"At the same time, the Institute for Family Studies has found that when asked to visualize their ideal home, nearly 80% of respondents choose “detached single‑family housing.”"
First of all, if government pays huge money to subsidize single family detached housing, and also makes laws so it's the main thing available, so of course people are gonna get used to it and tell themselves they like it.
Secondly, there is a difference between people liking detached single family homes and being free to build them. That's awesome. And for their being laws by government saying "YOU MUST BUILD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. You can buy land here, but we will centrally plan this out and tell you exactly what you can build there. Only single family detached homes!"
Third, if we want people to live and work and grow up and age in their towns, then a town based primarily around single family detached houses won't serve them well. That low density approach will force a spread out layout which forces driving. That in turn makes life much lower quality for kids and elderly. Elderly also may not need or even want detached single family homes, they may prefer smaller spaces, townhouses, apartment buildings, maybe a tiny house built on the same lot as their family. Many of these things are actually currently outlawed. Is it any surprise that people move away during different time periods in their life? Current zoning policies are very anti-family and anti-local living.
No, people actually do like single family homes, because they’re a better and more pleasant way to live for people with dogs, kids, who want a garden, who want a deck to entertain, etc.
You can, in fact, build single family homes a whole lot of places, as well as non-traditional options like prefab, tiny homes, etc, but that’s a whole lot easier outside of places like NYC and Silicon Valley. Move out of big cities. I did it.
Single family detached houses are good for kids and the elderly, not bad for them. You have a place for kids to play, putter around outside, garden, throw a ball for the dog.
Elderly people who get to the point of not being able to manage their homes typically move in with family or to over 55 communities or assisted living. Not to cities, because elderly people often have difficulty walking for any distance. Walkable is not so great for them.
You lost me as soon as you implied immigration was driving up home prices. Rents, maybe, but the data is sketchy on that, but immigrants don’t buy homes since they can’t get mortgages. When you decide to correctly diagnose the problem, we can talk.
The response to Wolfers doesn't make much sense. Suppose a job is initially being done by two Americans. Two possibilities for what happens next:
1. Jose comes and does the job for cheaper. It's still been done by two people, but only one American.
2. Tech progress means one person can do the job that used to require two. The job is now being done by one American.
In both scenarios , you went from two Americans with a job to one American with a job. If the loss of an American job really worries you in the first case, but not the second, that does call out for some kind of explanation. (The explanation needn't be racism! But there should be some story.)
This is exactly right. JD Vance has never been able to explain why he thinks the loss of an American job due to automation is less problematic than loss of the exact same job due to the import of cheaper, human labor.
I don't attribute this to racism. His incoherence about this is because he must stay in the good graces of his political sponsor, Peter Thiel. He won't be happy at all if Vance starts proposing that the government should perhaps take action against the loss of jobs due to AI.
In other words, true to form, Vance has taken a stance on an issue based on what is best for him, and him alone.
Under the tech progress, the American is now more productive and should see an increase in pay. With Jose, the American must now compete with a lower paid option and may see a paycut.
Boomer and silent generation homeowners view that young generations are at fault for not having a home and openly believe that housing needs to be more expensive for young generations, not less
Gordon Wood is just another libel liberal. You’re about "blood and soil," the Nazi “blut und boden,” if you want more from new citizens than a quick pledge to The Creed and then home for public calls to prayer.
If there is an 80/20 preference for suburban style housing then why not simply deregulate land development and trust the market to provide that mix of housing?
Supply and demand in NYC and California has a substantial impact on home prices in the Southeast and the interior west. Homes would be a lot more affordable if New Yorkers and Californians weren’t leaving those states in droves.
Require that affordable housing be built adjacent to the properties of its advocates. That way they can experience the changes to their property values most acutely.
Its not a supply problem. Increasing density in areas that are already under zoning and infrastructure designed around specific density targets will simply create a 3rd world landscape.
Look at LA!
We have an economic problem, not a resource problem and of course libs want to fix it by throwing my money at it.
"As the $40 billion youth sports industry comes under private equity control...parents are forced to subscribe to these companies’ exclusive recording and streaming service, which can cost many times more than the streaming costs for professional sporting events."
Good grief. I think this falls into the 'you don't hate them enough' category. Unbelievable.
Some good and some bad observations, which is ok. The overall tone of the article is too assertive, however. This may sound incidental to the content but the quality of the article could be better.
Keep pounding away at private equity. Nevada is in the process of limiting corporate purchases of housing. I immediately thought of shell companies so I hope legislators have thought of that too.
"At the same time, the Institute for Family Studies has found that when asked to visualize their ideal home, nearly 80% of respondents choose “detached single‑family housing.”"
First of all, if government pays huge money to subsidize single family detached housing, and also makes laws so it's the main thing available, so of course people are gonna get used to it and tell themselves they like it.
Secondly, there is a difference between people liking detached single family homes and being free to build them. That's awesome. And for their being laws by government saying "YOU MUST BUILD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. You can buy land here, but we will centrally plan this out and tell you exactly what you can build there. Only single family detached homes!"
Third, if we want people to live and work and grow up and age in their towns, then a town based primarily around single family detached houses won't serve them well. That low density approach will force a spread out layout which forces driving. That in turn makes life much lower quality for kids and elderly. Elderly also may not need or even want detached single family homes, they may prefer smaller spaces, townhouses, apartment buildings, maybe a tiny house built on the same lot as their family. Many of these things are actually currently outlawed. Is it any surprise that people move away during different time periods in their life? Current zoning policies are very anti-family and anti-local living.
No, people actually do like single family homes, because they’re a better and more pleasant way to live for people with dogs, kids, who want a garden, who want a deck to entertain, etc.
You can, in fact, build single family homes a whole lot of places, as well as non-traditional options like prefab, tiny homes, etc, but that’s a whole lot easier outside of places like NYC and Silicon Valley. Move out of big cities. I did it.
Single family detached houses are good for kids and the elderly, not bad for them. You have a place for kids to play, putter around outside, garden, throw a ball for the dog.
Elderly people who get to the point of not being able to manage their homes typically move in with family or to over 55 communities or assisted living. Not to cities, because elderly people often have difficulty walking for any distance. Walkable is not so great for them.
Even people without kids, pets, entertaining flexibility, etc. prefer NOT to have people on either side of their walls.
You lost me as soon as you implied immigration was driving up home prices. Rents, maybe, but the data is sketchy on that, but immigrants don’t buy homes since they can’t get mortgages. When you decide to correctly diagnose the problem, we can talk.
The response to Wolfers doesn't make much sense. Suppose a job is initially being done by two Americans. Two possibilities for what happens next:
1. Jose comes and does the job for cheaper. It's still been done by two people, but only one American.
2. Tech progress means one person can do the job that used to require two. The job is now being done by one American.
In both scenarios , you went from two Americans with a job to one American with a job. If the loss of an American job really worries you in the first case, but not the second, that does call out for some kind of explanation. (The explanation needn't be racism! But there should be some story.)
True, but the American who kept his job is paid more and the American who lost his job doesn't have to compete with lower paid Jose for a new job.
This is exactly right. JD Vance has never been able to explain why he thinks the loss of an American job due to automation is less problematic than loss of the exact same job due to the import of cheaper, human labor.
I don't attribute this to racism. His incoherence about this is because he must stay in the good graces of his political sponsor, Peter Thiel. He won't be happy at all if Vance starts proposing that the government should perhaps take action against the loss of jobs due to AI.
In other words, true to form, Vance has taken a stance on an issue based on what is best for him, and him alone.
Under the tech progress, the American is now more productive and should see an increase in pay. With Jose, the American must now compete with a lower paid option and may see a paycut.
And the one American who lost his job in both scenarios still doesn't have a job.
Boomer and silent generation homeowners view that young generations are at fault for not having a home and openly believe that housing needs to be more expensive for young generations, not less
WTF. Apparently none of the Boomers you know have children.
You be shocked
🚨🚨 alert alert do not trust 🚨🚨
This man is demanding backyards & basements to give his copartisans privacy while they ply children with wine coolers
Gordon Wood is just another libel liberal. You’re about "blood and soil," the Nazi “blut und boden,” if you want more from new citizens than a quick pledge to The Creed and then home for public calls to prayer.
If there is an 80/20 preference for suburban style housing then why not simply deregulate land development and trust the market to provide that mix of housing?
Supply and demand in NYC and California has a substantial impact on home prices in the Southeast and the interior west. Homes would be a lot more affordable if New Yorkers and Californians weren’t leaving those states in droves.
Require that affordable housing be built adjacent to the properties of its advocates. That way they can experience the changes to their property values most acutely.
Its not a supply problem. Increasing density in areas that are already under zoning and infrastructure designed around specific density targets will simply create a 3rd world landscape.
Look at LA!
We have an economic problem, not a resource problem and of course libs want to fix it by throwing my money at it.
"As the $40 billion youth sports industry comes under private equity control...parents are forced to subscribe to these companies’ exclusive recording and streaming service, which can cost many times more than the streaming costs for professional sporting events."
Good grief. I think this falls into the 'you don't hate them enough' category. Unbelievable.
Some good and some bad observations, which is ok. The overall tone of the article is too assertive, however. This may sound incidental to the content but the quality of the article could be better.
Missing here is that there are plenty of anti-greenbelt YIMBYs. They’re a big part of the coalition and a reason for its success.
Keep pounding away at private equity. Nevada is in the process of limiting corporate purchases of housing. I immediately thought of shell companies so I hope legislators have thought of that too.