete hallway. He was failed
| because the panel was 29". The inspector was a childhood friend
| of my father. Yes--it says something about my father too?
|
| I knew a guy whom was failed a final electrical install because
| he didn't have the right sticker on two of his receptacle. A
| sticker. He didn't even know buried in the code there was a law
| over a missing label. The recepticals were standard 15 amp
| residential recepticals.
|
| This guy said HUD, and NAHB, are not helping the situation. He is
| probally right. I did look up NAHB lobby monies for 2021, and it
| was 3.275 million. Which doesn't seem outrageous.
|
| If this guy's thesis is we need to encourage manufactured
| housing; I'm all for it. Just pay the guys a union wage.
|
| Housing, and the way we treat our Homeless, are my two big hot
| buttons. If you don't have a place to sleep, and shower, you are
| fucked. It's not a big problem. Some "Progressive" jack ass
| running for something in LA wants to not give a homeless person a
| room. He wants to house them in army barrack style housing, and
| using the single room as a carrot if the poor slob is a good boy.
|
| If a guy buys some land, let him do whatever (within reason) with
| it. And yes, that means putting up a tent on it if he wants.
|
| I'm disenfranchised over our lack of homes in the right economic
| zones, I don't see much ever happening.
|
| One thing Russia did right during their experiment with Communism
| is they built those huge concrete apartment buildings. Everyone
| was pretty much guaranteed a room.
|
| We need those big buildings now. We need to have hard building
| codes (like foundations, roofing, mechanicals, etc. We then need
| the soft codes. A guy should have to rip out a Service panel over
| a 1" violation.
|
| If you are ever interested in what it takes to build anything,
| watch the community station that plays the local town meetings. I
| guarantee you will want to throw the remote at the tv.
| User23 wrote:
| There is plenty of cheap or even virtually free housing available
| in major cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, and many
| others, as well as countless trailer parks in any of countless
| Nowheresvilles, USA. The unspoken dirty little secret is that
| affordability complaints are really about housing that is around
| the kind of people the buyer wants to be around and not around
| the kind of people the buyer doesn't want to be around.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| According to this resource
| (https://www.newhomesource.com/learn/stick-built-vs-
| modular-h...):
|
| - Modular home construction is an $11 billion industry, growing
| at 8.5% per year
|
| - The cost of modular/factory vs. stick built construction is
| about a 10-20% savings. On a $500k home, that's going to be less
| than $25k difference in price. That's not the problem.
|
| Additionally from this source (https://blog.lotnetwork.com/lot-
| and-land-loans-financing-you...):
|
| - Banks, which are tied to the Fed, are loathe to provide
| lot/construction loans. Ironically, this creates supply shortage
| and makes it necessary to purchase existing homes or from tract
| home builders that the author is criticizing.
|
| - The size of the cash downpayment can be as much as 50% of the
| cost of the home.
|
| Bottom line: the cost of housing is a systemic problem, and the
| Fed along with local government zoning boards are at the root of
| both the financial and regulatory sides of the problem.
| hash872 wrote:
| Lot/construction loans is a highly speculative business,
| especially as lots of builders are blue-collar guys with
| minimal assets who can simply close shop in a recession.
| Building homes is constrained by the wider economy and interest
| rates, and they take a while to build, so in all of the umpteen
| million housing crashes we've had previously, a large % of
| homes built will hit in the market in the middle of a crash.
|
| The history of housing busts dates back hundreds of years and
| is older than the United States. Banks are not wild to extend
| lot or construction loans because, until we achieve AI
| singularity, there's always another bust coming around the
| corner- and banks know they'll take it on the chin. Especially
| to the average home builder, who will simply walk away from
| their loans in a recession, close their company, declare
| bankruptcy, etc. etc.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| not a coincidence that the Federal Housing and Urban
| Development efforts have been, I argue, as close to third world
| corrupt as it comes, in the USA.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| I know in the USA it used to be the case you couldn't get a
| mortgage on a modular home and had to take out a personal loan.
| Not sure if that changed.
| eesmith wrote:
| Likely connected to these parts of the essay:
|
| > They also mean the homes are financed as automobiles (with
| personal loans, or chattell loans) and not real estate loans.
| ...
|
| > One famous program, the so called "Section 235," provided
| mortgages at interest rates as low as one percent for buyers
| purchasing a home built on-site. Buyers of factory-built homes,
| in particular, manufactured-homes, were not eligible.
| [deleted]
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| Is there even a shred of evidence that the housing crisis is a
| result of higher construction costs?
|
| Or is the Fed trying to draw attention away from the catastrophic
| impact of its zero interest and other policies on the massive
| increase in asset prices?
| mslate wrote:
| This is not a constructive or informed comment.
|
| Interest rate policy is not singularly to blame for the housing
| crisis, just as it wasn't in 2008.
|
| The issue in 2008 was lack of internal enforcement at banks or
| by federal regulators of interest rate products.
|
| In the case facing us today it is less to do with Fed policy,
| more to do with land use policies that have made housing
| construction literally illegal.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Population is flat over the last two years, while housing units
| are up and the construction rate is all time high. There is no
| crisis, just rampant speculation that ate through active
| inventory.
|
| The actual data is very clear on this (FRED), despite the word
| of mouth "shortage" narrative.
|
| Now that the narrative is turning, inventory is skyrocketing as
| you would expect, and we will be in a glut within 6 months.
| Look at the "all time low inventory" of the 2000s as another
| example. How quickly did the inventory narrative collapse back
| then? A few months
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| I don't know why you are downvoted. You are right. Upvoted.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Yup, I can cite as needed when the angry comments show up.
| Too many with a vested belief in the narrative.
| epistasis wrote:
| You are preventing an extremely selective and
| unrepresentative view of the stats.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Prove me wrong. Show me the stat for housing units per
| capita. Housing units per working age person is an all
| time high.
|
| Show me the stats for housing units per household. Hint,
| it's the same as the year 2000 and in line with
| historically normal levels. 1.1 housing units per
| household
|
| Show me the stat for rate of construction relative to
| population growth. Hint, it's at an all time high.
|
| Show me the demographic trends? Hint, it's towards flat
| or negative population growth, with most boomers dying
| over the next 10y, and each successive generation being
| smaller than the last.
|
| Where are your stats? Inventory, which has nothing to do
| with actual supply? What happened after the
| generationally low inventory of the 2000s?
|
| Anyone holding to that peg as confirmation of anything is
| in for a rude awakening
| nostrademons wrote:
| But those aren't the relevant stats. As another comment
| mentioned, newborns generally don't buy houses.
|
| The relevant stats are people reaching FTHB age (roughly
| 25-35), minus deaths, plus new construction. And that
| picture looks pretty bleak:
|
| https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-
| structure/u...
|
| There are about 45M Americans ages 25-35. There are about
| 21-22M Americans in peak die-off age (75+). There are
| about 1.2M annual housing starts:
|
| https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.p
| df
|
| Sure, by 2035 or so, when baby boomers reach peak die-off
| age, we're going to have a housing bust. But over the
| next decade? Most Millennials are screwed, and it doesn't
| get better until today's middle-schoolers come of age.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| What matters above all is number of households relative
| to housing units, and rate of expansion/contraction of
| households.
|
| Household growth was flat prepandemic
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH
|
| The likely explanation for current RE market is
| households temporarily expanded due to the various
| stimulus and forbearances giving many higher disposable
| income, but we'll likely see this contract again as the
| effect of inflation takes hold.
|
| (Expanding/contracting can be through roommates
| splitting/joining, kids moving out etc).
|
| Housing is fungible. Rental units draw from buy demand
| and vice versa. Substitutable goods work this way on a
| macro scale.
|
| The millenials who buy, move out of rentals, which drives
| rents down (or less growth), increasing the spread
| between carrying cost to rent/own. There's a limit to how
| far this spread can widen nationally. You can't look at
| these markets independently.
|
| Number of households show the actual number of housing
| units demanded, everything else is an input to number of
| households.
| nostrademons wrote:
| If housing is supply bound - which we know it is, because
| prices are rising - then rate of household growth is
| going to equal rate of new home construction, because you
| can't form those households until there's a house for
| them to move into. Which it does - compare your link with
| my census.gov link on new residential construction.
| Everyone who doesn't have a home has to double up with
| roommates or continue living with their parents
|
| If the question is "Can I maintain the same standard of
| living as I grew up with?" or "Can I form a family?" or
| "What are housing prices going to do now?", this isn't an
| interesting statistic. The number you want to know is
| "How many people _would like to_ form households but can
| 't because there are no houses to be had?" And that's
| what I'm citing with the demographic numbers. If there
| are twice as many people desiring houses as houses
| available for them, only half the population is going to
| get a home, and the price that the median home sells for
| will be what the 75th percentile of the income
| distribution can support.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| "Supply" as in inventory is a totally different concept
| from the actual structural supply of housing. To say
| housing is supply bound is simply wrong. Inventory is low
| now and will be high in 6-12 months.
|
| To extrapolate out permanent conclusions from a point in
| time inventory metric is completely flawed analysis.
|
| I'll refer you to the generationally low inventory in the
| 2000s, coupled with similar widespread shortage
| narratives. It won't end via the same mechanism, but each
| bubble is unique.
|
| Inventory will continue to rapidly increase as rates stay
| over 5%
|
| And again, rate of construction relative to population
| growth is at an all time high. Every narrative around a
| supply shortage focused on inventory is clearly and
| obviously flawed/wrong
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > 1.1 housing units per household
|
| The number of households is significantly constrained by
| the supply of housing units, so that seems like a less
| relevant number.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's still a crisis, whether it's a shortage or not.
|
| Or more specifically, whether it's a shortage of reasonably
| available units vs. a shortage of existing units.
| epistasis wrote:
| But is there anything else that might have changed over the
| past two years thay might add some nuance to it? Such as
| massive shifts in where people want to live, how much space
| they want, etc.
|
| Looking just at the past two years ignores them past 14 years
| since the 2008 crisis, from which housing construction is
| just barely beginning to recover. And houses under
| construction is not completed house construction rate; each
| individual build is taking far longer because of supply chain
| issues, so it looks like there are far more houses in the
| pipeline, but there isn't actually an oversupply of housing
| by any means.
|
| If there was an oversupply, we'd see flatter prices, or maybe
| even declines. Housing prices are quite sticky, but we aren't
| seeing either massive vacancy rates or falling prices.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Inventory is not the same as structural supply. That's the
| big mistake many make, and inventory can very quickly
| accelerate back to a glut when conditions change (few
| months).
|
| There is an element of changing preferences, but city
| centers also up greatly in price. Can't be the whole story
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| The same was said in the early 2000s.
|
| In 2008 we found out there was a massive housing bubble.
| monocasa wrote:
| Newborns aren't generally buying houses; the population was
| growing 25 years ago.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Housing units per working age person is at an all time high
| and increasing quickly.
|
| https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2022/3/29/50377332-
| 1...
|
| On mobile now, but you can confirm the stats on FRED
| zamfi wrote:
| All of this is true, but...housing markets are extremely
| regional. In the SF Bay Area, for example, despite much more
| new construction, there is still not nearly enough housing
| being built to satisfy demand, and as a result prices are
| driven extremely high. In other parts of the US, there is
| much more housing supply and relatively low demand, making
| housing more affordable.
|
| Nationwide stats hide a lot of regional realities.
| zeusk wrote:
| I recently joined a real estate group, and the kinds of
| things I'm seeing there are beyond explanation.
|
| People have basically come to understanding that house
| prices only go up, they use exotic financing and stupid
| leverage (BRRR method) to keep buying "assets" and jacking
| up their rental yield which then re-prices the asset so
| they can take an even bigger loan to buy more "assets".
|
| Recently someone in the group asked how they could afford a
| house in Seattle and most answers resonated around buying
| houses in midwest/lcol areas and jacking up rent/renovating
| to take out further financing and keep buying properties
| till you can afford to buy a house in the hcol area.
|
| This has to end, with FED inflicting pain on the stupid
| leveraged folks.
|
| Homes should be for people to live in, not to purely
| speculate and grow their money.
| zamfi wrote:
| > Homes should be for people to live in, not to purely
| speculate and grow their money
|
| Wait, if those speculating investors have "rental yield"
| then doesn't that imply people are living in those homes?
| zeusk wrote:
| The investor's objective is to maximize yield, not
| minimize homelessness or keep affordability in check. In
| that, if they don't find a renter for their jacked up
| rent - they "renovate" the property - get a higher
| appraisal and sell it to the next schmuck.
|
| Housing can't both be a good investment and be
| affordable.
|
| You can't make economic decisions on the basis that real
| estate will always grow more than income or even real gdp
| forever. Which is what these group of investors are
| doing.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| This is the same musical chairs of loans that the short
| term rental market uses.
| lazide wrote:
| I think you're talking past each other a bit.
|
| The demand you're talking about in the SF Bay Area is not
| necessarily driven by 'butts in seats' (aka actual people
| needing a roof and willing to pay a concrete price for it),
| but also by the cheap money narrative the FED has been
| feeding for a very long time. Which is what they are
| referring to in their post as having changed.
| zamfi wrote:
| I don't think we are talking past each other. There is
| absolutely a housing supply crisis in the Bay Area that
| is not reflected in the national stats.
|
| I'm not sure why so many people believe that housing
| prices in high-demand markets are dominated by things
| like interest rates -- there is certainly an effect, sure
| -- but by far the _predmoinant_ reason a 2br house on a
| small lot with a small yard costs $2m+ in Palo Alto is
| that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of
| well-off workers for nearby tech companies who would like
| to live there, there is not enough housing to go around,
| and $2m is the market clearing price.
|
| The idea that the "demand" is being "driven" by some
| "cheap money narrative" is missing the forest for the
| trees. Low interest rates might be why that house is $2m
| and not $1.8m. But the narrative is definitely _not_ the
| reason the median home price across the Bay Area is many
| multiples higher than the national average of $350k.
|
| That's pure supply and demand.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Firstly, I'm talking nationally.
|
| Secondly, the Bay Area is one of the markets subject to
| some of the more severe headwinds if remote work becomes
| the new normal, for the reasons you stated.
|
| SF population declined ~7% over the past two years.
| https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-
| populat...
|
| The concept of being forced to live in a hyper local area
| for work may be a thing of the past, which doesn't bode
| well for employment driven locales. NYC being another
| example.
|
| Bay area is one of the last places in the country I'd
| want to own a home right now
| vostok wrote:
| Density still has huge benefits unrelated to work.
|
| I don't know much about SF as I haven't lived there as an
| adult, but New York is an incredible place to live for
| lifestyle reasons too.
|
| It has great food, a very high concentration of smart and
| highly educated people, great museums, great performance
| arts, etc. It's also an incredibly walkable city, which
| is rare in the US.
|
| Hands down it would be my choice of city if I was a
| remote worker.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Price is defined on the margin. Lack of forced demand
| from local workers will drive prices down, unless the
| leisure aspect of the locale outweighs the work aspect.
|
| It's subject to debate which locales would stand to net
| gain/lose from WFH, but I'd pick NYC as a net loser. You
| gain some who enjoy the city life and amenities, but you
| lose more to lower COL locales.
|
| Price will always be a factor weighed alongside
| amenities, even if one area is objectively nicer from an
| amenities perspective
| zamfi wrote:
| Sure, and I'm not making any claims about the future,
| either -- just pointing out what the causes have been so
| far: demand/supply mismatch has had a far larger impact
| than speculation and interest rate policy or "narrative"
| on Bay Area housing prices.
|
| If demand plummets, of course prices will follow.
| [deleted]
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| I think what is being referred to here in typical mush mouth
| obtuse language is the "monopolization" that corporations are
| engaging in buying up massive amounts of real assets with
| essentially free money the fed it printing at the rate that
| even the "printing press goes brrrrrr" meme does not do
| justice.
|
| I don't know that people are really aware of the scale of what
| is going on here. The big finance houses have essentially been
| handed over ownership and control to corner the whole housing
| market ... by the captured and corrupt government.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| The monopolization the paper refers to is how industry and
| government prevent the adoption of factory methods in
| construction, increasing construction costs.
| lazide wrote:
| Eh, it's a lot more than that. But the paper is
| specifically pointing out that cost of land seems to be the
| driving factor, not cost of construction which is
| relatively flat.
|
| A cheaper manufactured home would of course be nice if
| looking at costs, but dropping it on a $1.5m acre lot isn't
| going to change the math that much.
| potiuper wrote:
| Impact of Institutional Buyers on Home Sales and Single-
| Family Rentals: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31594034
| schaefer wrote:
| Here's a shred of evidence:
|
| Las Vegas is a city mostly surrounded by public lands. New
| private parcels are no longer made available as lots
| appropriate for single family homes. They are carved onto
| neighborhood sized chunks, sold to developers directly, and
| locked into HOA's for all eternity.
|
| Only the big boys that can tackle multi-million dollar bids can
| enrich themselves by the sale of our public lands.
| lazide wrote:
| That.... Has nothing apparently to do with what the message
| you were replying to was asking?
| rmbyrro wrote:
| Seems to me it does.
|
| Question was for a shred of evidence for any cause other
| than FED policies.
|
| There it is an evidence, at least for Las Vegas.
|
| Most interesting is it shows this is not a single variable
| issue.
|
| There are lots of factors involved and they probably change
| across geographies.
| softfalcon wrote:
| I think they're trying to say that "higher construction
| costs" is literally the "multi-million dollar bids" to own
| property without going through a HOA.
|
| For the average person, this makes the land and
| construction costs unobtainable for the average person,
| effectively creating a monopoly for the builders and the
| HOA organizations with deep pockets to bid.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| Similar to upzoning land.
|
| Only the big-boys that can tackle multi-million dollar bids
| and rental building development projects can enrich
| themselves by the upzoning of our existing neighborhoods,
| locking residents into a permanent rental class for all
| eternity.
| epistasis wrote:
| There is an entire paper linked here that's exactly what you
| ask for in your first question.
|
| What about it do you find unconvincing?
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| It just asserts that without proof.
|
| The paper essentially argues that construction costs can be
| lowered significantly using factory production methods,
| especially for small-modular homes. I have no problem with
| that part. The title has no basis in the paper, though.
|
| It is unrelated to the massive increase in housing (and other
| asset) prices in recent years which are the cause of the
| current housing crisis.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| Yeah. Like, anyone who has ever tried to get anything
| custom out of builders these days has been confronted with
| the fact that none of these guys want or care to do
| anything even close to custom work anymore. The diversity
| has been squeezed out of the market ages ago, cookie cutter
| houses are the norm everywhere. I only read the abstract,
| but it doesn't surprise me in the least that this paper
| just asserts conclusions without justification.
|
| Houses are already as close to factory-built as is possible
| to do with today's tastes. Everything is pre-engineered and
| merely assembled on site.
| eesmith wrote:
| I didn't find it convincing.
|
| Elsewhere here I asked why factory-built housing doesn't seem
| to be popular world-wide, which is what you would expect if
| it's only US Federal policy which prevents it from being
| popular in the US.
|
| I'll add that I saw no discussion of how local housing
| policies were designed to prevent "Large numbers of low-
| income, city residents [from moving] to these areas", in
| order to keep property values high. Or the classism that
| caused people to look down on mobile homes.
|
| The author rhetorically asks "But what stops public
| transportation from expanding upon the arrival of new
| residents?", when I've heard so many New Urbanist videos
| answering that question.
|
| I didn't understand how "a uniform building code across the
| country would be a great benefit to factory producers" is a
| meaningful goal, given that the needs for Florida, Arizona,
| and Alaska are quite different, making me question his
| understanding.
|
| I read "There is a literature that asks why the poor live in
| cities." and counter with the observation that the poverty
| rate is higher in rural areas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
| /Rural_poverty#Rural_versus_Urb... says "rural poverty rates
| are higher and more persistent than in urban areas, rural
| workers are disadvantaged by lower wages and less access to
| better paying labor markets" - note that housing prices
| aren't part of it.
|
| And I didn't see mention that "stick housing" has moved
| towards factory methods. As https://priceonomics.com/in-
| defense-of-mobile-homes/ points out:
|
| > Windows, doors, and other parts arrive prefabricated,
| Rybczynski writes, so labor costs have actually halved since
| 1949. Levitt and Sons spent $4 to $5 per square foot building
| Levittowners, and, adjusted for inflation, builders today
| spend the same amount.
|
| > Instead the problem is almost wholly that land is too
| expensive. Reduce the size of a new, modern house by 50%,
| Rybczynski notes, and houses in metropolitan areas will still
| cost over $200,000.
|
| > That's the secret to the extreme affordability of a mobile
| home--take land out of the equation.
|
| We aren't really using "traditional methods" - engineered
| wood is not traditional and is very common. "As of 2005,
| approximately half of all wood light framed floors were
| framed using I-joists" says
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_wood#Beams . These
| were made in a factory, and not "on-site" as the author
| describes the house-building process.
| eesmith wrote:
| > But the key monopolies involved in blocking small modular homes
| are the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
| National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). They have
| successfully squashed the emergence of these factory houses.
|
| Is factory-built housing common in other countries?
|
| If not, then it would strongly suggest there are other reasons
| than federal control.
|
| Wikipedia at
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_building#Market_accept...
| says "In the UK and Australia, modular homes have become accepted
| in some regional areas; however, they are not commonly built in
| major cities. Modular homes are becoming increasingly common in
| Japanese urban areas ...", suggesting it isn't all that common
| world-wide.
| sien wrote:
| This is a very good line of reasoning and well worth thinking
| about.
|
| In Australia you can't get a loan on a mobile home in a
| 'manufactured home park'
|
| https://www.homeloanexperts.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=580...
| .
|
| Also building codes often make it hard to build mobile homes on
| residential land.
| TedShiller wrote:
| There is no housing crisis.
| epistasis wrote:
| There's not a crisis if you already own your home and are
| collecting those sweet sweet land rents. And by denying the
| existence of others' problems, those who own land get to
| collect ever higher economic rents.
|
| But for everybody else, yes there's a huge housing crisis.
| TedShiller wrote:
| I can't afford a lot of things. I don't call it a crisis.
| workingon wrote:
| If you couldn't afford a place to live you may feel
| differently.
| zeraynor wrote:
| If housing was one of them you'd probably consider it a
| crisis.
| tmaly wrote:
| I would think ZIRP and backwards zoning commissions would be a
| bigger problem
| epistasis wrote:
| ZIRP may change sticker prices but those are still ultimately
| determined by ability to make monthly payments.
|
| The unaffordability of monthly payments is the housing crisis,
| and that stems from inadequate supply.
| forgithubs wrote:
| akamaka wrote:
| For a good laugh, read the conclusion of the paper, which sounds
| like it was written in the year 1960, when inner cities were
| crumbing, and imagines that rural areas will get better public
| transit when the poor escape the cities they are "trapped in":
|
| _There is a literature that asks why the poor live in cities.
| One answer provided is that transportation options are much
| better in cities than rural areas and small towns. But what stops
| public transportation from expanding upon the arrival of new
| residents?
|
| A more important reason for why the poor live in cities, it
| seems, is that many low-income households are "trapped" in cities
| by the high cost of constructing housing in rural areas and small
| towns._
| xyzzyz wrote:
| The entire paper is a joke. Monopoly in the construction
| market? Dude, there are multiple competing contractors in every
| field even in smallest towns. In fact, I'd endeavor to say that
| construction is probably the least centralized major industry
| in US, certainly less centralized than, say, farming.
| shuckles wrote:
| In fairness, there isn't that much competition between large
| subdivision developers, and an even smaller number of firms
| that are able to navigate the gauntlet of gatekeepers in
| major urban areas.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| "Housing crisis": the first sentence is _U.S. government concerns
| about great disparities in housing conditions are at least 100
| years old._
|
| So, a permanent crisis?
|
| Anyhow: the shortage of housing has a lot to do with zoning
| restrictions, building codes, NIMBY-ism, credit availability, and
| lots of other factors, and very little to do with HUD and NAHB.
| Manufactured homes have a low social status, unfortunately, and
| forcing municipalities to accept them would be a very hard slog.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-04 23:00 UTC)