Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by TheTrotters on Sunday March 31, 2019 @12:11PM (#19536317)

But then you have to ask yourself why this surge in demand for real estate in urban areas hasn't been met by a corresponding surge in supply? Why aren't developers building new apartment complexes as fast as they can to cash in?

The answer is primary that regulation by local governments prevents them from doing that thereby keeping real estate prices high.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by mcguire on Sunday March 31, 2019 @12:25PM (#19536400)

In the United States, anyway, local governments' regulation is largely driven by noisy or wealthy local residents. In most places, regulation is a minor hurdle for a decent real estate investor, all of whom regard single-family and small multi-family dwellings as a slobber-inducing opportunity when demand is high. (The high rents you can get from a quadplex are pretty small compared to the rents from a 10-story apartment building.)

So, the question is really, "if it isn't real-estate developers trying to keep rents high, who has the money and therefore power to convince the government to adopt regulations preventing apartments?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by epistasis on Sunday March 31, 2019 @06:27PM (#19538838)

> In most places, regulation is a minor hurdle for a decent real estate investor, all of whom regard single-family and small multi-family dwellings as a slobber-inducing opportunity when demand is high.

But you're conflating the two types of places: most places aren't "high" demand, and those that do have super inflated costs also have processes by which developers are regularly stopped. California in particular has this problem.

In fact reading your post really made it clear to me the dichotomy between places that welcome new people and have governments that try to serve the people (by letting developers build), and places that try to enrich current residents by blocking out newcomers and thereby forcing demand to be far higher than supply.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by sgift on Sunday March 31, 2019 @01:27PM (#19536837)

Space is limited, demand is not. Physical reality trumps economic wish-thinking every time. Most of the time, the lack of space is the root problem, not some governmental boogeyman.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by darksaints on Sunday March 31, 2019 @04:06PM (#19538016)

Saying that we have a lack of space in San Francisco (or any American city) is like closing your eyes and saying the sun doesn't exist anymore. It's a deliberate nonsensical denial of reality. In order to say such absurd nonsense, you have to pretend that denser cities do not exist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by mcguire on Sunday March 31, 2019 @04:37PM (#19538205)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

If you ignore "those cities not a part of a larger city's metropolitan area," it's (6,000/km^2) between New York City (10,000/km^2) and Boston (5,000/km^2). It's approximately the same density as Queens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_...

It's much less than Paris (21,000/km^2), Athens, Barcelona, and a bunch of other European cities. More than Dublin (5,000/km^2), if that helps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...

Got nothing on Manilla, Mumbai (holy shit, Mumbai!), or Kolkatta.

But what the hell's up with Guttenberg, NJ?

[ Parent | on HN ]