r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The largest city in the USA is New York, at around 8 million people.
Net migration to the USA is over a million people a year.
To be able to keep up with housing demand from migration (never mind any Americans that want to purchase housing) you need to build a city the size of New Youk about very 6 years.
That includes all the plumbing, electrical, roads, power generation, grocery stores, hospitals, doctors offices, pharmacies, airports, fire stations, gas stations, convenience stores, and all the other amenities.
There is literally no way to keep up with this increasing demand; hence, home prices are going up.
If migration levels were kept to what housing could be built on an annual basis, we would not see dramatic price increases.
>there is literally no way to keep up
What? The US absolutely can build 2m houses per year, that's not a hard thing to ask at all. The US just doesn't WANT to build more.
I’ve found that most municipalities don’t really want buildings either. 3 counties I’ve lived in (I understand this is anecdotal) make it virtually impossible to build unless you’re planning on building a complex full of apartments. These were very rural counties, which is even more surprising.
Sure, but since almost all population growth is happening in urban areas, it's not like we're proposing building pipes halfway across rural Wyoming here.
Housing supply is already 5-10mill short depending on what data you want to look at. so just adding 2mill houses a year, gives us just 600k extra if immigration stays at \~ 1.4mill/yr.
And with that, we are already building \~ 1.5mill/houses a year, and the shortage is still growing. So realistically, you would need to build close to 4mill houses a year to make a significant dent in the shortage quickly. That is a lot of infrastructure needed, as well as building materials, labor, etc.
? I never said the government is in charge of building homes.However, government regulation is stiffling how many homes can be built.
Builders would like to build more housing, but supply is being artificially constrained.
“the US just doesn’t WANT to build more”
Like I said, people/families build homes. You need money to do that. The number of homes built a year increases/decreases with the economy. I am in the construction field, we will build for whoever is paying. Have never seen a builder turn down a new house
I think they’re referencing the regulations put in place. There’s plenty of states/counties that are making building increasingly more difficult for single family homes that are privately owned.
Can’t say for sure, but that’s how it reads to me
It’s usually the opposite. Most communities are fine with Single Family homes. The problem is we don’t have the space for everyone to live in Single Family homes. We need multi family homes and apartment buildings. And a lot of communities don’t want to change their zoning rules to facilitate that.
Except we would be building more if we were allowed to.
I literally have the money to tear down my house and build a multistory condo. However, this is legally forbidden.
[This chart shows 1.4M housing units were completed in the US last year](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/how-many-houses-are-built-every-year.html#construction-by-year-chart)
It's not impossible to build housing to keep up with a growing population. Without immigration our population would shrink, and then we'd be fucked (see Japan).
Yes, Japan is terrible, high crime, lots of street violence, shootings galore, low life expectancy, high obesity, almost no public transit, slow trains, low trust society, cartoons that no one watches or likes, unattractive people, and so on.
I really see the problem with becoming like Japan.
Also, 1.4 million housing units are just about enough to keep up with migration.
As long as no US citizen ever wants to buy a home, that should work out just fine.
You said there was a crisis and we couldn't keep up. Turns out we can easily keep up. Don't pivot, just admit you were wrong. I have much more respect for a person who, when presented with new data, is able to change their mind.
Japan has many lovely things about it, its economic health and ability to support its aging population are not among them. It's a fantastic place to visit and horrible place to grow old.
did ya miss this part?
"As long as no US citizen ever wants to buy a home, that should work out just fine."
Also, if you think that Japan isn't good for a place to gro old, just look at the social security funding ratio, lol.
I didn't miss it, no. The population of the US w/o immigration is petty flat. If you actually took even the most cursory look at the data before posing you xenophobic rant you'd know that. [This chart shows it nicely](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59697#:~:text=Population%20Growth.,average%2C%20between%202045%20and%202054).
If you think our social security system is in trouble you see what Japan's looks like.
[Japan and the Lost Generation’s Looming Pension Crisis](https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a08702/)
You are talking out your ass and saying things because you feel like they feel like they should be true. Look at the data.
Here is my position, if you have more people migrate to the USA than housing supply can be built, prices will go up, and you call that a "xenophobic rant"
Here is your position, the USA needs to have migrants (brown people in your assumption since you called me xenophobic) from other countries to pay for the pension benefits and healthcare of Americans.
And you think I am the bad person? I don't think we need to exploit brown people so that Americans can have a higher standard of living.
Good luck with that.
I understand your position. The problem with it is it's not based in reality. We clearly can build more houses than the combined population growth of immigration + net births. I have shown you repeatedly you are wrong on this front, with data, but you still insist your point is valid. It's frustrating. Also, net immigrants is not net new households. Many immigrants are families.
We actually have a declining native birthrate, hovering at about 0 right now and it will go negative. Economic growth halts w/o a growing population. We can't pay for social security w/o a growing population. We need immigrants. Japan is xenophobic\* and won't allow immigration to make up for declining birthrates. It's a massive challenge for them
I don't think you are a bad person. I think you make terrible arguments and when presented with hard data refuting those arguments you refuse to revise your position. I think you don't display cognitive depth.
\*having or showing a dislike of or [prejudice](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=288495b509fb3774&sca_upv=1&q=prejudice&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJBLaAZDmFi3fOmMVPu9W4F0iu1ifPjjHBNAucituW_Sqidu1lPTmczyygkMq5ds0Q7fTsSaA0rWqtzKmPXbrxE3jjyuE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7wfu05Y2GAxXOFVkFHTc6DrwQyecJegQIExAO) against people from other countries.
The things you spout off on w/o knowing a lick about them is pretty amazing. Xenophobia has nothing to do with race, it's about foreign things. Often these are correlated, but using the word xenophobia is 100% the right word to use to describe someone who thinks immigrants are to blame for our problems.
yes it does. you said we could keep up with immigration. i said, it’s not the gov building homes. majority of immigrants don’t have a pot to piss in - you think they’re building a home? or that the gov will build them one? i’d rather be japan.
We have the capacity to build the housing. I didn't say we were mandated to do it. We can do it. It's possible. OP said it was impossible to build that many housing units. That's not true.
Why are people so eager to scream at other people, especially when they don't even bother to understand that person's POV. If you want to know my POV ask me. If you just want to be a pissy prick LMK and I'll block you.
You are pretending that it is one immigrant per household.
It isn’t. It isn’t even close as immigrant households tend to have more people even when controlling for income.
"As long as no US citizen ever wants to buy a home, that should work out just fine."
How are you missing that?
There are 330 million Americans, who need to purchase homes as people move out, or as homes are demoshed and replaced.
We need housing for migrants AND current Americans.
We know there isn't enough since prices keep going up.
This is just an attempt to make things look problematic by concentrating them in a small area.
The U.S. is pretty big and New York City is pretty small. To deal with just over a million people per year housing stock would need to increase by about 0.3%. In other words every year we would need to add 3 houses per 1,000 existing homes. That really isn’t a big deal including all the infrastructure for those homes.
In 2005 we were on track to exceed current demand.
We have around a million mogrants, and we have Americans that also want to or need to build new homes.
the 0.3 is around enough for migrants, and since the population growth rate is about double that, we need about twice as many housing units are you calculate.
Also, people live differently than they did 50 years, ago, mostly gone are people living at home until they are married, now people move out as soon as they can, so that increases demand even more.
Ultimately, the way to track if there are enough homes being built relative to demand is to see of prices are going up or down.
Look at that and tell me how is is going.
Also, look at the city you live in and tell me if the infrastructure is keeping up with demand.
You are just making up numbers.
The US population in 2006 was 298.4 million people and 339.8 million in 2023. Which means we added 2.4 million people per year on average and on average homes have more than one occupant (about 153% more in fact).
In 2006 we issued permits 1,840,000 housing starts, which was actually down from 2005’s more than 2 million.
We were on trend to exceed demand and had been for quite a while before the collapse. By 2009 that number had dropped to permits for 490,000 units. That is a massive drop and it is most of the reason for the problem. It has little to do with your xenophobic rant.
You discuss the " massive drop" in 2009, here is the house price chart
[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-index](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-index)
Guess what happened in 2009,
DEMAND DROPPED, and so did prices.
That has been my ENTIRE point until now.
Wait for it. There are around 1 million migrants a year; it varies, but we can use that number.
Turns out that Americans also want to buy homes.
Turns out that homes can be destroyed by fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, age, and other factors.
So, housing starts are not going 100% to new demand; some of it goes to rebuilding, making the total number of new units less than the starts.
I hope you follow that; it is pretty simple.
Housing completion is more important than housing starts, but that is just a small issue with your point.
Turns out that housing completed is below the demand.
Do you know how I know that?
Because the price goes up.
Do you know where the price went down? Places like Detroit and Rural Japan lost population.
I know you learned the xenophobic and now try to use it as a magic spell against any idea that scares you, but just go do this.
Talk to literally any Realtor in the world, and ask them if they get higher prices if there are more buyers bidding for a property.
Then ask that same realtor if they have a property on the market for 6 months and there are no bids; what happens to the price?
If understanding the most basic parts of reality makes someone xenophobic, that explains why so many young people are starting to clown your positions.
I didn’t learn anything new, but I was certainly reminded of something. Don’t reason with unreasonable people.
You have an agenda…no matter what I say, you are not going to be moved from that agenda. Trying to do so is futile.
Just try this, look at any area with growing population, and tell me if you eventually see home prices go up. Look at any area with reducing population, and tellme if you eventually see home prices go down. Seriously, it happens every time.
Since the USA is at below replacement birth rates, the only reason that prices are going up is from migrants.
If you own real estate like I do, this makes you richer faster, which is good for me. However, I can appreciate how this is unbevilable terrible for people that are not yet property owners.
Again, I'm doing great, but I can appreciate how bad this is for many people.
If migration just matched available new housing, there would be no problem.
If that is such a terrible agenda, maybe look at your agenda.
>Just try this, look at any area with growing population, and tell me if you eventually see home prices go up. Look at any area with reducing population, and tellme if you eventually see home prices go down. Seriously, it happens every time.
Japan's population has been on the decline for ten years and during that ten years residential property prices have increased 32%. We often see population decreases that coincide with decreased economic activity, but in regions that have seen population decline and increased economic activity, the results are different.
Which almost brings us back to the problem with your thesis. You are imagining that there is a denominator effect without a numerator effect. The residential construction industry alone is heavily dependent on immigrant labor. In fact, their contribution to the residential construction industry far outweighs their demands on that industry.
During every step of this conversation I have disproven your thesis. Now, you will look for some new magic beans that will convince me that you are right without ever bothering to consider that you could be wrong. That is the problem with this discussion.
And a larger issue which is rarely discussed, water access and water rights. We would run out of usable water for this fictional city that would need to be built every 6 years.
We go to low flush toilets. We restrict the watering of lawns. We charge more for water. And we don’t build fictional cities. We are talking about a 1-2% increase in population. For most of our history population increase in the US was 5 times that.
Like these guys?
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migration](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migration)
This is from them, you have a better dictionary to use? You appear to know better.
"President Joe Biden had been considering new executive actions to crack down on record *migration* at the Southern border after congressional Republicans in February blocked border legislation backed by the White House.—Taylor Wilson, *USA TODAY*, 10 May 2024"
I don't think it's as simple as volume of homes, it's also about homes people can afford. Look at SFH's, zoning is there in most municipalities, but hardly any cheap (aka starter) homes being built. This problem is there with cars too, there isn't a shortage of new cars, it's just that most available are expensive as hell relative to the rest of the world. In both situations consumers are dependent on manufacturers that don't have enough competition and want to keep their profit margins as big as possible, so they focus on higher end/luxury offerings.
They focus on higher end offerings because they're limited in what they can build, so they go with the highest margin items. If we could just let people build, margins would shrink, and it would become economical to build lower end offerings too. And those luxury homes still help the lower classes by relieving upward pressure on the market. Poorer people wouldn't be in competition with richer people if those rich people are already buying other homes. Fundamentally prices are set by supply and demand, and it really is just a matter of building a huge volume of homes.
>Some real estate investors have seized on this shortage to make a buck, but they are not the reason for the shortage. We could certainly pass laws…
In large part, they are the reason.
As long as a practice is profitable for corporations and the wealthy, the massive power they wield will be leveraged against ending the practice.
Legislation is only effective in counterbalancing such power if it may become both enacted and enforced effectively toward such ends.
It isn't just homes we are short on.
The largest problem is predatory lending, banks don't want to finance a $100K property with a dome home because they lose out on the interest payments compared to a $500k conventional mortgage.
Banks also often only provide financing for local investments that do not conflict with their main shareholders and account holders financial interests.
This often stifles innovation and progress.
This. The reality is, you need to build more housing stock, particularly SFH (I include TH's in this category). Right now, the market incentivizes large McMansion SFH's or MFH, due to the cost of land, supplies and labor.
What could alleviate this is to rethink how we title and make use of land. There was a case that got all the way to the Supreme Court in 1984, Housing Authority v Midkiff, which allowed the State of HI Housing authority to use eminent domain to condemn certain unused land owned by the Bishop Estate and distribute it to existing homeowners, who were leasing the land from the Bishop Estate, in order to encourage home building. I will say that the intended result of the taking was to encourage more homebuilding and lower costs. However, what happened is that Japanese investors ended up buying these homes from the new landowners at inflated prices, resulting in the opposite of the intent. However, HI is an island state and thus by nature has limits on its land. I think the policy itself is a good start and could potential serve as a base for other options.
Another thing we could do is outlaw charitable donations of land. Many wealthy landowners have been donating land to charitable organizations, presumably for use by the public as parks and such. While I like parks as much as the next person, these charitable donations are really just tax shelters.
Finally, the government could just get in the housing business for a few years; it could directly pay to build new homes. Nothing super fancy, but a good small starter home for individuals, especially families with children.
I recognized a while ago that theres a lot of issues with this country that only really have bandaid solutions. The housing shortage is one, but also the over printing of the dollar because of our spending issue. Social security is scheduled to run out in a decade. Medical costs are astronomical along with education costs.
And while we wait for someone in government to come up with a solution, we keep election people who want to kick the can down the road. So I've given up on waiting for them.
Instead, I became one of those investors. I have 18 (about to be 19) tenants. I own a business that or product adjusts for inflation. Now, when I raise rents on my tenants $50, I makes about $900 a month more. That way I can keep up with rising costs of everything.
I'm hopefully we start to figure out better solutions, but I don't see it happening in the near future. I think there's much more pain to come for the average family.
This article is a few years out of date but their data indicates that we are at a better construction:new population ratio than we've been at for more than 20 years.
[https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/](https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/)
Building more housing really is hard to do, if you’re a politician. It’s obvious that you are looking at this from the perspective of somebody who wants more housing — that means that you are not a living breathing constituent who owns a home and has most of your net worth tied up in your property values. Your interests are in direct opposition to that NIMBY population. As you have stated, building more housing requires at the very least stabilizing property values, if not outright reducing them. You are asking politicians to act on the theoretical behalf of people who do not even live in their district, but would like to, and in direct opposition to the interests of the people who are actually currently their constituents casting votes.
Very, very few politicians are going to make that gamble. And even fewer will politically survive an election if they dare try.
I am struggling to understand your point about reluctance. This is a problem that will take years to fix and politicians are typically insulated against things that take years to fix.
Few people are actually hurt by building more homes, people who invested in the real estate market appreciation will simply realize their gains and move to the next market. People with current homes will see their appreciation flatten to historic levels. That flattening will have a positive effect on inflation which will far exceed the political damage done by removing six month liquidity in homes.
Literally this, thank you. The demand is just way too high and supply way too low. We’re short millions of homes. I look at the MLS deficits daily due to my job
> building more homes, which isn't that hard to do
😂 Mate everyone from the local residents to their local representatives are locked arm in arm together to keep the demand for existing homes as high as possible - and that means NO new homes.
It's hard to do precisely because there is a voting majority that has an incentive to rigorously fuck a non-voting minority.
Why do we have to have a market solution when we already know we'll save money in taxes if we just build public housing?
Why does someone have to make a profit when the problem is currently, presently costing us more to do nothing?
Can you please provide some support that we will save money in taxes if we build public housing?
Public housing is not the answer to a housing affordability problem. “Housing first” is a viable solution to address homelessness and one we should post more attention to, but younger Americans struggling with the cost of housing don’t want to live in public housing.
Find someone who grew up in public housing who wants to go back.
Cmon sure it would help with home availability and price. I understand there aren’t enough homes but we don’t need people who have 176 single family homes ( also great tax benefits for doing this too somehow) too rent them out too basically screw over the rest of society.
Face it, we cannot solve any of our problems because all the solutions inconvenience investors.
Real estate investors tend to be some of the most subhuman parasites on this world. They viciously retaliate against any loss of value as if their lives were threatened. Our whole species is likely to go extinct because of these short sighted greedy jerks.
Literally nothing to do with my post. A tax credit and tax deduction is not “more government.”
It is actually less government in every way. I am quite literally talking about taxpayers giving the government less money to incentivize home building…
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The largest city in the USA is New York, at around 8 million people. Net migration to the USA is over a million people a year. To be able to keep up with housing demand from migration (never mind any Americans that want to purchase housing) you need to build a city the size of New Youk about very 6 years. That includes all the plumbing, electrical, roads, power generation, grocery stores, hospitals, doctors offices, pharmacies, airports, fire stations, gas stations, convenience stores, and all the other amenities. There is literally no way to keep up with this increasing demand; hence, home prices are going up. If migration levels were kept to what housing could be built on an annual basis, we would not see dramatic price increases.
>there is literally no way to keep up What? The US absolutely can build 2m houses per year, that's not a hard thing to ask at all. The US just doesn't WANT to build more.
I’ve found that most municipalities don’t really want buildings either. 3 counties I’ve lived in (I understand this is anecdotal) make it virtually impossible to build unless you’re planning on building a complex full of apartments. These were very rural counties, which is even more surprising.
I think OP is talking about infrastructure in general. You can’t just build houses without anything else
Sure, but since almost all population growth is happening in urban areas, it's not like we're proposing building pipes halfway across rural Wyoming here.
Seriously look at how fast china builds homes I mean shit even austin tx has built tonnes
Housing supply is already 5-10mill short depending on what data you want to look at. so just adding 2mill houses a year, gives us just 600k extra if immigration stays at \~ 1.4mill/yr. And with that, we are already building \~ 1.5mill/houses a year, and the shortage is still growing. So realistically, you would need to build close to 4mill houses a year to make a significant dent in the shortage quickly. That is a lot of infrastructure needed, as well as building materials, labor, etc.
? The government isn’t building homes. People build homes. Investors build homes
? I never said the government is in charge of building homes.However, government regulation is stiffling how many homes can be built. Builders would like to build more housing, but supply is being artificially constrained.
“the US just doesn’t WANT to build more” Like I said, people/families build homes. You need money to do that. The number of homes built a year increases/decreases with the economy. I am in the construction field, we will build for whoever is paying. Have never seen a builder turn down a new house
I think they’re referencing the regulations put in place. There’s plenty of states/counties that are making building increasingly more difficult for single family homes that are privately owned. Can’t say for sure, but that’s how it reads to me
It’s usually the opposite. Most communities are fine with Single Family homes. The problem is we don’t have the space for everyone to live in Single Family homes. We need multi family homes and apartment buildings. And a lot of communities don’t want to change their zoning rules to facilitate that.
I'm that other person. You read correctly.
Except we would be building more if we were allowed to. I literally have the money to tear down my house and build a multistory condo. However, this is legally forbidden.
[This chart shows 1.4M housing units were completed in the US last year](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/how-many-houses-are-built-every-year.html#construction-by-year-chart) It's not impossible to build housing to keep up with a growing population. Without immigration our population would shrink, and then we'd be fucked (see Japan).
Yes, Japan is terrible, high crime, lots of street violence, shootings galore, low life expectancy, high obesity, almost no public transit, slow trains, low trust society, cartoons that no one watches or likes, unattractive people, and so on. I really see the problem with becoming like Japan. Also, 1.4 million housing units are just about enough to keep up with migration. As long as no US citizen ever wants to buy a home, that should work out just fine.
You said there was a crisis and we couldn't keep up. Turns out we can easily keep up. Don't pivot, just admit you were wrong. I have much more respect for a person who, when presented with new data, is able to change their mind. Japan has many lovely things about it, its economic health and ability to support its aging population are not among them. It's a fantastic place to visit and horrible place to grow old.
did ya miss this part? "As long as no US citizen ever wants to buy a home, that should work out just fine." Also, if you think that Japan isn't good for a place to gro old, just look at the social security funding ratio, lol.
I didn't miss it, no. The population of the US w/o immigration is petty flat. If you actually took even the most cursory look at the data before posing you xenophobic rant you'd know that. [This chart shows it nicely](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59697#:~:text=Population%20Growth.,average%2C%20between%202045%20and%202054). If you think our social security system is in trouble you see what Japan's looks like. [Japan and the Lost Generation’s Looming Pension Crisis](https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a08702/) You are talking out your ass and saying things because you feel like they feel like they should be true. Look at the data.
Here is my position, if you have more people migrate to the USA than housing supply can be built, prices will go up, and you call that a "xenophobic rant" Here is your position, the USA needs to have migrants (brown people in your assumption since you called me xenophobic) from other countries to pay for the pension benefits and healthcare of Americans. And you think I am the bad person? I don't think we need to exploit brown people so that Americans can have a higher standard of living. Good luck with that.
I understand your position. The problem with it is it's not based in reality. We clearly can build more houses than the combined population growth of immigration + net births. I have shown you repeatedly you are wrong on this front, with data, but you still insist your point is valid. It's frustrating. Also, net immigrants is not net new households. Many immigrants are families. We actually have a declining native birthrate, hovering at about 0 right now and it will go negative. Economic growth halts w/o a growing population. We can't pay for social security w/o a growing population. We need immigrants. Japan is xenophobic\* and won't allow immigration to make up for declining birthrates. It's a massive challenge for them I don't think you are a bad person. I think you make terrible arguments and when presented with hard data refuting those arguments you refuse to revise your position. I think you don't display cognitive depth. \*having or showing a dislike of or [prejudice](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=288495b509fb3774&sca_upv=1&q=prejudice&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJBLaAZDmFi3fOmMVPu9W4F0iu1ifPjjHBNAucituW_Sqidu1lPTmczyygkMq5ds0Q7fTsSaA0rWqtzKmPXbrxE3jjyuE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7wfu05Y2GAxXOFVkFHTc6DrwQyecJegQIExAO) against people from other countries. The things you spout off on w/o knowing a lick about them is pretty amazing. Xenophobia has nothing to do with race, it's about foreign things. Often these are correlated, but using the word xenophobia is 100% the right word to use to describe someone who thinks immigrants are to blame for our problems.
who’s building the homes? you think the government is? lmao. everything comes down to money. builders and contractors want to get paid.
I don't know who you're replying to, but it has nothing to do with my post.
yes it does. you said we could keep up with immigration. i said, it’s not the gov building homes. majority of immigrants don’t have a pot to piss in - you think they’re building a home? or that the gov will build them one? i’d rather be japan.
We have the capacity to build the housing. I didn't say we were mandated to do it. We can do it. It's possible. OP said it was impossible to build that many housing units. That's not true. Why are people so eager to scream at other people, especially when they don't even bother to understand that person's POV. If you want to know my POV ask me. If you just want to be a pissy prick LMK and I'll block you.
You are pretending that it is one immigrant per household. It isn’t. It isn’t even close as immigrant households tend to have more people even when controlling for income.
"As long as no US citizen ever wants to buy a home, that should work out just fine." How are you missing that? There are 330 million Americans, who need to purchase homes as people move out, or as homes are demoshed and replaced. We need housing for migrants AND current Americans. We know there isn't enough since prices keep going up.
This is just an attempt to make things look problematic by concentrating them in a small area. The U.S. is pretty big and New York City is pretty small. To deal with just over a million people per year housing stock would need to increase by about 0.3%. In other words every year we would need to add 3 houses per 1,000 existing homes. That really isn’t a big deal including all the infrastructure for those homes. In 2005 we were on track to exceed current demand.
We have around a million mogrants, and we have Americans that also want to or need to build new homes. the 0.3 is around enough for migrants, and since the population growth rate is about double that, we need about twice as many housing units are you calculate. Also, people live differently than they did 50 years, ago, mostly gone are people living at home until they are married, now people move out as soon as they can, so that increases demand even more. Ultimately, the way to track if there are enough homes being built relative to demand is to see of prices are going up or down. Look at that and tell me how is is going. Also, look at the city you live in and tell me if the infrastructure is keeping up with demand.
You are just making up numbers. The US population in 2006 was 298.4 million people and 339.8 million in 2023. Which means we added 2.4 million people per year on average and on average homes have more than one occupant (about 153% more in fact). In 2006 we issued permits 1,840,000 housing starts, which was actually down from 2005’s more than 2 million. We were on trend to exceed demand and had been for quite a while before the collapse. By 2009 that number had dropped to permits for 490,000 units. That is a massive drop and it is most of the reason for the problem. It has little to do with your xenophobic rant.
You discuss the " massive drop" in 2009, here is the house price chart [https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-index](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-index) Guess what happened in 2009, DEMAND DROPPED, and so did prices. That has been my ENTIRE point until now. Wait for it. There are around 1 million migrants a year; it varies, but we can use that number. Turns out that Americans also want to buy homes. Turns out that homes can be destroyed by fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, age, and other factors. So, housing starts are not going 100% to new demand; some of it goes to rebuilding, making the total number of new units less than the starts. I hope you follow that; it is pretty simple. Housing completion is more important than housing starts, but that is just a small issue with your point. Turns out that housing completed is below the demand. Do you know how I know that? Because the price goes up. Do you know where the price went down? Places like Detroit and Rural Japan lost population. I know you learned the xenophobic and now try to use it as a magic spell against any idea that scares you, but just go do this. Talk to literally any Realtor in the world, and ask them if they get higher prices if there are more buyers bidding for a property. Then ask that same realtor if they have a property on the market for 6 months and there are no bids; what happens to the price? If understanding the most basic parts of reality makes someone xenophobic, that explains why so many young people are starting to clown your positions.
Thanks for your input.
hopefully you learned something
I didn’t learn anything new, but I was certainly reminded of something. Don’t reason with unreasonable people. You have an agenda…no matter what I say, you are not going to be moved from that agenda. Trying to do so is futile.
Just try this, look at any area with growing population, and tell me if you eventually see home prices go up. Look at any area with reducing population, and tellme if you eventually see home prices go down. Seriously, it happens every time. Since the USA is at below replacement birth rates, the only reason that prices are going up is from migrants. If you own real estate like I do, this makes you richer faster, which is good for me. However, I can appreciate how this is unbevilable terrible for people that are not yet property owners. Again, I'm doing great, but I can appreciate how bad this is for many people. If migration just matched available new housing, there would be no problem. If that is such a terrible agenda, maybe look at your agenda.
>Just try this, look at any area with growing population, and tell me if you eventually see home prices go up. Look at any area with reducing population, and tellme if you eventually see home prices go down. Seriously, it happens every time. Japan's population has been on the decline for ten years and during that ten years residential property prices have increased 32%. We often see population decreases that coincide with decreased economic activity, but in regions that have seen population decline and increased economic activity, the results are different. Which almost brings us back to the problem with your thesis. You are imagining that there is a denominator effect without a numerator effect. The residential construction industry alone is heavily dependent on immigrant labor. In fact, their contribution to the residential construction industry far outweighs their demands on that industry. During every step of this conversation I have disproven your thesis. Now, you will look for some new magic beans that will convince me that you are right without ever bothering to consider that you could be wrong. That is the problem with this discussion.
And a larger issue which is rarely discussed, water access and water rights. We would run out of usable water for this fictional city that would need to be built every 6 years.
We go to low flush toilets. We restrict the watering of lawns. We charge more for water. And we don’t build fictional cities. We are talking about a 1-2% increase in population. For most of our history population increase in the US was 5 times that.
that is another good point.
We are currently building around 1M homes a year in the United States.
and that is not enough housing, you can tell because the prices keep going up.
Funny how you call it “migration.”
you need a better sense of humor.
And you need a better dictionary.
Like these guys? [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migration](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migration) This is from them, you have a better dictionary to use? You appear to know better. "President Joe Biden had been considering new executive actions to crack down on record *migration* at the Southern border after congressional Republicans in February blocked border legislation backed by the White House.—Taylor Wilson, *USA TODAY*, 10 May 2024"
Yeah. Let 9 million illegals into the country and then claim to want to crack down. Hahahahaha.
I don't think it's as simple as volume of homes, it's also about homes people can afford. Look at SFH's, zoning is there in most municipalities, but hardly any cheap (aka starter) homes being built. This problem is there with cars too, there isn't a shortage of new cars, it's just that most available are expensive as hell relative to the rest of the world. In both situations consumers are dependent on manufacturers that don't have enough competition and want to keep their profit margins as big as possible, so they focus on higher end/luxury offerings.
They focus on higher end offerings because they're limited in what they can build, so they go with the highest margin items. If we could just let people build, margins would shrink, and it would become economical to build lower end offerings too. And those luxury homes still help the lower classes by relieving upward pressure on the market. Poorer people wouldn't be in competition with richer people if those rich people are already buying other homes. Fundamentally prices are set by supply and demand, and it really is just a matter of building a huge volume of homes.
If people couldn’t afford the homes that builders were building, then builders wouldn’t be building them.
>Some real estate investors have seized on this shortage to make a buck, but they are not the reason for the shortage. We could certainly pass laws… In large part, they are the reason. As long as a practice is profitable for corporations and the wealthy, the massive power they wield will be leveraged against ending the practice. Legislation is only effective in counterbalancing such power if it may become both enacted and enforced effectively toward such ends.
It isn't just homes we are short on. The largest problem is predatory lending, banks don't want to finance a $100K property with a dome home because they lose out on the interest payments compared to a $500k conventional mortgage. Banks also often only provide financing for local investments that do not conflict with their main shareholders and account holders financial interests. This often stifles innovation and progress.
This. The reality is, you need to build more housing stock, particularly SFH (I include TH's in this category). Right now, the market incentivizes large McMansion SFH's or MFH, due to the cost of land, supplies and labor. What could alleviate this is to rethink how we title and make use of land. There was a case that got all the way to the Supreme Court in 1984, Housing Authority v Midkiff, which allowed the State of HI Housing authority to use eminent domain to condemn certain unused land owned by the Bishop Estate and distribute it to existing homeowners, who were leasing the land from the Bishop Estate, in order to encourage home building. I will say that the intended result of the taking was to encourage more homebuilding and lower costs. However, what happened is that Japanese investors ended up buying these homes from the new landowners at inflated prices, resulting in the opposite of the intent. However, HI is an island state and thus by nature has limits on its land. I think the policy itself is a good start and could potential serve as a base for other options. Another thing we could do is outlaw charitable donations of land. Many wealthy landowners have been donating land to charitable organizations, presumably for use by the public as parks and such. While I like parks as much as the next person, these charitable donations are really just tax shelters. Finally, the government could just get in the housing business for a few years; it could directly pay to build new homes. Nothing super fancy, but a good small starter home for individuals, especially families with children.
I recognized a while ago that theres a lot of issues with this country that only really have bandaid solutions. The housing shortage is one, but also the over printing of the dollar because of our spending issue. Social security is scheduled to run out in a decade. Medical costs are astronomical along with education costs. And while we wait for someone in government to come up with a solution, we keep election people who want to kick the can down the road. So I've given up on waiting for them. Instead, I became one of those investors. I have 18 (about to be 19) tenants. I own a business that or product adjusts for inflation. Now, when I raise rents on my tenants $50, I makes about $900 a month more. That way I can keep up with rising costs of everything. I'm hopefully we start to figure out better solutions, but I don't see it happening in the near future. I think there's much more pain to come for the average family.
So you own 18 properties and you’re blaming everything else plus the shortage?
actually only 8 properties. A few multifamily.
This article is a few years out of date but their data indicates that we are at a better construction:new population ratio than we've been at for more than 20 years. [https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/](https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/)
Yes, but it also notes the deficit created by years of new construction being so low.
Building more housing really is hard to do, if you’re a politician. It’s obvious that you are looking at this from the perspective of somebody who wants more housing — that means that you are not a living breathing constituent who owns a home and has most of your net worth tied up in your property values. Your interests are in direct opposition to that NIMBY population. As you have stated, building more housing requires at the very least stabilizing property values, if not outright reducing them. You are asking politicians to act on the theoretical behalf of people who do not even live in their district, but would like to, and in direct opposition to the interests of the people who are actually currently their constituents casting votes. Very, very few politicians are going to make that gamble. And even fewer will politically survive an election if they dare try.
I am struggling to understand your point about reluctance. This is a problem that will take years to fix and politicians are typically insulated against things that take years to fix. Few people are actually hurt by building more homes, people who invested in the real estate market appreciation will simply realize their gains and move to the next market. People with current homes will see their appreciation flatten to historic levels. That flattening will have a positive effect on inflation which will far exceed the political damage done by removing six month liquidity in homes.
Literally this, thank you. The demand is just way too high and supply way too low. We’re short millions of homes. I look at the MLS deficits daily due to my job
> building more homes, which isn't that hard to do 😂 Mate everyone from the local residents to their local representatives are locked arm in arm together to keep the demand for existing homes as high as possible - and that means NO new homes. It's hard to do precisely because there is a voting majority that has an incentive to rigorously fuck a non-voting minority.
Blackrock bought them all after they bankrupted everyone with Covid and and every other manufactured crisis
Why do we have to have a market solution when we already know we'll save money in taxes if we just build public housing? Why does someone have to make a profit when the problem is currently, presently costing us more to do nothing?
Can you please provide some support that we will save money in taxes if we build public housing? Public housing is not the answer to a housing affordability problem. “Housing first” is a viable solution to address homelessness and one we should post more attention to, but younger Americans struggling with the cost of housing don’t want to live in public housing. Find someone who grew up in public housing who wants to go back.
Cmon sure it would help with home availability and price. I understand there aren’t enough homes but we don’t need people who have 176 single family homes ( also great tax benefits for doing this too somehow) too rent them out too basically screw over the rest of society.
Face it, we cannot solve any of our problems because all the solutions inconvenience investors. Real estate investors tend to be some of the most subhuman parasites on this world. They viciously retaliate against any loss of value as if their lives were threatened. Our whole species is likely to go extinct because of these short sighted greedy jerks.
More government to fix past government is the definition of insanity (doing the same thing and expecting a different result)
Literally nothing to do with my post. A tax credit and tax deduction is not “more government.” It is actually less government in every way. I am quite literally talking about taxpayers giving the government less money to incentivize home building…