The problem with American voters is when it comes to economics they are susceptible to simplistic bumper sticker solutions. The simpler solution, the better. As Catherine noted, it comes from both Right and left. But now we have DJT, so expect the simplest and most idiotic.
Rampell OBVIOUSLY does not live in Atlanta or other locales that have been hit hard by private equity slurping up as much housing as they can. The misleading graph in this story spreads the effect over the entire country when, in actual fact, the effects are still localized because private equity is JUST GETTING STARTED with this relatively new way of transferring wealth from the working and middle classes to the wealthy.
And Wall Street is JUST a scapegoat? The driver of the notion that owners (shareholders) are ALL that matter, that employees are a liability and best replaced by robots, and that customers should be squeezed as hard a s possible by algorhythically priceing - who one earth could quibble with that?
"There’s now bipartisan (and yet wrong) agreement that Wall Street’s “institutional investors” are to blame for high home prices"
* The institutional buyers may not be to blame -- entirely -- or even to a large degree, but they still shoulder a fair amount. For their portfolios to be shrinking they had to be larger before, but as is pointed out, their current contribution to the problem today is not that big.
* Of growing concern should be the rapid increase in local/regional versions. It's almost impossible to watch tv without the "We're your neighbors, and being neighborly we'd like to help your move go easier." The "no costly repair work, no strangers traipsing through your house (the buyers) and no open house, no commissions, fast closing time, cash on the barrelhead." Of course, they're scarfing up as much as their banks will let them. Anecdotally, I know of at least four in my area.
-----
"For example, there are the NIMBY homeowners[] whose retirement savings are tied up in their home equity, and who therefore don’t want to see the housing supply grow and housing prices fall."
I'm sorry, but the link to the Berkeleyside makes it look, that in this instance, the NIMBYs have a few salient points, and questions left unasked for people outside the area being discussed:
1 There's a big difference between construction of new homes that increase the density and ***new homes that increase the density.*** The story doesn't specify but based on the pic let's be generous and say the home was subdivided into eight units, or even ten, that's a far reach from the proposed 60 units.
2 Were any studies done to see what the increase in traffic will be like? What about parking for a likely dramatic increase in vehicles?
3 Who's on the hook for necessary infrastructure upgrades? I've seen deals between developers and cities that say the developer will be sure that all the necessary infrastructure will be in place from the curb to the development and the city will cover any improvements needed to handle the increase in demand, including municipal from the curb.
4 I assume that the board took aesthetics and how well the new construction will blend into the neighborhood into consideration.
5 And of great importance, either pro or con depending on the answer: how many of those 60 units will be set aside for affordable housing rather than market-driven pricing?
Nah this is a comfort article for folks who really don’t wanna let go of their privilege. Any mention of stagnating wages? Are you going to pretend that wasn’t corporations and billionaires? This is just so self-serving I wish I could do more than just delete it from my inbox. This is the abundance economics cleanse for the privileged classes who just want the bag so bad that they are unwilling to engage in good faith.
This story has everything: Grift. Immigration. Ron DeSantis. Toilets. A corporate phone number that (intentionally) spells out the word “POOP.” “$92 million for porta-potties? Big spending at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’.” That is soooo Bill Hader's Stefon! Love it!
“Hence Trump’s recent, puzzling assertion that he’s going to make housing more affordable but also somehow more expensive.”
This is what 70% of Americans actually want and believe is attainable: Housing should be affordable while being an investment which only goes up in value.
Trump, who lives in a fantasy world enabled by yes-men, nonetheless understands the public mood on this issue, no matter how stupid it is.
The problem with housing is actually quite simple. The top ten percent of wealthy Americans own 87-92ish % of the American household-held stock in the US stock market. This means that most of the wealth of the middle class is in their home. Call it NIMBY if you want, but it’s a really simple incentive at work. If the value of your house falls because supply goes up, the asset that accounts for most of your wealth falls. Ergo, you don’t want anyone building housing in your neighborhood. The only way to fix this is to transfer other assets to the middle class so that they can have the value of their house stagnate and not need to freak out.
Unfortunately in the AI era, you can't get away with propaganda like this so easily. The pie graph is of everything nationwide, but institutional investing is concentrated in specific markets (small, "starter" homes) and specific regions (such as Atlanta or Jacksonville). Yeah, when institutional inventors own 25% of single-family rentals in the Atlanta market that's going to have an impact. Also, potential first-time home buyers can't compete with institutional investors who can make all-cash offers with no contingencies.
You know who will solve the housing crisis?--The Grim Reaper will! Members of the Baby Boom generation are starting to die off en masse so people like me exiting the planet the housing supply we free up combined with intergenerational wealth transfers will solve the problem.
I am curious what effect rent control has, in reality. I lived in San Francisco for a number of years, and they have some of the highest rents in the country despite rent control laws. When I lost my cheap apartment I was instantly priced out of the market.
2) Look forward to your thoughts on rent controls - sadly, when I listen to the two sides, I end up agreeing with aspects of each side's arguments, which has left me confused!
3) Agree that Kevin Hassett has turned himself into a pathetic joke since 2020 ... he was kinda OK until the late 2010s (except for "Dow 36K").
4) The Detroit bridge thing is wild. Do they think everyone is stoopid?
5) The other "WTF" items on your Ramparts list are just nuts. They would fit very well into Rick Newman's The Pinpoint Press weekly "WTF" list.
It’s good to know that the institutional investors don’t have that big of a slice of pie as far as houses go if curbing that won’t do any good. But like others I’m curious about other housing options.
I’ve lived in the same area all my life, and I’ve seen houses skyrocket in price, especially in rural towns. It’s unbelievable what the asking price is for rather small homes that still need work. Once upon a time I would’ve considered buying such a house and fixing it up, but the cost has outstripped my pay a few times over.
This was a Catherine classic: edifying and clarifying about a topic a lot of people pretend to know about. (Sick burn on Hassett, by the way.) But I suspect a lot of readers will be annoyed by opposition to rent control, so if she writes about that, she better bring—to borrow a term—receipts.
The problem with American voters is when it comes to economics they are susceptible to simplistic bumper sticker solutions. The simpler solution, the better. As Catherine noted, it comes from both Right and left. But now we have DJT, so expect the simplest and most idiotic.
By the way, I think Jerusalem Demsas has a poor understanding of the housing market. I'm astonished that the Atlantic represents her as an expert
Rampell OBVIOUSLY does not live in Atlanta or other locales that have been hit hard by private equity slurping up as much housing as they can. The misleading graph in this story spreads the effect over the entire country when, in actual fact, the effects are still localized because private equity is JUST GETTING STARTED with this relatively new way of transferring wealth from the working and middle classes to the wealthy.
And Wall Street is JUST a scapegoat? The driver of the notion that owners (shareholders) are ALL that matter, that employees are a liability and best replaced by robots, and that customers should be squeezed as hard a s possible by algorhythically priceing - who one earth could quibble with that?
"There’s now bipartisan (and yet wrong) agreement that Wall Street’s “institutional investors” are to blame for high home prices"
* The institutional buyers may not be to blame -- entirely -- or even to a large degree, but they still shoulder a fair amount. For their portfolios to be shrinking they had to be larger before, but as is pointed out, their current contribution to the problem today is not that big.
* Of growing concern should be the rapid increase in local/regional versions. It's almost impossible to watch tv without the "We're your neighbors, and being neighborly we'd like to help your move go easier." The "no costly repair work, no strangers traipsing through your house (the buyers) and no open house, no commissions, fast closing time, cash on the barrelhead." Of course, they're scarfing up as much as their banks will let them. Anecdotally, I know of at least four in my area.
-----
"For example, there are the NIMBY homeowners[] whose retirement savings are tied up in their home equity, and who therefore don’t want to see the housing supply grow and housing prices fall."
I'm sorry, but the link to the Berkeleyside makes it look, that in this instance, the NIMBYs have a few salient points, and questions left unasked for people outside the area being discussed:
1 There's a big difference between construction of new homes that increase the density and ***new homes that increase the density.*** The story doesn't specify but based on the pic let's be generous and say the home was subdivided into eight units, or even ten, that's a far reach from the proposed 60 units.
2 Were any studies done to see what the increase in traffic will be like? What about parking for a likely dramatic increase in vehicles?
3 Who's on the hook for necessary infrastructure upgrades? I've seen deals between developers and cities that say the developer will be sure that all the necessary infrastructure will be in place from the curb to the development and the city will cover any improvements needed to handle the increase in demand, including municipal from the curb.
4 I assume that the board took aesthetics and how well the new construction will blend into the neighborhood into consideration.
5 And of great importance, either pro or con depending on the answer: how many of those 60 units will be set aside for affordable housing rather than market-driven pricing?
fnord
Nah this is a comfort article for folks who really don’t wanna let go of their privilege. Any mention of stagnating wages? Are you going to pretend that wasn’t corporations and billionaires? This is just so self-serving I wish I could do more than just delete it from my inbox. This is the abundance economics cleanse for the privileged classes who just want the bag so bad that they are unwilling to engage in good faith.
Lots of stats on institutional investors. Lots of demagoguing on NIMBY’s and regs. Sounds like a proponent of the republican-lite abundance agenda.
This story has everything: Grift. Immigration. Ron DeSantis. Toilets. A corporate phone number that (intentionally) spells out the word “POOP.” “$92 million for porta-potties? Big spending at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’.” That is soooo Bill Hader's Stefon! Love it!
“Hence Trump’s recent, puzzling assertion that he’s going to make housing more affordable but also somehow more expensive.”
This is what 70% of Americans actually want and believe is attainable: Housing should be affordable while being an investment which only goes up in value.
Trump, who lives in a fantasy world enabled by yes-men, nonetheless understands the public mood on this issue, no matter how stupid it is.
The problem with housing is actually quite simple. The top ten percent of wealthy Americans own 87-92ish % of the American household-held stock in the US stock market. This means that most of the wealth of the middle class is in their home. Call it NIMBY if you want, but it’s a really simple incentive at work. If the value of your house falls because supply goes up, the asset that accounts for most of your wealth falls. Ergo, you don’t want anyone building housing in your neighborhood. The only way to fix this is to transfer other assets to the middle class so that they can have the value of their house stagnate and not need to freak out.
Unfortunately in the AI era, you can't get away with propaganda like this so easily. The pie graph is of everything nationwide, but institutional investing is concentrated in specific markets (small, "starter" homes) and specific regions (such as Atlanta or Jacksonville). Yeah, when institutional inventors own 25% of single-family rentals in the Atlanta market that's going to have an impact. Also, potential first-time home buyers can't compete with institutional investors who can make all-cash offers with no contingencies.
RE: The Gordie Howe bridge.
Don't fuck with Mister Hockey.
https://substack.com/@stevedude/note/c-213401856?r=gu8zl&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
You know who will solve the housing crisis?--The Grim Reaper will! Members of the Baby Boom generation are starting to die off en masse so people like me exiting the planet the housing supply we free up combined with intergenerational wealth transfers will solve the problem.
Remember, demographics is destiny
I agree. But unfortunately your comment cuts a little close to the bone.
I am curious what effect rent control has, in reality. I lived in San Francisco for a number of years, and they have some of the highest rents in the country despite rent control laws. When I lost my cheap apartment I was instantly priced out of the market.
Excellent column, Catherine! THANK YOUI
1) Love the coining of "slopulist"!!
2) Look forward to your thoughts on rent controls - sadly, when I listen to the two sides, I end up agreeing with aspects of each side's arguments, which has left me confused!
3) Agree that Kevin Hassett has turned himself into a pathetic joke since 2020 ... he was kinda OK until the late 2010s (except for "Dow 36K").
4) The Detroit bridge thing is wild. Do they think everyone is stoopid?
5) The other "WTF" items on your Ramparts list are just nuts. They would fit very well into Rick Newman's The Pinpoint Press weekly "WTF" list.
That bridge was paid for by Canada. So there’s an extra reason for Trump to keep it from opening. 😡
It’s good to know that the institutional investors don’t have that big of a slice of pie as far as houses go if curbing that won’t do any good. But like others I’m curious about other housing options.
I’ve lived in the same area all my life, and I’ve seen houses skyrocket in price, especially in rural towns. It’s unbelievable what the asking price is for rather small homes that still need work. Once upon a time I would’ve considered buying such a house and fixing it up, but the cost has outstripped my pay a few times over.
This was a Catherine classic: edifying and clarifying about a topic a lot of people pretend to know about. (Sick burn on Hassett, by the way.) But I suspect a lot of readers will be annoyed by opposition to rent control, so if she writes about that, she better bring—to borrow a term—receipts.
I hope she does so I can spam it around Boston in a vain effort of stopping our rent control ballot measure