Totally 100% unrelated and you're not allowed to even think about it: Letting in an unsustainable amount of unvetted migrants illegally enter the country (+ never mind the harm that's done to the immigrants that are already here. Never think about that)
According to the US census, roughly 3M undocumented people own a home and there are approximately 144M housing units total. So, ~2% of the market is from the undocumented. Additionally, less than half of the entire undocumented population makes more than $28k a year.
So you're right, it is totally, 100% unrelated. Otherwise you're making a claim that one of the poorest demographics in the US with the least amount of home ownership is somehow responsible for a massive price spike in housing over the last few years.
To be fair all those rich private equity firms who have been buying up real estate and driving up the prices to insane degrees are impossible to fight back against as an individual while shitting on illegal immigrants and any other underclass at least gives an illusory sense of self-superiority and control over the situation.
Not an economist, what type of impact does the 2% increase in demand that you demonstrated do to pricing in an inelastic constrained market?
Also, most of the remaining 11.3 million undocumented still occupy housing. So out of 340 million Americans 35% don't own property leaving around 119 million non-home owners. With 8.3 million undocumented not owning homes per your numbers, undocumented are adding approx. 7% to the needed rental market. Again, what does that increased demand do to housing pricing in a relatively inelastic constrained market? I'm personally for more open borders but I'm also for being honest about what that means including increased housing stocks.
> Otherwise you're making a claim that one of the poorest demographics in the US with the least amount of home ownership is somehow responsible for a massive price spike in housing over the last few years.
If there are 10 houses and 12 people. The houses will go to the 10 highest paying people and so the 2 poorest immigrants will be left in the rain.
The problem is not that we now have 10 houses and 15 people (3 from immigration) it's that there's 8 houses now [1].
That is correct of course, but the US federal housing insurers are understandably shy about talking about their contribution to the problem.
Especially after 2008 almost all house valuations in the US are based on square footage and number of bathrooms. So bigger houses and more plumbing is the only way to make money as a developer.
> Since it's illegal in the US for undocumented people to get federal guaranteed home loans
No one made a claim about federally guaranteed home loans except you, and you can’t transfer a claim from home loans in general to federally guaranteed home loans, because the latter are only about half of the former. And actually the claim wasn’t even about home loans to start with, but about home ownership.
Unfortunately, it's more likely private interests moving into the market than some regulations causing increasing costs.
This omnipresent idea that government can only be the bad guy is a helluva marketing job by American capitalists... unsurprisingly the "solutions" of dezoning and evicting taxes are just a capitalists wet dream.
I genuinely find it strange that after the mortgage is paid off...that you have to abide by zoning and pay property taxes for your shelter that you and your family need to survive or the government will take your house away.
Structure is a continuum ranging from repression to anarchy.
For example the Democrats provided structure in the form of slavery in the south pre civil war but that was found to be wrong of the government and on the repressive side of the continuum.
Some would argue the government is heading towards repression in modern times as well. The Democrats seem to be very pro-government still though and support government engineering of society.
I don't think anyone's arguing for anarchy though.
> For example the Democrats provided structure in the form of slavery in the south pre civil war but that was found to be wrong of the government and on the repressive side of the continuum.
Are you one of those folks who insists that, because the Democrats supported enslavement 160 years ago, they're still to be regarded with suspicion? If so, do you also think that Republicans get a perpetual free pass, no matter what they do, because 160 years ago they were the party of abolition?
I made a claim that the government has repressive housing rules.
You made a vague claim that "society requires structure" to justify repressive housing rules.
I'm presenting another example of government rules: slavery...that your vague claim of "society needs structure" can be applied to. (like many Democrats back then supported)
My point is that your claim is vague, lazy, and incomplete because the concept of social structure can be applied to literally anything.
oh, you changed the subjects. I'll answer your question.
The Democrats are the party of big government. Whether that's repressive zoning and taxes or repressive slavery or repressive public health regulations... the Democrats are and always will be supportive of repressive big government policys.
The only thing that's changed is the way the Democrats express their support of oppression.
Pragmatically, in the USofA, achieving small government would be much much easier than achieving a market free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.
And efficient small government will be a moonshot.
Its confusing how you can argue against monopolies but support the the biggest monopoly of all... the government.
ANY fair system is completely impossible just by the nature of human beings.
There is no world and no system which unfairness does not exist.
However, a free market at least doesnt put all the power and control into the hands of a singular monopolistic entity that can use violence as an option.
> a small government to take care of the essentials and the free market will handle the rest absolutely.
Yeah, I used to believe that, because it was such a neat theory and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged seemed so right. (I was a teenager.) Life has convinced me otherwise. There's a sweet spot (which probably moves over time), but free-market absolutists aren't being realistic, largely for the reasons mentioned by 'defrost in response to you.
(NY Times lead economics writer Binyamin Appelbaum got it right in his book The Economists' Hour when he said, of Milton Friedman, that Friedman celebrated drivers but took roads for granted.)
> you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence.
Wait, are you not the one making sweeping claims about small government and the free market?
I'd love to spend several days with you discussing what has caused me to evolve from pretty-conservative and -libertarian Republican in my younger days, to moderate liberal today. Unfortunately, I'm heads-down with, um, work, so I'll have to take a rain check.
I remember I was getting into a debate with a friend for rent X buy option, and when I told him besides all the taxes you are going to pay that is sometimes plus maintenance fees is equal to a rent, you actually never own your house the same way you own other things, he didn’t believe it first. Not to mention you are also restricted to “neighborhood laws” that even prevent you from changing your replica looking house into something unique or authentic, not even your lawn! Good thing in Europe and probably most of the world these nonsense laws aren’t there, and you still see good looking authentic houses too.
Which is kind of insane considering how high rent is and that these are paid off properties and she puts a fair amount of work into the management of them.
>Good thing in Europe and probably most of the world these nonsense laws aren’t there
Check out Portugal's crazy rules regarding ruin properties where you have to restore shitty stone buildings with insane limitation instead of building a new greenfield home on the land.
>Oregon, California, Washington, Montana and Maine have ended them statewide.
That represents well over 50 million residents, so some progress has been made, we'll see how it turns out over the next decade.
It's also interesting that despite zoning laws, good things can happen where one town borders another. My suburban housing sub-division (SFH on 0.2 acre lots built 70 years ago) is directly adjacent to a very similar suburb, but on the other side of the line, within a half mile or so, there are hundreds of apartments, plus stores, churches, professional offices, etc. that the other suburb has allowed via zoning in this neighborhood.
32 comments
[ 150 ms ] story [ 3536 ms ] threadSo you're right, it is totally, 100% unrelated. Otherwise you're making a claim that one of the poorest demographics in the US with the least amount of home ownership is somehow responsible for a massive price spike in housing over the last few years.
Also, most of the remaining 11.3 million undocumented still occupy housing. So out of 340 million Americans 35% don't own property leaving around 119 million non-home owners. With 8.3 million undocumented not owning homes per your numbers, undocumented are adding approx. 7% to the needed rental market. Again, what does that increased demand do to housing pricing in a relatively inelastic constrained market? I'm personally for more open borders but I'm also for being honest about what that means including increased housing stocks.
If there are 10 houses and 12 people. The houses will go to the 10 highest paying people and so the 2 poorest immigrants will be left in the rain.
The problem is not that we now have 10 houses and 15 people (3 from immigration) it's that there's 8 houses now [1].
[1]: https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...
Especially after 2008 almost all house valuations in the US are based on square footage and number of bathrooms. So bigger houses and more plumbing is the only way to make money as a developer.
The latest available US census data for rentals is here, and in many use cases rentals drive home sale prices more than the reverse: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigra...
No one made a claim about federally guaranteed home loans except you, and you can’t transfer a claim from home loans in general to federally guaranteed home loans, because the latter are only about half of the former. And actually the claim wasn’t even about home loans to start with, but about home ownership.
The government is a permanent HOA with a whole bunch of rules to follow and money go pay.
This omnipresent idea that government can only be the bad guy is a helluva marketing job by American capitalists... unsurprisingly the "solutions" of dezoning and evicting taxes are just a capitalists wet dream.
Strangely corporate shilling.
For example the Democrats provided structure in the form of slavery in the south pre civil war but that was found to be wrong of the government and on the repressive side of the continuum.
Some would argue the government is heading towards repression in modern times as well. The Democrats seem to be very pro-government still though and support government engineering of society.
I don't think anyone's arguing for anarchy though.
Are you one of those folks who insists that, because the Democrats supported enslavement 160 years ago, they're still to be regarded with suspicion? If so, do you also think that Republicans get a perpetual free pass, no matter what they do, because 160 years ago they were the party of abolition?
You made a vague claim that "society requires structure" to justify repressive housing rules.
I'm presenting another example of government rules: slavery...that your vague claim of "society needs structure" can be applied to. (like many Democrats back then supported)
My point is that your claim is vague, lazy, and incomplete because the concept of social structure can be applied to literally anything.
The Democrats are the party of big government. Whether that's repressive zoning and taxes or repressive slavery or repressive public health regulations... the Democrats are and always will be supportive of repressive big government policys.
The only thing that's changed is the way the Democrats express their support of oppression.
EDIT: I wasn't the one who posted the "Living in a society requires structure" comment.
And efficient small government will be a moonshot.
Its confusing how you can argue against monopolies but support the the biggest monopoly of all... the government.
ANY fair system is completely impossible just by the nature of human beings.
There is no world and no system which unfairness does not exist.
However, a free market at least doesnt put all the power and control into the hands of a singular monopolistic entity that can use violence as an option.
Yeah, I used to believe that, because it was such a neat theory and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged seemed so right. (I was a teenager.) Life has convinced me otherwise. There's a sweet spot (which probably moves over time), but free-market absolutists aren't being realistic, largely for the reasons mentioned by 'defrost in response to you.
(NY Times lead economics writer Binyamin Appelbaum got it right in his book The Economists' Hour when he said, of Milton Friedman, that Friedman celebrated drivers but took roads for granted.)
Anec-data
you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence.
A single monopolistic entity that can use violence to accomplish it's means is no way to run a country.
Wait, are you not the one making sweeping claims about small government and the free market?
I'd love to spend several days with you discussing what has caused me to evolve from pretty-conservative and -libertarian Republican in my younger days, to moderate liberal today. Unfortunately, I'm heads-down with, um, work, so I'll have to take a rain check.
She says her profit is about 20%.
Which is kind of insane considering how high rent is and that these are paid off properties and she puts a fair amount of work into the management of them.
And, when comparing cost, you need to consider rent is 100% loss. Owning rarely is, with the usual being between 0% and gain.
I lost 400k renting in silicon valley. If I put 400k into a house, I would have made 400k.
Check out Portugal's crazy rules regarding ruin properties where you have to restore shitty stone buildings with insane limitation instead of building a new greenfield home on the land.
That represents well over 50 million residents, so some progress has been made, we'll see how it turns out over the next decade.
It's also interesting that despite zoning laws, good things can happen where one town borders another. My suburban housing sub-division (SFH on 0.2 acre lots built 70 years ago) is directly adjacent to a very similar suburb, but on the other side of the line, within a half mile or so, there are hundreds of apartments, plus stores, churches, professional offices, etc. that the other suburb has allowed via zoning in this neighborhood.