Household Size and the Housing Stock

Re:Household Size and the Housing Stock by jltsiren on Friday April 19, 2024 @11:09PM (#40094417)

There are a lot of homes in every country that are essentially worthless. You can live in them, and they may even be in good condition. But if you try to sell them, you probably can't find anyone willing to pay real money for them. Because very few people have a reason to live in that area. And good luck if you need to borrow money to renovate the home.

Then there are areas where many people have a reason to live in. Imagine a highly educated couple. At least one of them probably works in a field where fully remote work is not possible. When they choose where they want to live, they likely prioritize areas with many potential employers within an easy commute. If they take the risk and move to a small city with only 1-2 relevant employers and it doesn't work out, they're in trouble. And because educated people move to larger cities, businesses that need talent also concentrate there.

Homes as such are not worth much. Almost all of the value is in the location. And most locations are not worth much.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Household Size and the Housing Stock by cdchn on Saturday April 20, 2024 @12:02AM (#40094704)

Transformation to information economies really re-centered urban areas as well. People used to flee from urban areas (and for reasons like crime) now they're flowing in the opposite direction.

In the US though I see a lot of attitude for "ugh who wants to live in a building with people, I want huge lawns where I don't have to see my neighbors on the end of a cul-de-sac with no traffic. I want to live in a town thats as far from 'walkable' as possible." So many people I come across especially when talking about how housing has a supply-side problem and needs to build more with better density and access to transit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Household Size and the Housing Stock by giantg2 on Saturday April 20, 2024 @08:28AM (#40096872)

And why aren't we doing anything to address that distribution? If the employers are having to lay exorbitant salaries so people can afford housing, shouldn't they be looking at opting offices in other cities to reduce their cost? If not, the system is broken and the leaders are poor. In my opinion the leaders should be looking where they are creating jobs as part of their societal duties, maybe even put it under DEI (as worthless as the DEI programs tend to turn out in practice, maybe not).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Household Size and the Housing Stock by jltsiren on Saturday April 20, 2024 @06:12PM (#40101461)

Everyone is already doing that, which is exactly the problem. When every leader is trying to make their city/company more competitive, the ones that are already competitive will win. They can do more, because they have more money.

If you want to fight the market, you need centralization. You tax everyone and use the collected money to subsidize a limited number of cities with unrealized potential. Selecting the winners is essential. The more evenly you spread the money, the less effect it will have.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Household Size and the Housing Stock by giantg2 on Saturday April 20, 2024 @06:49PM (#40101700)

"Everyone is already doing that, which is exactly the problem."

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing concentration and not social equity focused distribution.

"You tax everyone and use the collected money to subsidize a limited number of cities with unrealized potential."

There are already cities with untapped opportunities. In my opinion the reason rhey remain untapped is because leaders don't care. They'd rather follow group-think.

[ Parent | on HN ]