See my earlier comment regarding NZ. The number of homes per 1000 people changed very little between 2011 and 2022. At the same time prices went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
I think my suggestion that finance is the most significant factor here is a stronger argument than a supply shortage.
>I think my suggestion that finance is the most significant factor here is a stronger argument than a supply shortage.
You have zero evidence for this claim and cited zero sources.
>The number of homes per 1000 people changed very little between 2011 and 2022. At the same time prices went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
You cannot look at an entire country's housing/population ratio and think that explains everything. New homes in Queenstown don't reduce housing costs for people in Auckland or Christchurch. You need to look at the supply of housing in an area where it is a substitutable good: where you can switch housing without switching your job, school, friends, and life.
A new house 6 hours from me does not lower the price of housing in my neighborhood.
Are you sure finance wasn't the main cause?
sources: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-cons... https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/pacific/new-zealand/home...
Edit: Also compare what happened to the money supply over the same period: 2011(NZD180 billion) to 2022(NZD400 billion). https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/money-supply-m3
I don't think anyone would disagree that finance has an impact, but these are only indirect evidence.
It seems to me that increasing urbanisation and desire to live in cities could easily have pushed city prices up much faster than anything else, while less populated areas stagnate.
Yes, housing prices are determined by supply and demand.
This was found to be true by a California Circuit of Appeals: https://x.com/CSElmendorf/status/1774115015551074434
This is found to be true by Blackstone, who frequently notes that shortages and low increases in new supply are fundamental to their strategy of buying and building housing for rent: https://x.com/RikAdamski/status/1643477536695803904 https://x.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931 "We could also be adversely affects by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates."
There are plenty of sources which show a strong correlation between new supply and housing prices: https://x.com/sam_d_1995/status/1762597879154123241 https://x.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1761205726230216943 https://x.com/ArmandDoma/status/1770961181093859375 https://x.com/jayparsons/status/1761028332781478227 (STRONGEST:) https://x.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1761205728356802806
There is plenty of unused space in our cities for new housing: https://x.com/ftw_cool/status/1779228107754623084
Texas vs California; Texas builds a lot and has lower housing price growth, California builds little and has high housing price growth: https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1760995124690231526
This effect holds regardless of if the new housing is "affordable", "below-market rate", or "luxury": https://x.com/jayparsons/status/1712110658601255211
That supply and demand applies to housing has been reported repeatedly in the news: https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1757939504126832802
Lots of new apartments have been built lately. The effect on rent growth is obvious: https://x.com/mnolangray/status/1755818637750161540
Landlords themselves acknowledge the difficulty of finding tenants and getting high rents when there is a glut of housing inventory: https://x.com/sam_d_1995/status/1752346758254887132
Surprisingly, supply and demand also affect housing prices in the Midwest: https://x.com/StatisticUrban/status/1752008654734147718
Real estate investors and landlords acknowledging that new construction lowers rents and increases vacancies in their properties: https://x.com/SmackTrout/status/1652396524389961731