Submitted by smurfyjenkins t3_z4kb55 in science
Housing shouldn’t be “wealth accumulation.” It can only be so if we assume housing becomes more expensive for subsequent generations. Why should a house double in value every ten years? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Housing appreciates in value because there are more people year to year but the earth doesn't make more land year to year
> Housing appreciates in value because there are more people year to year but the earth doesn't make more land year to year
I disagree - building and zoning regulations is the biggie in the United States. People who own houses do not want their houses to go down in value (or even remain the same). They do not want 10-story apartments in their neighborhood. They do not want 2-story apartments in their neighborhood. They do not want smaller lots and smaller houses in their neighborhood. And they are the ones with the ability to control local zoning laws.
Also, of course, they don't also don't want denser housing because they don't want increased traffic. But many people really don't want the neighborhood "going down hill" by having pretty much anyone with significantly less income than themselves living there.
Also, increasing urbanization means there's more demand in small area of space (while the rural areas away from everything have lower demand).
At the a macro level land is a finite resource no matter what. It's a complex subject and our statements are definitely not mutually exclusive.
Dude America is enormous and empty.
Housing has skyrocketed in price due to people all wanting to live in the same populated areas. If access to land mass solved the issue, there would be no housing crisis.
But it doesn’t, and there is.
I live in California, where housing is insanely expensive. We are not even close to exhausting the available land as a resource for this. It is much more an issue of development dollars, zoning restrictions, and economics. Finite land is not the reason.
> At the a macro level land is a finite resource no matter what. It's a complex subject and our statements are definitely not mutually exclusive.
Eventually, yes. Now, no. There's plenty of housing available in places no one wants to live (Detroit a few years ago being a great example) and lots and lots of land available in rural areas (with few jobs), if people wanted to build there. The high prices are in desirable areas, and that's because of more people in those areas, not more people on earth. And more density would absolutely bring down the housing prices there (at least in the short term - the issue would be if lower prices increased demand/caused more people moved there).
It's very much an area of population and available housing in localized areas, not global landmass v global population at this point.
Even if you qualify it to say only the desirable land for housing, that land is still a finite resource.
Zoning makes it finite. Not landmass. NYC and SF could build enormous amounts of high density housing. But they aren’t, because of zoning laws.
So you are just not right.
It accumulates wealth if its in place more people want to live in than there is space. If the housing is in middle of nowhere its not going increase in value. You will be lucky if it keeps up with inflation.
There’s a second requirement. People have to want to live there, AND not enough housing is being built there for all of them. I think the second part is what’s not working where I live. People are just against high density housing. Sometimes you’ll hear this resistance in terms like “let’s keep our neighborhoods walkable” or “neighborhoods with green spaces are good for our community’s mental health.” But this translates to: hell no don’t build that 10 story apartment building here.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments