News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The U.S. Housing Market vs. the Canadian Housing Market by Spivak on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:34PM (#37448714)
Yes but we're not running out of land in any meaningful sense of the word. There is nothing at all preventing you from investing in the development of a yet undiscovered area and betting it will blow up. If you're not choosey you can buy land so cheap it might as well be free if you want to start from scratch too. If your bet comes to fruition you'll be richer than god and you'll be the catalyst for so much growth and economic development it will make the stock market blush.
Re:The U.S. Housing Market vs. the Canadian Housing Market by epistasis on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:51PM (#37448981)
We are completely out of land in Canada and elsewhere, because prices are going through the roof, because the thing that matter most about land is location.

Land is not fungible, you can't exchance an acre of downtown Vancouver for an acre in a rural area. Nobody would ever confuse the two when it comes to economics!

Land value is all about access, about who is near by, about what natural resources are near by. When real estate prices go up without construction, land value is increasing.

In the US, restrictive zoning limits workers from moving into predictive areas and being able to use their labor for more predictive ends. This has been a tremendous drag on our GDP, while simultaneously concentrating wealth into the unproductive hands of landowners.

The first paper to point this out made big errors, leading to an underestimate of this effect:

https://www.econlib.org/a-correction-on-housing-regulation/

This is the difference between gains from land use and gains from the stock market: one reduces overall wealth and concentrates wealth to those with the most; stock market investing does the opposite.

Re:The U.S. Housing Market vs. the Canadian Housing Market by Spivak on Saturday September 09, 2023 @05:10PM (#37450318)
This is only true if your definition of land is constrained to the teeny tiny fraction of land that is already developed into highly desirable cities. Which in real estate terms is like trying to buy a stock at its peak and complaining it's expensive.

I am in no way saying that burdensome regulation has artificially limited the growth of existing metro areas and caused a bubble driven by artificial scarcity but the idea that there's nowhere to invest in at the ground floor where it's cheap is absurd. This happens in cities on a smaller scale already. The nice areas are too expensive so young artsy people move where its cheap, make it better, and then it becomes a good area -- repeat.

If you invested in the development of say, Akron Ohio with the goal of tipping the scales and starting flywheel of metropolitan growth and your bet pays off not only will you be filthy filthy rich but you'll create brand new economic activity and real growth. Of course fighting over the same 100 sq miles is a zero sum game.

As an individual laborer your choices are obviously limited to where you can find work but as an investor the sky is the limit.

Re:The U.S. Housing Market vs. the Canadian Housing Market by otoburb on Saturday September 09, 2023 @11:26PM (#37452625)
>>If you invested in the development of say, Akron Ohio with the goal of tipping the scales and starting flywheel of metropolitan growth and your bet pays off not only will you be filthy filthy rich but you'll create brand new economic activity and real growth.

SF billionaires seem to be thinking along the same lines. If it worked for Las Vegas, perhaps they can make it work for a brand new SF-adjacent town.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/business/land-purchases-s...

Re:The U.S. Housing Market vs. the Canadian Housing Market by alexashka on Saturday September 09, 2023 @03:39PM (#37449493)
An ability of some select individuals to sidestep a problem (for now) does not negate the existence of the problem.

Do you see why?