It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction.
A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlords to stop opposing construction.
There's obviously money to be had in leveling a block of houses and increasing the population density by 10-30 times the amount. The market demand is extremely high. Real estate developers would jump at the chance to do so if they thought they could get through all the red tape. The landlords owning those houses would certainly sell for the right price.
The entire society is abandoning free market principles in favor of social engineering. If they're not careful, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.
I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
What about...petroleum? Like it or not, it's necessary for survival today. Absolutely ruthless capitalism at play, and at the hands of a lot of people we don't like. And yet...the system works pretty ok, I think? The last major oil shock we had was in the '70s -- not bad, considering how many financial crises we've had since then.
I don't get what is your proposed alternative to "ruthless capitalism" for housing. Are you proposing "single payer housing"? Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
Your point seems to be that food and oil are beneficiaries of subsidies in the US, therefore are not "ruthless capitalism".
The US government pays $20B/yr in farm subsidies. HUD has a budget of $40B, and the mortgage interest deduction is a $110B/yr subsidy to homeowners.
If food in the US is subsidized such that it is not "ruthless capitalism", then on this basis it would seem to me that housing has been subsidized well beyond the point of "ruthless capitalism" as well. Yet OP (and you) seem to think that food is subsidized to a far greater degree than housing. I challenge you to make a concrete case that this is true, either in the US or globally in general.
Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
Are you in fact arguing that US farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?
> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
Basically yes. The “progressive” position on affordable housing generally calls for major government investment in housing. This is not a new idea; in the U.S., much of the big buildout of middle class housing last century was heavily subsidized by HUD.
Demand for petroleum is not explained by capitalism, but rather by humanity's collective laziness
This does not seem like much of an argument against a capitalist system! I would call this a win for capitalism then, and a loss for governments sidestepping their obligations to, you know, govern.
I am the first person to agree that oil companies have used their money and influence to buy favorable regulations, putting the whole world in danger. On the other hand, this again seems like a failure of government rather than a failure of capitalism. Indeed, the powerful using their influence to protect their interests is something that has happened under every economic system ever tried, no?
>> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market [...] > Basically yes.
Are you familiar with the notion of "the projects"? I wouldn't say this turned out well for anyone...
The good news is that the major driver of cost in places like SF isn't actually the cost of building per se but instead is the cost of absurd regulations, causing it to take many years of fighting with NIMBYs just to get a permit to build anything. Solving this morass would be a huge effective subsidy to developers and would cost the public literally nothing. If you're in favor of subsidizing housing development, I hope you're in favor of starting with this?
95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas.
All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.
Modular apartment buildings also exist and can be thrown together quickly and affordably.
Not to be rude, but the problem is likely going to take a bit more to solve than throwing shipping containers at it..
$1000 a month for a brand new 740 square foot apartment in the middle of San Francisco. Plus with modern finishes that are frankly much nicer than anything you'll find in the low-end SF rental market. I'd imagine quite a lot of people would sign up.
This is mostly from an NYT article, so perhaps it's just one school if thought among many, but I found it convincing on the merits. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/shipping-containe...
I'm in a high-demand city in Canada. The house I'm in right now is worth about $70k. The land it sits on is worth $900k. Shipping containers aren't going to help with that.
Don't know where you live, but I doubt it's more expensive land than San Francisco, where the average acre of land costs $3.2 million[1]. Taking that acre of land, save half the area for green-space and courtyard. Use half the footprint for shipping containers. Stack the containers 8 high.
You now have 242 double-pod units. The amortized land cost per unit is $13,000. Assuming a generous rental yield of 12%, the land cost only adds $130 a month to the rent. That's hardly anything for a 720 square foot apartment.
The lesson is that even San Francisco land costs are no match for the power of high-rise high-density housing.
[1] https://www.6sqft.com/study-shows-huge-disparity-in-u-s-urba...
If cheap, abundant, shipping containers pull 25% of the demand out of the low-end multi-family segment, that's a 50% drop in prices. Low-end housing is a substitute good with mid-end housing for at least some of the demand.
The prime example are people who live with roommates in mid-end housing, who with cheap enough low-end prices, would get their own place. A 50% price shock to low-end multi-family at the very least would pull 10% of the demand out of the mid-end. That would lead to a 20% drop in mid-end multi-family prices.
Just the same there's at least some substitutability between mid-end multi-family and mid-to-high-end single family. A prime example are empty-nesters looking to downsize. With a 20% price shock to multi-family, that would suck at least 5% of the demand out of the single-family segment. That's a minimum of a 10% price reduction.
Hence a positive supply shock in the form of cheap, abundant shipping container homes would reduce the price of mid-high-end single family homes by at least 10%. This is all micro-econ 101.
If you play that dynamic forward you end up in a situation where everyone is overpaying compared to a more fluid market, even those longer term tenants.
AKA ignore the entire foundation of the previous poster's point?
Edit: upon re-reading your comment I think maybe you don't know what the phrase 'Turnabout is fair play.' means.
It's a bit fatalistic but if we're going down anyway, we're going down together!
The reason is that landlords know exactly what rent control does.
Landlords know that the tenants with the strongest interest in local housing costs are the people who already live there and plan to continue to do so indefinitely. Rent control is a method of buying them off without actually solving the problem in general, so that overall rents and housing costs remain high but the subset of people most likely to be politically active in doing something to correct that gets a bribe to stop objecting while overall housing costs continue to rise faster than inflation.
What it is, then, is not a step on the road to a real solution, it's a roadblock preventing that from happening by weakening opposition to the status quo by just enough that no actually effective reforms can be enacted.
It's the sort of false compromise that happens in politics all the time. Instead of solving the problem, you enact some alleged solution that really does nothing or makes the problem worse, but then politicians get to go tell the voters that they've done something. Then, when it doesn't work, they get to go back and pass another ineffective bill to "solve" it again in the next election cycle, meanwhile we get another four years of young people not being able to afford housing.
If you're asking how to get that passed, well, that's an education problem. You need people to understand why rent control is not a solution so that they are not willing to accept it over something that actually works.
Reductionist statements like yours never really reflect any real-world policy environment. The real world is messy and complicated.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-pa...
Now, if we're talking about planned cities built in the 80s in orange county, maybe we have a point! Maybe.
SF has a similar story of sorts. Building code regulations were heavily relaxed after the 1906 earthquake in fear that people wouldn't rebuild otherwise.
Businesses will build whatever is most profitable. If it's more profitable to de-regulate and unzone everything, then they would be lobbying like hell to get that.