Is it just me or do you folks feel like there would be soon a mass migration of people from Western countries to places like India, South America, Africa etc because of not being able to afford basic things like rent? Not like a nomad but more permanent.
I definitely do not feel like this will happen anytime soon at all. Maybe more domestic migration from expensive metros to less expensive areas (already happening somewhat)
I'm born and raised in NYC and more and more I'm contemplating moving somewhere, anywhere, where I actually get my money's worth on rent, municipal services, quality of life, etc.
Moving to Florida from NYC was a revelation for me. With more people it manages to properly return services to its citizens despite zero income tax.
Think about the state and city tax you pay as a New Yorker and just how miserable of an experience you get in return.
NYC is drowning in pension obligations and just plain mismanagement. For nearly two years post-COVID lockdown you still couldn't get any kind of interaction with any city services. The city courts are still backed up for years and years.
The city's infrastructure is collapsing, budget cuts are everywhere and every politician in the city is still crawling over each other trying to save their pet pork projects rather than do what matters for most of the people who live there.
I've spent a fair bit of time in North Carolina. Never lived there but every job since grad school has had some connection there. Don't love the summer climate but a fair bit to recommend it (for the South particularly) overall.
I feel quote strongly not as the ones unable to afford basic things like rent are the least likely group of a society to afford and be allowed to mass migrate to another continent. Especially when there is plenty of empty remote land in the US where you don't need to fly all your stuff, learn a new language and set of laws, or get approval to go.
That's interesting idea. But I don't know enough about law but can you just go to some remote area and build a small house there (even very basic strong tent). Would more people do this and they start this small community where they provide some sense of infrastructure?
Maybe if you are alone of a few people in the areait would be easier. But in reality I think that it would be hard specially with the harsh weather that climate change is giving us these days that will need some community and some infrastructure to survive.
You don't need to homestead. There is relatively inexpensive housing in many areas and even some entertainment and dining options. Heck, I'm within range of going into Boston for an evening/night and I'm pretty sure where I live is much cheaper than in the city or immediately outside. (And when I moved here, there wasn't even much tech in the city proper.)
Yes, this was my point. Leaving NYC or the Bay Area does not mean you have to live in a sod hut and fend off the James Gang. You might just have to live in, like, Lansing or Huntsville.
Or even a further suburb/exurb of a major city. The Bay Area probably throws a lot of people off because it's hard to do a day-trip out of high priced areas. That's not really true of a lot of major cities.
Yes if you go outside the major population centers there is still affordable housing, land, or rental housing availble. The problem is there aren't a lot of high-paying jobs in those areas, or other ammenities that a lot of people like such as entertainment, gourmet restaurants, nightlife.
I don't think masses are about to start homesteading tomorrow rather it'd happen before people started moving to India or Africa for cheap housing. There's plenty of existing rural towns and areas in the meantime.
Not impossible, but even ignoring the difficulty of getting a visa and learning a new culture in order to live there, what guarantees do you have that you'd be able to get a job that pays you enough to live there comfortably? It's true that your rent will be cheaper, but your salary will likely be way lower too, and so will be the quality of public services.
Moving countries may be desirable but it comes with its own set of issues--that may become bigger as you get older. There are plenty of less expensive areas in the states although they may not have the climate and other features you prefer.
Rent tends to be pretty unreasonable across most of the US these days as far as I've seen. And most places have next to no tenants' rights.
I have a friend who left NYC for an apartment in Sioux Falls, SD and his landlord changed his lease terms and payment structure multiple times mid-lease, doesn't have individual utility metering and just bills everyone in the building what they want and even bills him for utilities that they don't provide.
Everyone in the building who challenged it was evicted on three days notice.
I wouldn't count on international landlords being appreciably better on average and now you're in a foreign country.
Sure, there are asshole landlords and renting always comes with its own tradeoffs. But there are a lot of places you can rent for much less than NYC if you don't need a local job.
Although paychecks seem to go less far today, America currently the strongest economy globally, with somewhat affordable housing compared to much of the developed world (although some have us beat).
Also its easy to forget the pathway in life afforded by living in a highly developed nation. Access to capital (mortgages etc)., preferred trading status (for example import goods are much more expensive in Brazil - accounting for foreign exchange), robust job market with competitive wages, strong regulatory environment (low corruption, enforced business/ financial laws) allowing business transactions to be fairly dependable, competitive offers for cell coverage and airlines and other infrastructure, (relative) certainty of safety, and access to a shared culture (for those from western countries).
Of course there are many low cost of living expats who remain attached to American institutions (such as banking), but en masse out migration to low cost of living nations? I think unlikely.
1. Significant migration from CA and NY to TX, TN, FL, etc. People make this about D/R politics, but it's really more about housing. The Rent is Too Damn High.
2. Net migration between the US and Mexico has been in the direction of Mexico for a few years now. Probably Trumpist xenophobia played a role, but I suspect that mostly It's the Economy Stupid -- partly that costs in the US are high, and maybe also partly that opportunities in Mexico have improved.
I remember the narrative during and shortly after Covid was that rent, housing prices, and tuition would become more affordable due to move to online colleges and migration from cities or other factors. How badly those aged. Nothing changes or will change. A bunch of stimulus was pumped into the economy and ZIRP ,so of course prices inflated again.
>shortly after Covid was that rent, housing prices, and tuition would become more affordable due to move to online colleges and migration from cities or other factors. How badly those aged.
It's still "shortly after COVID", isn't it? Do you expect economic upheaval to occur over a matter of months? Talk to people in commercial real estate!
It is but, while commercial real estate is still somewhat of an open issue (many companies are slowly edging out of lease renewals), it's probably fair to say that the after times look a lot more like the before times than various research firms and others were saying in the early COVID days.
A few more people are working at home. Some people probably retired early. But how many other big changes has the average person really made?
I don't know about those narratives, but I do remember rent increase moratoriums in some places during the pandemic. The fact is, this (literal) rent seeking behavior will continue if unchecked. Two simple ways (probably among others) to check it: legally (this worked short term over the pandemic), increase supply (has better benefits long term). The best time to build housing was yesterday, the next best is today.
More complex ways, combining many approaches to address these issues, work better still.
That's why we need remote work to increase even further, from the current 12.7% of population. So people can live in cheaper areas. Unfortunately, C level execs get in the way
CEOs Are Using Return to Office Mandates to Mask Poor Management
I’d say most manual jobs are not eligible for remote work.
One can’t flip burgers remotely, do landscaping remotely, manufacture goods remotely, do farm work remotely.
It’s a relative minority those who can work remotely.
One option is Japan or Austria where even low level staff earn a living wage, but where everything is expensive for just about everyone and there is high employment as well.
Of course most employers want to import a subclass of workers who don’t get paid a regular wage and are happy to offshore and or import cheap labor instead.
You can’t eat your cake and have it, if you want high pay and low underemployment.
Yes, but when remote workers (or laptop class as some people call it) move somewhere, the need for manual jobs increase as well, because those remote workers eat burgers, fix their teeth, do landscaping, etc. Moving remote workers to cheaper areas can enable manual workers to move as well, and could lead to more even urbanization.
This is in theory, but I think that, unfortunately, most remote workers don't move and choose to stay in expensive overcrowded areas anyway.
If you're a renter, recovering $500 a month in funds probably looks like cutting back on entertainment, switching to cheaper brands at the grocery, declining to visit those friends in the East Bay to save on gas, tolls, and/or Uber.
If you're a landlord, you can just force a $500/m increase on your tenants. Done.
Since everyone has felt the squeeze after the pandemic, those of us who represent a potential X% increase in monthly revenue to the person we depend on for the roof over heads are going to get squeezed on their behalf.
I dunno about that other commenter's theorized 'mass migration' overseas, but sheesh, a personal migration to Stockton is starting to feel pretty reasonable.
I've found that with housing, prices are often set "at the margins". If even one landlord is asking $4k for an 800sqft 2BR, it might sit unrented for a while but other landlords will notice and nudge their prices of similar units towards that. This definitely happens faster in tight markets.
Additionally, institutional investors have bought up around 5% of the SFH market so far, some estimates say they will own up to 40% by 2030. [1]
I would not be surprised if they already have significant pricing (signaling-)power and can already influence prices with just their 5% ownership, eg only Blackrock by itself.
Landlords will happily leave a unit open if the lost revenue is offset by higher rents on the filled units, particularly if filling the open unit would require renovation. This is easier when property owners collude to raise and maintain high prices (which they have been doing) and when they can offer superficial discounts that disappear upon lease renewal (which is common practice).
I would wager the few extra bucks I have that a majority of renters don't have $500 in monthly discretionary funds to cut back. Saving even a couple hundred is a matter of eliminating non-pirated entertainment (if one hasn't already), significantly modifying one's diet (not simply switching to cheaper brands, but changing grocery stores, changing food, reducing meal sizes and counts, and (I've heard, in some extreme cases) limited shoplifting), and having no social life that more affluent family/friends aren't paying for. IME, you are also trying to pick up odd jobs or gig work, selling possessions, and picking non-rent bills to put off.
All this to say: as bad as you think it is, it's worse.
This is my conjecture but my guess is that it's very heterogeneous.
Salaries are high basically only if you have switched jobs recently. My guess is that people who have stayed at their jobs through the massive inflationary period of the last 3-4 years are over-represented in this group.
Broadly speaking, I am not sure we want to be encouraging this. Having people stay in their jobs for longer gives them time to get good at what they're good at and makes companies more effective. Forcing people to move jobs (by implementing policies that create tons of inflation) causes a lot of inefficiency, because people are forced to move on to keep pace and lose 1-6 months of productivity when they adapt to a new position.
The other aspect is housing, of course. We simply don't have enough housing units which makes everything more expensive and tips the scale to those who own already.
Many companies also, as a matter of usually unspoken but occasionally explicit policy, are structured to force employees out regularly. Amazon and many retailers are guilty of this, as they attempt to limit tenure and the potential for union activity. This artificially depresses wages, even for new hires, and places a greater burden on the public that has to deal with higher unemployment rates and increased community economic precarity in (and all the social ills that brings).
A land value tax is one way to achieve that goal with its own tradeoffs. Building more housing close to the jobs is an independent problem with an independent goal.
The government has a choice between there being enough housing to serve as a supportive foundation for more sophisticated economic activity, or placating private interests that don't see fit to build that housing until an arbitrary profit can be made.
States and the federal government should be building housing. Directly. Loss-leading, if they must. Sorry to the real estate magnates who would be impacted.
This is a function of interest rates. When rates are high, more people rent vs. buy, it costs more for landlords to service their debt, and it costs more for developers to build more units.
An industry has emerged, abetted by many years of very low interest rates. This industry buys residences and rents them out - it is called 'rent seeking'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
I masquerades as a real business, but it is essentially a parasitic entity. It maintains a large stock of vacant places that it rent short term = AirBNB etc.
It is the root cause of the housing shortage and the rent increases.
Some cities tax them as hotels - where they are found - they operate stealthily.
What is needed is a specific added tax to offset their spread to new dwelling as well as shrink those in place to force their sale to people to live in them, some city/state/fed action would help.
61 comments
[ 8.7 ms ] story [ 1283 ms ] threadThink about the state and city tax you pay as a New Yorker and just how miserable of an experience you get in return.
NYC is drowning in pension obligations and just plain mismanagement. For nearly two years post-COVID lockdown you still couldn't get any kind of interaction with any city services. The city courts are still backed up for years and years.
The city's infrastructure is collapsing, budget cuts are everywhere and every politician in the city is still crawling over each other trying to save their pet pork projects rather than do what matters for most of the people who live there.
GET OUT!
The Carolinas suit me just fine. Most underrated part of the country by far.
India? No, it's just you.
The U.S. pop. density is 87/mi^2, India's is 1097/mi^2. (according to wikipedia)
I don't think migration of humans revolves around population density.
source: wikipedia
Maybe if you are alone of a few people in the areait would be easier. But in reality I think that it would be hard specially with the harsh weather that climate change is giving us these days that will need some community and some infrastructure to survive.
I have a friend who left NYC for an apartment in Sioux Falls, SD and his landlord changed his lease terms and payment structure multiple times mid-lease, doesn't have individual utility metering and just bills everyone in the building what they want and even bills him for utilities that they don't provide.
Everyone in the building who challenged it was evicted on three days notice.
Sure, there are asshole landlords and renting always comes with its own tradeoffs. But there are a lot of places you can rent for much less than NYC if you don't need a local job.
Also its easy to forget the pathway in life afforded by living in a highly developed nation. Access to capital (mortgages etc)., preferred trading status (for example import goods are much more expensive in Brazil - accounting for foreign exchange), robust job market with competitive wages, strong regulatory environment (low corruption, enforced business/ financial laws) allowing business transactions to be fairly dependable, competitive offers for cell coverage and airlines and other infrastructure, (relative) certainty of safety, and access to a shared culture (for those from western countries).
Of course there are many low cost of living expats who remain attached to American institutions (such as banking), but en masse out migration to low cost of living nations? I think unlikely.
1. Significant migration from CA and NY to TX, TN, FL, etc. People make this about D/R politics, but it's really more about housing. The Rent is Too Damn High.
2. Net migration between the US and Mexico has been in the direction of Mexico for a few years now. Probably Trumpist xenophobia played a role, but I suspect that mostly It's the Economy Stupid -- partly that costs in the US are high, and maybe also partly that opportunities in Mexico have improved.
Why would you leave the country ?
Scranton, PA: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/933-Monroe-Ave-Scranton-P...
Lansing, MI: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1507-W-Michigan-Ave-Lansi...
Oklahoma City: OK: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6900-Elk-Canyon-Rd-Oklaho...
It's still "shortly after COVID", isn't it? Do you expect economic upheaval to occur over a matter of months? Talk to people in commercial real estate!
A few more people are working at home. Some people probably retired early. But how many other big changes has the average person really made?
More complex ways, combining many approaches to address these issues, work better still.
CEOs Are Using Return to Office Mandates to Mask Poor Management
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191696
One can’t flip burgers remotely, do landscaping remotely, manufacture goods remotely, do farm work remotely.
It’s a relative minority those who can work remotely.
One option is Japan or Austria where even low level staff earn a living wage, but where everything is expensive for just about everyone and there is high employment as well.
Of course most employers want to import a subclass of workers who don’t get paid a regular wage and are happy to offshore and or import cheap labor instead.
You can’t eat your cake and have it, if you want high pay and low underemployment.
This is in theory, but I think that, unfortunately, most remote workers don't move and choose to stay in expensive overcrowded areas anyway.
The vast majority of the world is not on a laptop for their job.
If you're a landlord, you can just force a $500/m increase on your tenants. Done.
Since everyone has felt the squeeze after the pandemic, those of us who represent a potential X% increase in monthly revenue to the person we depend on for the roof over heads are going to get squeezed on their behalf.
I dunno about that other commenter's theorized 'mass migration' overseas, but sheesh, a personal migration to Stockton is starting to feel pretty reasonable.
Only if there is a tight supply of housing, otherwise another landlord will accept a lower rent rather than have an empty unit.
The problem with rent is one of supply, not greedy landlords. Ask your local planning commission why they aren't approving more housing developments.
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
Additionally, institutional investors have bought up around 5% of the SFH market so far, some estimates say they will own up to 40% by 2030. [1]
I would not be surprised if they already have significant pricing (signaling-)power and can already influence prices with just their 5% ownership, eg only Blackrock by itself.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-singl...
All this to say: as bad as you think it is, it's worse.
It's way worse
The no one will pay an additional $500 in rent
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/15/homelessness-increase-rent-...
Salaries are high basically only if you have switched jobs recently. My guess is that people who have stayed at their jobs through the massive inflationary period of the last 3-4 years are over-represented in this group.
Broadly speaking, I am not sure we want to be encouraging this. Having people stay in their jobs for longer gives them time to get good at what they're good at and makes companies more effective. Forcing people to move jobs (by implementing policies that create tons of inflation) causes a lot of inefficiency, because people are forced to move on to keep pace and lose 1-6 months of productivity when they adapt to a new position.
The other aspect is housing, of course. We simply don't have enough housing units which makes everything more expensive and tips the scale to those who own already.
- we need to build more housing, and that means up-zoning and reducing local control (NIMBYs blocking new construction)
- we need a land value tax.
States and the federal government should be building housing. Directly. Loss-leading, if they must. Sorry to the real estate magnates who would be impacted.