Aaron Brown, Michael Mendelson, & Clifford Asness have an article at the Dispatch titled, “Half of America Cannot Afford to Live, and Other Wrong Numbers”.
One thing I want to point out (I think all other points are great) is "net domestic outmigration". I think it's not a great measure, especially when applied to smaller areas which relatively large international immigration... I meant NYC has always been the intake for immigrants historically. And over time they move away. Also easily imagine a college town where there is a constant stream of in and out migration. They should have 0 "net domestic outmigration" right? What if 50% of the students are international? What if X% of them become American during the 4 or some years they spend there?
All I mean is immigrant intake cities can naturally have "net domestic outmigration". And that is a good thing, for the country.
That’s a great point, and you have a good intuition to have caught that. In the past, I’m sure that was true and important. The reason I allow myself to write about it in simple terms is because that isn’t really currently the case. Even with international immigration, the closed access cities collectively tend to have negative net migration. They do have more international immigration than, say, the typical rust belt city, but their international migration rates are about the same as growing cities in the South and west. So, it doesn’t really set them apart like it might under less constrained housing conditions.
I've written about "subsidizing demand" in regards to progressive housing policies. I don't think it's to blame for unaffordability but I do think it's regressive and distortionary.
It shouldn't hurt affordability because subsidy incidence works the same way as tax incidence. Maybe it raises prices but it shouldn't hurt affordability post-transfer (at least for the select subsidy recipients).
Subsidizing homeownership is clearly regressive and distortionary though. Property taxes are equally applied to rentals and owned homes. It's the multitude of other policies and untaxed imputed rent that are homeownership specific. Unless you're really low income, you don't get many handouts for renting but you get many for buying.
These are reasonable points. But I think housing is a bit peculiar because homeowners are like subsistence producers.
Subsidizing homeowners can help renters in the same way that subsidizing farmers can help food consumers.
But my main point goes beyond that, and I may not have made that clear enough in the post.
I am arguing for access more than subsidies. We should, first and foremost, ALLOW families to be homeowners. Removing access to homeownership has been a big loser for both potential homeowners and renters.
That last bit about the unearned windfalls is a big key here.
If I buy a house for $400k, I expect to pay roughly twice as much in property taxes as I would to buy a house for $200k.
But for a lot of these [expletives voluntarily redacted], they feel entitled to pay the exact same property tax on a house that doubled from $200k to $400k in the last 20 years.
One thing I want to point out (I think all other points are great) is "net domestic outmigration". I think it's not a great measure, especially when applied to smaller areas which relatively large international immigration... I meant NYC has always been the intake for immigrants historically. And over time they move away. Also easily imagine a college town where there is a constant stream of in and out migration. They should have 0 "net domestic outmigration" right? What if 50% of the students are international? What if X% of them become American during the 4 or some years they spend there?
All I mean is immigrant intake cities can naturally have "net domestic outmigration". And that is a good thing, for the country.
That’s a great point, and you have a good intuition to have caught that. In the past, I’m sure that was true and important. The reason I allow myself to write about it in simple terms is because that isn’t really currently the case. Even with international immigration, the closed access cities collectively tend to have negative net migration. They do have more international immigration than, say, the typical rust belt city, but their international migration rates are about the same as growing cities in the South and west. So, it doesn’t really set them apart like it might under less constrained housing conditions.
I've written about "subsidizing demand" in regards to progressive housing policies. I don't think it's to blame for unaffordability but I do think it's regressive and distortionary.
It shouldn't hurt affordability because subsidy incidence works the same way as tax incidence. Maybe it raises prices but it shouldn't hurt affordability post-transfer (at least for the select subsidy recipients).
Subsidizing homeownership is clearly regressive and distortionary though. Property taxes are equally applied to rentals and owned homes. It's the multitude of other policies and untaxed imputed rent that are homeownership specific. Unless you're really low income, you don't get many handouts for renting but you get many for buying.
These are reasonable points. But I think housing is a bit peculiar because homeowners are like subsistence producers.
Subsidizing homeowners can help renters in the same way that subsidizing farmers can help food consumers.
But my main point goes beyond that, and I may not have made that clear enough in the post.
I am arguing for access more than subsidies. We should, first and foremost, ALLOW families to be homeowners. Removing access to homeownership has been a big loser for both potential homeowners and renters.
That last bit about the unearned windfalls is a big key here.
If I buy a house for $400k, I expect to pay roughly twice as much in property taxes as I would to buy a house for $200k.
But for a lot of these [expletives voluntarily redacted], they feel entitled to pay the exact same property tax on a house that doubled from $200k to $400k in the last 20 years.