A football coach who boasts that his team is kicking a field goal for every touchdown scored by the other team would have as much job security as Bill Belichick. There is a similar situation with single family home production since 2007. NIMBY's have been scoring touchdowns since the late 1970's and the "surge" in production in the past five years feels like a series of field goals that could get interrupted by any type of economic downturn. I guess I'm feeling pessimistic today.
This is one reason to be bullish on some sectors like homebuilders. I think cyclical downturns in housing are unlikely under current conditions. Housing during the 2001 recession is probably typical of what to expect in a typical downturn under current conditions. As I have written about here, 2008 falls to the Lucas critique. It was the result of direct policy intentions, so it doesn’t count as evidence for emergent outcomes. I’m not that worried about cyclical risks, but something like outlawing institutionally owned rental homes would worry me regarding housing trends moving forward.
I agree with you on this--the current homebuilders are in a solid place and they can count on good demand for decades to come. However, there are persistent regional problems that tend to discourage effective supply responses. California looks positioned to buck this trend, but the continued idiocy of land use regulations in the Northeast disturbs me. Places that are very familiar to me in New Hampshire and the metro Boston are ghettos for the old and the wealthy, and there doesn't seem to be a solution in these communities that could get a majority vote. I think that Phoenix will sort itself out on the housing production front long before Boston. There's even hope for places like Detroit.
Saying that we have to be a nation of laws wouldn’t have been a good defense of prohibition and it’s not a good defense of our overly prohibitive migration institutions today.
If you want higher levels of immigration, you should write your Congressman etc. and use your blog to encourage as much. That is great.
The next guy over, who believes in tighter immigration laws, should do the same. That is great also.
The democratically obtained result should be adhered to.
Believe me, a nation of laws is better than a nation of arbitrary men. That was settled (at least in intellectual-governance circles) many generations ago.
It is incorrect to say my position is against the rule of law. And the fact that you think that makes sense will make it hard for us to have a conversation on the topic. We will be talking past each other.
A football coach who boasts that his team is kicking a field goal for every touchdown scored by the other team would have as much job security as Bill Belichick. There is a similar situation with single family home production since 2007. NIMBY's have been scoring touchdowns since the late 1970's and the "surge" in production in the past five years feels like a series of field goals that could get interrupted by any type of economic downturn. I guess I'm feeling pessimistic today.
This is one reason to be bullish on some sectors like homebuilders. I think cyclical downturns in housing are unlikely under current conditions. Housing during the 2001 recession is probably typical of what to expect in a typical downturn under current conditions. As I have written about here, 2008 falls to the Lucas critique. It was the result of direct policy intentions, so it doesn’t count as evidence for emergent outcomes. I’m not that worried about cyclical risks, but something like outlawing institutionally owned rental homes would worry me regarding housing trends moving forward.
I agree with you on this--the current homebuilders are in a solid place and they can count on good demand for decades to come. However, there are persistent regional problems that tend to discourage effective supply responses. California looks positioned to buck this trend, but the continued idiocy of land use regulations in the Northeast disturbs me. Places that are very familiar to me in New Hampshire and the metro Boston are ghettos for the old and the wealthy, and there doesn't seem to be a solution in these communities that could get a majority vote. I think that Phoenix will sort itself out on the housing production front long before Boston. There's even hope for places like Detroit.
I agree with this post, and that the US, and any nation, should have some level of legal immigration.
But any nation must also be a nation of laws.
Really, we want to decide that some laws are enforced and others are not, based on prevailing political winds (or needs and wants of elites?).
And, yes, many nations really need to up their housing production game if they want higher levels of legal immigration.
BTW, two-thirds of econ grad students in the US are foreign-born.
Not sure what that means, but one could ponder how it impacts research on immigrants.
Saying that we have to be a nation of laws wouldn’t have been a good defense of prohibition and it’s not a good defense of our overly prohibitive migration institutions today.
I think you are in error.
If you want higher levels of immigration, you should write your Congressman etc. and use your blog to encourage as much. That is great.
The next guy over, who believes in tighter immigration laws, should do the same. That is great also.
The democratically obtained result should be adhered to.
Believe me, a nation of laws is better than a nation of arbitrary men. That was settled (at least in intellectual-governance circles) many generations ago.
It is incorrect to say my position is against the rule of law. And the fact that you think that makes sense will make it hard for us to have a conversation on the topic. We will be talking past each other.
Well, we don't have to have a conversation on immigration to the US.
I suspect our views will be of little consequence to the national conversation.
Such is the fate of living in the huge-scale modern nation-state.