I’m curious about how these empty homes are distributed? Take California for example, where there are 19 empty homes per homeless person according to the link provided. But where are these empty homes in California? If they are disproportionately located in areas far from employment opportunities, then this suggests that we still need to build more housing near employment centers. But if there are plenty of vacancies in areas close to job centers, then this is definitely something that needs to be looked into more closely.

> I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in the United States for every single homeless person on the street

Are you suggesting we deport homeless people from cities with low vacancy rates, to cities with high vacancy rates?

> There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed.

I suspect your answer to the question above will reveal a barrier.

Red states bus homeless to blue states, then blue states buss them right back until the problem is solved or one of them (the red state) runs out of money.

This is simply not correct once you account for the fact that people do not like to be uprooted from the communities they're part of. We are simply not in a post-scarcity situation for housing, and YIMBYism is essentially correct.

Homelessness is the most visible sign of a much larger systemic problem. For example, it's quite likely that many homes today are overcrowded, and people don't have as much space to live as they desire. This is bad! Not as bad as homelessness, but depending on the specifics still quite bad. The good news is that building vertically permits more private space per person, so we don't just have to accept things getting worse.

Your statement aggregates across cities with different job opportunities and economic outputs. You need to look at specific cities with housing problems, and ask whether building more houses in that specific city would alleviate housing shortages.

A surplus of housing in Madison, WI is irrelevant to someone living and working in NYC, which has a severe housing shortage.

We are still subject to space time.

I don't understand what you mean. Nothing prevents people from moving to Madison. And let's not have any spurious claims that there are no good jobs in Madison: the unemployment rate is significantly lower in WI than in NY.

If this was true you should be able to build a new house for much less than the asking price for existing houses but unfortunately that is not the case either.

A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell.

Nobody is going to want homeless people living in it in the meantime.

Houses are also "empty" while they are undergoing renovation.

Definitely true. Probably also worth considering that during a speculative boom there is a lot more turnover which will increase the proportion of properties sitting empty while they are on the market (not sure how significant this would be but another example of how a booming market can lead to a decrease in properties used as a permanent residence).

> A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell.

A thought: Disincentivize having them for sale for too long, tax a % of the listing price every year it's on the market. That way gougers get penalized for crazy asking prices and there's some additional negative price pressure.

All that would result in is less transparency. People wouldn't put their house openly for sale anyone and you'd just create informal market places. Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.

> All that would result in is less transparency.

Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved.

> Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.

This is done already? Still an improvement over leaving them empty indefinitley.

> Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved.

How will you do that. Remember: "I wasn't planning to sell my old house at all, but when I got this offer out of the blue I decided to take it".

They are already paying mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, utilities and maintenance.

Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant. There's also the risk of squatters, vandals, thieves, and partyers.

>Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant.

I'd argue it's not expensive enough since it's frequently done.

EDIT: This has already become a common issue in locations like NYC, big money parked into properties with many commercial and residential units vacant. Better to pass those fees and borrow against artifically inflated value than it is to realize a loss.

I've sold houses before. I hated every day it was sitting there sucking up money.

> Better to pass those fees

to whom?

> and borrow against artifically inflated value than it is to realize a loss.

Borrowing does nothing to stop one from losing money.

As for artificially inflated values, bank lenders are not stupid and are not going to loan against a phony value.

so could this be resolved by having a high tax (~50%) on second/rental/investment homes?

So... where would renters live?

Private investors aren't the only way to have rentable properties.

And with not for profit housing, rent is much cheaper and gives a much greater opportunity to eventually no longer need to rent.

In their own houses. That's what cooperatives are for. Also prices would drop once speculation on housing is no longer profitable.

How much do you think prices would drop? Sure a lot of supply is now on the market, but for buyers it's "20% down or your sleeping in your corolla".

What about people living in an area temporarily? People who just moved?

Honestly, these ideas come across as you personally being ready to buy but wanting a lower price rather than wanting a more sustainable housing market.

This is 90% of internet suggestions. Lots of people want to buy and don't really think through the second order of their consequences (which largely fall on renters, in the end)

No need to speculate. Other countries than the US do in fact exist and all these questions have already been answered.

Rent controlled public housing. These could be mass produced and stacked like legos so that rents would be less than 1/3 of UBI. With the addition of municipal broadband there would be plentiful jobs for teleworkers in virtual call centers to provide a back end for no-checkout stores and providing teaching assistance to students using MOOCs.

Rents would go up to cover the tax increase.

Homelessness has nothing do with housing because there is no such thing as being unsheltered due to inability to afford a home in the United States. By and large those who can't afford a home use one of the myriad programs available to give people homes.

The unhoused vagrant problem is 100 percent drugs

Are you ”teaching” that because some 2% of housing units are empty we don’t have a shortage? Because I don’t think any of economy, capitalist or not can reasonably obtain 100% use of any resource. 98% is pretty dang efficient and I think is actually a counterpoint to what you’re trying to argue.