Why is there not more funding for those departments to make approval/revisions a breeze and make building lower risk and cheaper for construction companies? Welp - home owners (and big construction/investment companies) are the ones who vote. I expect politicians know exactly what they're doing, keeping things a complicated swamp.
But without some sort of governing regulation, I fail to see how anyone benefits in the long run with the tragedy of the commons that would ensue.
Agreed on all the rest, especially Georgism.
Yes it can, and it was for large chunks of the 20th century. Imputed rent can have high yields and therefore imply good "investment" income for households with long term stable housing demand.
The 20th century is relevant because it had long periods of time where homes could be bought at high rental yields because there was lots of new construction in the USA.
There are some signs that this trend is reversing, but I think that was entirely a pandemic phenomenon. Big numbers of Americans regret their pandemic moves [regrets], so I think the environment hasn't actually changed.
It's hard to see where this goes. Most other places solve this by becoming very very dense (Hong Kong) or building great mass transit (Tokyo). It really seems like the US won't do either of those things--maaaaaaybe NYC will but that would be all. I tentatively predict that we have to wait for most of the Boomers to die and leave their wealth/houses to Millennials before we know if this is a bona-fide societal crisis or not: if enough Millennials get what they want this way it'll take the oomph out of any kind of policy change (probably reverse the momentum actually--if anyone thinks Millennials will be any better than Boomers they're super mistaken).
But, neither outcome is really good. On the one hand you have the daunting prospect of a dramatic economic reorganization of the most powerful nation on Earth. On the other you have the calcification of the most powerful nation on Earth into something fundamentally unequal, illiberal and corrupt.
[move]: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/de...
[econ]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/six-charts-illustrate-di...
[schools]: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/education-g...
[health care]: https://www.gao.gov/blog/why-health-care-harder-access-rural...
[homeownership]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
[urban homeownership]: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/...
[regrets]:
--
> Housing can't both be an investment and a basic need.
Housing as investment is a beautiful solution to how many people fail to properly save for retirement. For many people entering retirement, their home is a huge part of the investment portfolio, because they always made sure to make that payment.
If properties didn't appreciate, old people would not have the assets to retire on, then what?
The younger generations will find that out.
Let's say half of families divorce. But we then factor in your "long term care costs" and the liens those people will have requiring home sales rather than gifting and we're probably right back at half (at best) of kids possibly inheriting housing when they're in their 60s and their parents kick the bucket.
What part of Georgism is Anarcho-capitalism ? It is merely a way to reason about land and taxation.
For a country with near-zero historic buildings, the US has some of the most suffocating housing regulations. Making the regulations easier to navigate does not make it anarcho-capitalism.
The US housing crisis is an urban problem. Take California for example. Prop 13 handles land-taxation, which lets you pay pennies on prime real eastate. The Bay-area is the world's tech capital and has the world's most expensive real-estate. Yet you'd struggle to see an 5-floor+ building outside of a small pocket in down-town SF & SJ. Nimbys have practically outlawed any building by exploiting environmental regulations. The troubles associated with the new Apple Campus and the SJ downtown transit extension are recent examples among many.
In the above examples, housing of those who have it, is being protected by the laws as if it is a need. However, it explicitly prices-out those without housing through the same means. The individuals who protect their housing, do so to protect an investment. To me, taking away the ability of NIMBYs to project power outside their own walls limits exclusionary regulation. And standardizing taxation by land value generates the kind of fair-market pressure that keeps supply coming.
Now yes, it fully embraces housings as an investment, and it will inevtiably comes with it's fair share of problems. But first, investments come with well-understood regulations to avoid abuse (cartelization, hoarding). And second, I can't imagine how it would be anywhere close to how bad things are now.
If you have a better solution, then I'm all ears. But, at least don't be condescending if you aren't willing to engage.
Sure, but that's not what you espoused. You mentioned it as the best opinionated middle ground, but ultimately concluded, too much regulation was bad--Georgism involves far more regulation than we currently have. Note that Georgism isn't just about land.
> Making the regulations easier to navigate does not make it anarcho-capitalism.
Sure, but "making regulations easier to navigate" is quite a bit different from listing every current regulation you can think of and saying they are the cause of our current problems.
Even if we charitably assume you're genuinely proposing Georgism as the end goal, that's a complicated ideology to implement. What are the steps to get there? It seems like your only concrete solution is to get rid of the too-much-regulation examples you mentioned--the few weak protections we have--and vaguely "implement Georgism". Whether you intend it as such or not, that's a motte-and-bailey fallacy: the end result of this plan is simply to get rid of regulation and then fail to implement Georgism.
I don't share your optimism that land value tax cannot simply be passed on to renters. Closing that massive loophole involves implementing the rest of Georgism, which I'm not convinced you know exists since you've failed to mention it entirely. And ultimately, I am not convinced that loophole is possible to close.
And then there's the separate problem of accurately valuing land in order to tax it.
> The US housing crisis is an urban problem.
No, it's not. Homeless flock to urban areas because it's easier to survive without a home in an urban area, and small-town/suburban cops have a lot more ability to just imprison all the homeless they encounter under some pretext. But a lack of affordable housing in suburban and rural areas is absolutely a cause of homelessness just as much as a lack of housing in urban areas is. If anything, the lack of employment opportunities in suburban/rural areas creates more housing insecurity.
> In the above examples, housing of those who have it, is being protected by the laws as if it is a need.
Is it? I don't think so, and you conveniently talked around zoning laws which are more obviously treating housing as an investment and not a basic need.
These laws presuppose that housing as an investment is a reasonable thing. I suppose that assumption doesn't mutually exclude housing as a basic need, but the laws you mention completely lack the sorts of protections with real effect that regulate investors in other basic needs. If your water company or electric company fail to provide service, they get fined--who gets fined for failing to provide housing? When food supplies became insecure, we subsidized farming at a level that creates a permanent excess of food: who are we subsidizing to create a permanent excess of housing?
> If you have a better solution, then I'm all ears.
Well, housing is a basic need. You keep dropping phrasing like "if housing is a basic need" or "as if it is a basic need", but the statement "Housing is a basic human need" surely is not under debate? So maybe we treat things the way they are. There's no need for an "opinionated middle ground"--there are not two sides to this coin: housing is a basic need. I do not care about investors in housing: people withholding people's basic needs to collect rent are a blight and should be treated as such.
No one should be able to own houses they do not live in. I have no objection to simply giving landlords a year to sell off their rental properties, but realistically this sort of regulation is hard enough to pass without cutting the oligarchy out of their pound of flesh, so some sort of compromise that reimburses landlords somewhat is a reasonable compromise if we can solve homelessness permanently.
Even the most well-intentioned attempts to implement this will probably be more harm than good. There will always be enough loopholes to create many of the same problems while the added restrictions can introduce other problems of their own.
Some people cannot afford to buy, and some would not buy even if they could, preferring flexibility or a different kind of market exposure. For them to have a place to rent, someone else -- be that a company, family, or individual -- has to own a place they don't live in so they can rent it out. There will always be a need for this, you can't just ban it.
Aside: Don't tell me you want state-built housing projects. People seem to forget that the USA already tried that. Even in Russia and China virtually anyone who can afford to move to private housing does and never looks back.
Australia's state housing projects may have kept some people off the streets but have not prevented runaway housing prices for everyone else. They are, at least, not an outright humanitarian crisis like in many other places.
It's not "anarcho-capitalist" to recognize that many laws and regulations have had paradoxical effects once implemented. Even the most die-hard planned economy maximalist has to acknowledge that the plan can function differently in practice to how it was imagined by the committee. History is full of examples of well-intentioned plans functioning far worse for both the collective and the individual.
...and crashing housing prices drastically would solve this.
> and some would not buy even if they could, preferring flexibility or a different kind of market exposure.
A lack of flexibility in home ownership means a lack of liquidity in the market. A more liquid market is the solution here, not rent.
Paying rent is not market exposure. It's explicitly excluding renters from any market appreciation. No one chooses to rent so they can "gain exposure" to monetary loss. This is an absurd argument.
> Aside: Don't tell me you want state-built housing projects. People seem to forget that the USA already tried that.
People who hate government housing love to point to urban projects built in primarily black neighborhoods before the civil rights movement, and conveniently forget that postwar housing programs built much nicer housing in primarily white neighborhoods. I grew up in one such house.
> Even in Russia and China virtually anyone who can afford to move to private housing does and never looks back.
Imagine seeing people who would otherwise be homeless become stable enough to move into nicer private homes and seeing that as a failure of public housing.
My guy, people are sleeping on cardboard outside in 10 degree weather here. Grow a sense of perspective. Yes, I also support improving quality of housing, but if your criticism is that my solution doesn't result in perfect housing, I'll point out that your opposition to all real solutions doesn't result in housing.
> Australia's state housing projects may have kept some people off the streets but have not prevented runaway housing prices for everyone else.
Sorry, what was that first part?
Australia's state housing projects couldn't meet the demands of investor greed, because corporate greed is limitless. It should be unsurprising that as long as investment is allowed in housing, housing can't be cheap.
> It's not "anarcho-capitalist" to recognize that many laws and regulations have had paradoxical effects once implemented.
True. It becomes anarcho-capitalist when you see the complexity of regulation and use it as an excuse to oppose any and all regulation.
> History is full of examples of well-intentioned plans functioning far worse for both the collective and the individual.
History is also full of examples of well-intentioned plans functioning quite well. You like working no more than 40 hours a week? You like that your boss can't lock you in your office and let you burn to death if the place catches fire? You like that your food has to be inspected for foodborne illness?
Many of the regulations we have were written in blood and there are many people still suffering because regulations have not yet been written. Your free market ideology brought us sweatshops, cars that explode when rear-ended, paychecks paid in company store credit, black lung disease, prison slavery, Chromium-related cancer clusters, opiods, microplastics, kitchen grease fires--the list is endless, and in every one of these cases people knew what they were doing was harmful, did it anyway, and walked away with the profits of, in some of these cases, literal murder, because people like you are too blinded by ideology to prioritize human lives over freedom of the market and regulate before untrustworthy corporations cause harms that they obviously will.
If housing is an investment, then remove all protections and open up the supply. No height regulations, no minum parking regulations, no mandatory HOAs. No moratoriams or legal protections when loans default.
If housing is a need, then regulate it like a limited resource. Ration it on the lower end. Ban hoarding (vacancies, empty plots). Limited access to repeat consumers.
When the powerful talk about "finding balance", they usually mean having their cake (earn like an investment) and eat it too (protected like a need).
IMO, Georgism strikes the best opinionated middleground of housing as an investment vs housing as a need. Grounding taxation in land's economic value regulates hoarding. Grounding the value of land in its economic outcomes makes it a transparent investment, rather than the cartelized asset that it is today.
I'm personally opposed to too-much-regulation. It always ends up being a tool for the powerful. Rent control, Prop 13, affordable housing, stacks-of-paperwork and similar regulations always do more harm than good.