Terrific post. I very much admire your tenacity to try and correct the dominant but WRONG beliefs about housing. Unfortunately, the dynamics of housing are strongly counterintuitive, especially as our zeitgeist slides ever farther against capitalism. It's the market, stupid.
Of course, the Native Americans may have one point of view.
I wonder if California would have been better off as an independent nation, with controlled immigration. My guess is it would have been, for the extant residents.
Is a nation there for the extant residents and citizens, or for the immigrants? It is a rather globalist point of view that all nations must keep their borders open for all immigrants.
There is no iron law of immigration, that some periods of immigration were positive on net (even for existing residents), ergo all new periods of immigration must also be beneficial.
Sweden sure seems to be having problems.
A big topic obviously.
I will say this: If a nation cannot build housing, then maybe immigration is a bad idea.
Yes. That is true about building housing. Without adequate supply, life quickly becomes a rat race for huge swaths of the population, for all the reasons you have so excellently illuminated.
I am hardly anti-immigrant. But volume, the ability to accommodate, and the Milton Friedman observations about first-world safety nets and third-world living conditions...
Also, a quirk. California may not have had as much of a tech industry. But technology crosses borders. We still get the smartphones and internet, even if not invented here.
As far as I can tell, Thailand (where I live) invents very little, but everyone has the latest technology.
Also, have you checked housing prices in Silicon Valley? Is that really a success story? For who?
I can tell you, living standards are lower today in California than in the 1950s and 60s (although smog is a lot better). Stereotypes coming, but the one-earner family in a house, 40-hour week, has been replaced by the two-earner couple, 120 hours a workweek, for the same house. Pets, no kids.
Egads.
Anyway, I love your column.
PS Is Toronto really a success for people who were born there and want to live in the city they grew up in?
I still don't understand the glorification of immigration. I don't think I am glorifying Thailand much. I try not to be a net drag.
But, shouldn't we aspire to have a Silicon Valley with higher level of housing supply to meet the clear demand, as opposed to giving up on immigration (i.e. immigration = US's competitive advantage)?
To me, we have a housing crisis by way of abundance of bureaucracy and technocrats, who say they "want to protect the citizens" but instead cause housing insecurity and homelessness en masse. The hoops that builders and renovators have to jump through in the US, but especially in California and New York, are designed to benefit the incumbent landlords.
If a first-world nation (or formerly first-world nation) does not build housing, but admits millions of new residents...you are going to get problems.
The social media is aflame with angry Canadians, who are now priced out of their own neighborhoods and cities. Should Canadians embrace this result?
Immigration is a tricky topic, and one can wonder if Byran Caplan has lost his marbles. A billion more residents will make your life better in America?
Is it simple nationalism to resent newcomers who appear intent on promoting division and hatred (see Europe)?
I do not know why there is an onus on any nation to promote immigration. The pro-immigrants always seems to come from economic elites, but never from the employee classes. A tale is told in that? The most ardent immigrationists in US history were the slavers.
Of course, the US should build 10 million and maybe 20 million new housing units. Legal immigration, agreed by voters in a democracy, is probably the right choice.
But to Erdmann's point, the whole country is becoming Los Angeles adjacent. This is a bad result.
Thanks for addressing this topic again. I'm guessing that in your next post you might re-tackle the myth that there was a supply surge of housing from 2000 to 2006 until heroic actions by the Fed halted it before it could unbalance the economy. Did we remember to give Bernanke a medal for that?
I appreciate how you make the point about how it isn't "x" number of units that determine shortage or surplus conditions. Housing production is complicated and dynamic under the best of circumstances. Current policies (and by current I mean going back to the 1970's) maintain significant barriers. As you stated recently, the U.S. is now one big closed access city.
Meanwhile, the community of Somerville, Massachusetts just allowed 3 unit dwellings as-of-right on every building lot. How do you like them apples?
Terrific post. I very much admire your tenacity to try and correct the dominant but WRONG beliefs about housing. Unfortunately, the dynamics of housing are strongly counterintuitive, especially as our zeitgeist slides ever farther against capitalism. It's the market, stupid.
That is an interesting question.
Of course, the Native Americans may have one point of view.
I wonder if California would have been better off as an independent nation, with controlled immigration. My guess is it would have been, for the extant residents.
Is a nation there for the extant residents and citizens, or for the immigrants? It is a rather globalist point of view that all nations must keep their borders open for all immigrants.
There is no iron law of immigration, that some periods of immigration were positive on net (even for existing residents), ergo all new periods of immigration must also be beneficial.
Sweden sure seems to be having problems.
A big topic obviously.
I will say this: If a nation cannot build housing, then maybe immigration is a bad idea.
If a nation can’t build housing then every good thing is a bad idea.
When you’re imagining your California remember to erase all the tech firms started by immigrants and children of immigrants.
Yes. That is true about building housing. Without adequate supply, life quickly becomes a rat race for huge swaths of the population, for all the reasons you have so excellently illuminated.
I am hardly anti-immigrant. But volume, the ability to accommodate, and the Milton Friedman observations about first-world safety nets and third-world living conditions...
Also, a quirk. California may not have had as much of a tech industry. But technology crosses borders. We still get the smartphones and internet, even if not invented here.
As far as I can tell, Thailand (where I live) invents very little, but everyone has the latest technology.
Also, have you checked housing prices in Silicon Valley? Is that really a success story? For who?
I can tell you, living standards are lower today in California than in the 1950s and 60s (although smog is a lot better). Stereotypes coming, but the one-earner family in a house, 40-hour week, has been replaced by the two-earner couple, 120 hours a workweek, for the same house. Pets, no kids.
Egads.
Anyway, I love your column.
PS Is Toronto really a success for people who were born there and want to live in the city they grew up in?
I still don't understand the glorification of immigration. I don't think I am glorifying Thailand much. I try not to be a net drag.
You raise a good point re: Silicon Valley.
But, shouldn't we aspire to have a Silicon Valley with higher level of housing supply to meet the clear demand, as opposed to giving up on immigration (i.e. immigration = US's competitive advantage)?
To me, we have a housing crisis by way of abundance of bureaucracy and technocrats, who say they "want to protect the citizens" but instead cause housing insecurity and homelessness en masse. The hoops that builders and renovators have to jump through in the US, but especially in California and New York, are designed to benefit the incumbent landlords.
Great post.
If a first-world nation (or formerly first-world nation) does not build housing, but admits millions of new residents...you are going to get problems.
The social media is aflame with angry Canadians, who are now priced out of their own neighborhoods and cities. Should Canadians embrace this result?
Immigration is a tricky topic, and one can wonder if Byran Caplan has lost his marbles. A billion more residents will make your life better in America?
Is it simple nationalism to resent newcomers who appear intent on promoting division and hatred (see Europe)?
I do not know why there is an onus on any nation to promote immigration. The pro-immigrants always seems to come from economic elites, but never from the employee classes. A tale is told in that? The most ardent immigrationists in US history were the slavers.
Of course, the US should build 10 million and maybe 20 million new housing units. Legal immigration, agreed by voters in a democracy, is probably the right choice.
But to Erdmann's point, the whole country is becoming Los Angeles adjacent. This is a bad result.
Historically which waves of immigration made the U.S. worse off?
Certainly not the wave my family was on!
Thanks for addressing this topic again. I'm guessing that in your next post you might re-tackle the myth that there was a supply surge of housing from 2000 to 2006 until heroic actions by the Fed halted it before it could unbalance the economy. Did we remember to give Bernanke a medal for that?
I appreciate how you make the point about how it isn't "x" number of units that determine shortage or surplus conditions. Housing production is complicated and dynamic under the best of circumstances. Current policies (and by current I mean going back to the 1970's) maintain significant barriers. As you stated recently, the U.S. is now one big closed access city.
Meanwhile, the community of Somerville, Massachusetts just allowed 3 unit dwellings as-of-right on every building lot. How do you like them apples?