I like how you're injecting a fresh perspective into the housing-affordability debate. I think you are probably right (that there is no overall housing shortage) and that income is a major driver of housing prices. The thing I wrestle with, however, is that there is clearly a housing affordability problem in the most NIMBY-ish markets like the West Coast and Northeast. If you look at the median house price to median income ratio (a pretty good measure of affordability), it is extremely/very high in CA, New York City, Boston, Seattle, DC at >7x. Normal affordability is considered to be 3-4x. Nationwide the ratio is 5x, so moderately elevated, but that might be the bid-ask problem you refer to.
Basically the demand curve for housing is inelastic (you need a place to live), and in places with NIMBYism, the supply is also inelastic (more units don't get added with increases in price), so in cities with high incomes or income growth the prices escalate rapidly. So yes, it's an inequality problem, but it's also a supply problem. That is why you see outmigration of middle class families from these places. If you're purposely driving out the bourgeoise to implement the Curley Effect, then it has been working. But I'm not sure it's a great way to build a thriving city long term.
Right, but to me, that's a bit like saying "G-Wagons" are increasingly unaffordable. Yes, people really want to live in mid-low density neighborhoods not-far from economic hubs. How does densifying the burbs solve that problem (rather than further erode the supply of mid-low density neighborhoods not-far from economic hubs)? Show me where NIMBYism is preventing the build-up of single family homes in fancy single-family neighborhoods? I don't think that you can. It's not like there are lots of empty lots lying around in SF or Westchester, NY or Bergen County, Nj. Relatedly, people will pay a lot of money to live in the "most exclusive" places--that's a hard (if not impossible) metric to diffuse more broadly (by definition).
Fly over the suburbs of New York and it looks like forest. The lot size zoning is large. There could be smaller lots, more apartments in the towns, or townhouses. Densifying the suburbs with smaller lots would make them less beautiful and less luxurious, yes, but it would make the individual abodes cheaper.
I'm getting radicalized against YIMBYism.
I like how you're injecting a fresh perspective into the housing-affordability debate. I think you are probably right (that there is no overall housing shortage) and that income is a major driver of housing prices. The thing I wrestle with, however, is that there is clearly a housing affordability problem in the most NIMBY-ish markets like the West Coast and Northeast. If you look at the median house price to median income ratio (a pretty good measure of affordability), it is extremely/very high in CA, New York City, Boston, Seattle, DC at >7x. Normal affordability is considered to be 3-4x. Nationwide the ratio is 5x, so moderately elevated, but that might be the bid-ask problem you refer to.
Basically the demand curve for housing is inelastic (you need a place to live), and in places with NIMBYism, the supply is also inelastic (more units don't get added with increases in price), so in cities with high incomes or income growth the prices escalate rapidly. So yes, it's an inequality problem, but it's also a supply problem. That is why you see outmigration of middle class families from these places. If you're purposely driving out the bourgeoise to implement the Curley Effect, then it has been working. But I'm not sure it's a great way to build a thriving city long term.
Right, but to me, that's a bit like saying "G-Wagons" are increasingly unaffordable. Yes, people really want to live in mid-low density neighborhoods not-far from economic hubs. How does densifying the burbs solve that problem (rather than further erode the supply of mid-low density neighborhoods not-far from economic hubs)? Show me where NIMBYism is preventing the build-up of single family homes in fancy single-family neighborhoods? I don't think that you can. It's not like there are lots of empty lots lying around in SF or Westchester, NY or Bergen County, Nj. Relatedly, people will pay a lot of money to live in the "most exclusive" places--that's a hard (if not impossible) metric to diffuse more broadly (by definition).
Fly over the suburbs of New York and it looks like forest. The lot size zoning is large. There could be smaller lots, more apartments in the towns, or townhouses. Densifying the suburbs with smaller lots would make them less beautiful and less luxurious, yes, but it would make the individual abodes cheaper.
You could double the density and they would still be nice suburbs