This is completely representative of the twisted incentives that exist in the US housing market -- people treat housing as a retirement account and not as, well, housing.
> Population was decreasing prior to mass layoffs.
Only since the pandemic cut immigration, and only slowly (though there was more intrastate redistribution.)
But even so, that (and the net outmigration to other states that had been going on for decades even while international migration offset it) waa largely due to affordability concerns resulting fron inadequate housing supply.
> Now we're just forcing inorganic increased supply; dropping property values.
Since the mandates mostly favor multifamily homes, including by redevelopment, and undermine zoning restrictions, this probably raises value of existing properties (allowing more units on existing land increases land market value, reducing the proportion and absolute number of properties above a given size increases the improvement values of those larger properties.)
It decreases the average price of a “housing unit”, but that people own concrete properties, not generic housing units that morph over time to whatever the current average unit is.
In reality, many if not most have their retirements held in their. In an astronomical cost of living place, this means poverty in practice with wealth on paper; breaking the social contract of the American Dream.
Do we want a mass construction workers layoff in addition to tech layoff?
Tech recession should be countered by encouraging developments in all economic sectors, especially pro-development policies that doesn't cost taxpayer money.
10% of the population of the USA lives in California. This is why I have my doubts. Cheerleaders say that from 1.18MM to 1.88MM people work in tech in California, but there's high vs not-so-high tech and the tech of Lockheed and SpaceX is quite different than the tech of Meta and Twitter.
1.88MM means that 1 in 20 work in tech. In Massachusetts, similar cheerleaders say that 11% of the residents work in tech.
What does one have to do with the other? Do substantially less people need housing in general, or lower cost housing in particular, than before the layoffs?
21 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 16.4 ms ] threadCalifornia is decades behind on housing stock and it will take decades to recover. Downturn in one cycle is not worth it.
Only since the pandemic cut immigration, and only slowly (though there was more intrastate redistribution.)
But even so, that (and the net outmigration to other states that had been going on for decades even while international migration offset it) waa largely due to affordability concerns resulting fron inadequate housing supply.
> Now we're just forcing inorganic increased supply; dropping property values.
Since the mandates mostly favor multifamily homes, including by redevelopment, and undermine zoning restrictions, this probably raises value of existing properties (allowing more units on existing land increases land market value, reducing the proportion and absolute number of properties above a given size increases the improvement values of those larger properties.)
It decreases the average price of a “housing unit”, but that people own concrete properties, not generic housing units that morph over time to whatever the current average unit is.
EDIT: I am referring to fraction in terms of people, not tax dollars. If they're long term unemployed now, their tax value is low anyway.
1.88MM means that 1 in 20 work in tech. In Massachusetts, similar cheerleaders say that 11% of the residents work in tech.