The extent to which boomers think they "deserve" to be paid huge sums of money to walk around their own homes for 30 years is so bizarre. "But I made a GOOD investment!"
The past lack of Millennial organizing on home supply is disappointing. But it's difficult when so much of the activist oxygen is consumed by SJW issues and when the voting base of Millennials is so transient and diverse.
But like any cartel, I think the housing syndicate only breaks when it becomes too hard for new entrants to join the cartel. Historically, if you're an ambitious and successful Millennial in the bay area (for example), the incentive has been to just buy a house yourself and join the cartel.
Home prices I think are finally getting high enough that Millennials (and Zoomers) realize that the cartel is unsustainable and buying into it is just asking to take a financial bath later on down the line. That's the hope anyway.
Just another area of American society that is being poisoned by R>G dynamics...
I'm curious if you've ever heard from people that work in homebuilding? I'm a former libertarian like yourself and used to believe in all the deregulation stuff too. It makes sense as a model in your head, but there is quite a bit of evidence that at the end of the day... regulation is of minor import in the amount of housing in a location.
Cameron Murray has studies of deregulation in Australia where it did not result in much more housing; areas that were deregulated. There are also many people that work in housing that cast cold water on the idea that deregulation will result in more homes being built: Logan Mohtashami is very good on spelling out why this is the case. I've owned equity stakes in some of the largest homebuilder companies around: Toll Brothers, Lennar, TMHC. If you look at their prospectuses, most of them are often sitting on huge tracts of land that are undeveloped and only ever develop just a teeny fraction of what is possible for them. Mohtashami often says something like economists don't think about the individual demand curve of the builder. They are there to make money; not flood the market and hurt their profits.
Because I'm a former libertarian... I have come to realize that a lot of the STRONG libertarian premises were never that true. In crypto, the decentralization is ALWAYS better premise...
Anyways, I think you should be open minded that the deregulation premise isn't true
Dear G*d, zucchini, seriously? Those things are like weeds. They're notorious for producing so much that you end up leaving baskets of zucchini on your neighbor's doorstep without even asking if they want any. You think a little shade is going to deter them?
The extent to which boomers think they "deserve" to be paid huge sums of money to walk around their own homes for 30 years is so bizarre. "But I made a GOOD investment!"
The past lack of Millennial organizing on home supply is disappointing. But it's difficult when so much of the activist oxygen is consumed by SJW issues and when the voting base of Millennials is so transient and diverse.
But like any cartel, I think the housing syndicate only breaks when it becomes too hard for new entrants to join the cartel. Historically, if you're an ambitious and successful Millennial in the bay area (for example), the incentive has been to just buy a house yourself and join the cartel.
Home prices I think are finally getting high enough that Millennials (and Zoomers) realize that the cartel is unsustainable and buying into it is just asking to take a financial bath later on down the line. That's the hope anyway.
Just another area of American society that is being poisoned by R>G dynamics...
Will,
I'm curious if you've ever heard from people that work in homebuilding? I'm a former libertarian like yourself and used to believe in all the deregulation stuff too. It makes sense as a model in your head, but there is quite a bit of evidence that at the end of the day... regulation is of minor import in the amount of housing in a location.
Cameron Murray has studies of deregulation in Australia where it did not result in much more housing; areas that were deregulated. There are also many people that work in housing that cast cold water on the idea that deregulation will result in more homes being built: Logan Mohtashami is very good on spelling out why this is the case. I've owned equity stakes in some of the largest homebuilder companies around: Toll Brothers, Lennar, TMHC. If you look at their prospectuses, most of them are often sitting on huge tracts of land that are undeveloped and only ever develop just a teeny fraction of what is possible for them. Mohtashami often says something like economists don't think about the individual demand curve of the builder. They are there to make money; not flood the market and hurt their profits.
Because I'm a former libertarian... I have come to realize that a lot of the STRONG libertarian premises were never that true. In crypto, the decentralization is ALWAYS better premise...
Anyways, I think you should be open minded that the deregulation premise isn't true
https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/r925z.html
Dear G*d, zucchini, seriously? Those things are like weeds. They're notorious for producing so much that you end up leaving baskets of zucchini on your neighbor's doorstep without even asking if they want any. You think a little shade is going to deter them?