Moral imperative for a housing crash... and permanent devaluation

[ygolo]

I know we've known this for a long time:

The Missing Link of Climate Change: Single-Family Suburban Homes

It doesn’t solve the problem to buy a hybrid and retrofit your house if all of that takes place 20 miles from your job

www.bloomberg.com

Hitting climate targets depends on building smaller homes and more multi-family units—not just energy efficiency

Carbon emissions from US households have been falling since 2005, but not fast enough

www.anthropocenemagazine.org

I have a hard time convincing my own family about the problems with single family housing. It seems like the famed millennial generation of people are following their boomer parents footsteps and not actually caring about it.

What really is the appeal of this suburban life?

I basically follow because of familial pressure--I have no reasons of my own, in fact, upon reflection, it strikes me as the prime example of being "basic".

 

[ygolo]

Interesting alternatives to lumber:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buildwithrise.com/stories/amp/container-homes-are-exactly-what-they-sound-like-homes

What Can Replace Wood for Building Materials?

There are many alternatives to timber in construction. Homes or other structures can be...

homeguides.sfgate.com

 

[The Cat]

Interesting alternatives to lumber:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buildwithrise.com/stories/amp/container-homes-are-exactly-what-they-sound-like-homes

What Can Replace Wood for Building Materials?

There are many alternatives to timber in construction. Homes or other structures can be...

homeguides.sfgate.com

Wish I could like it twice.

 

[ygolo]

I recently binged a bunch of videos from the Not Just Bikes channel that @ceecee posted.

A couple of resources are mentioned.

Strong Towns

Strong Towns, a bottom-up revolution to rebuild American prosperity. Make your community stronger and more prosperous.

www.strongtowns.org

(A great resource. Look especially about the "growth ponzi scheme")

Home Page - Urban3

www.urbanthree.com

(Visualization examples, NotJustBikes showed how a poor but dense neighborhood actually subsidizes a more affluent suburban neighborhood through taxes)

To learn about "new urbanization":

CNU 30 program stresses affordability and equity, mobility, climate, and more

Connect with and learn from fellow New Urbanists at our first in-person Congress in two years!

www.cnu.org

A great historical primer on us suburbia since 1945:

Suburbanization in the United States after 1945

"Suburbanization in the United States after 1945" published on by Oxford University Press.

oxfordre.com

I'll be going back here over and over for it comprehensive nature despite it's length.

I think people just prefer the status quo if not reflective of consequences and alternatives. Thoughtful conservatives want the same things that the channel @ceecee recommends also.

There’s No Such Thing As ‘Suburbia’

The term encompasses a lot and isn't set in stone. So what are critics of the suburbs really after?

www.theamericanconservative.com

A Housing Agenda for Conservatives

If Republicans retake the Senate, there are ways they can make housing more affordable.

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[ygolo]

An interesting debunking of the myth of overpopulation:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D9QPyPy3ifwg&ved=2ahUKEwjs-YrL7qr4AhVWoY4IHfm5DxwQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0k9CToWN-MsK21wRf8OxV6

 

[ygolo]

Interesting video on how Finland is getting rid of homelessness:

second thought finland homelessness - Google Search

 

[Virtual ghost]

An interesting debunking of the myth of overpopulation:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D9QPyPy3ifwg&ved=2ahUKEwjs-YrL7qr4AhVWoY4IHfm5DxwQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0k9CToWN-MsK21wRf8OxV6

This isn't debunking anything from what I see. This is basically just blaming the other side for everything. I agree there is racism and poverty and unfairness and .... etc. However that doesn't change the fact that our space and resources are limited. Plus what is extra problematic the more you take out of the environment it is more likely that you mess up the regeneration of resources and spaces. If course this is so big in impact that all kinds of ideologies will make some kind of their own story about this since this is about what ideology is all about, stories and beliefs. However the more you are ignoring the problem the harder will things get. The fact that ecological reality is considered racist is simply ideological thinking. While in fact if humans don't fix this in time the environment itself will and that wouldn't be pretty. Yes, we found the ways how to buy time and get away with our lifestyle, however the basic logic of the problem didn't fundamentally go away.


What is the picture of the world that isn't pretty but we are physically limited and independent space colonies are at least a century a way. And even they will harbor only tiny fraction of the current global population since being lifted into space is evidently a privilege from the perspective of energy. Therefore as the environmentalists say "There is no planet B". In about less than a year we should hit 8 billion living people, what means that the global population doubled during the life of a person that is now middle aged. Therefore at this rate by the mid century that should rise over 10 billion. What is objectively unsustainable if you know something about how biosphere works. Especially since everyone wants to live like a fist worlder. While our numbers are often problematic even if you live in much more humble way.


Everyone political will try to make some kind of feel good story that this isn't true, that this is just creating foundation for the genocide, that this is just some cheap election campaign ...etc. However that is because politics and even the most people can't really deal with idea that we have clear physical limitations. Since that cracks the very foundation of modern economy and various religious dogmas. Plus accepting the world of such limits makes people uncomfortable and they will rather distract themselves with something that deeply look into this. However none of that will change the fact that in the end there is deep deep problem that isn't addressed.

Plus there is the problem that this link even openly says that this video was made by TV station funded by authoritarian oil exporting country from the Middle east. What basically makes this video to be in evident conflict of interest. I don't think you are bad person, it is just that I really don't agree with the message.

 

[ygolo]

This isn't debunking anything from what I see. This is basically just blaming the other side for everything. I agree there is racism and poverty and unfairness and .... etc. However that doesn't change the fact that our space and resources are limited. Plus what is extra problematic the more you take out of the environment it is more likely that you mess up the regeneration of resources and spaces. If course this is so big in impact that all kinds of ideologies will make some kind of their own story about this since this is about what ideology is all about, stories and beliefs. However the more you are ignoring the problem the harder will things get. The fact that ecological reality is considered racist is simply ideological thinking. While in fact if humans don't fix this in time the environment itself will and that wouldn't be pretty. Yes, we found the ways how to buy time and get away with our lifestyle, however the basic logic of the problem didn't fundamentally go away.


What is the picture of the world that isn't pretty but we are physically limited and independent space colonies are at least a century a way. And even they will harbor only tiny fraction of the current global population since being lifted into space is evidently a privilege from the perspective of energy. Therefore as the environmentalists say "There is no planet B". In about less than a year we should hit 8 billion living people, what means that the global population doubled during the life of a person that is now middle aged. Therefore at this rate by the mid century that should rise over 10 billion. What is objectively unsustainable if you know something about how biosphere works. Especially since everyone wants to live like a fist worlder. While our numbers are often problematic even if you live in much more humble way.


Everyone political will try to make some kind of feel good story that this isn't true, that this is just creating foundation for the genocide, that this is just some cheap election campaign ...etc. However that is because politics and even the most people can't really deal with idea that we have clear physical limitations. Since that cracks the very foundation of modern economy and various religious dogmas. Plus accepting the world of such limits makes people uncomfortable and they will rather distract themselves with something that deeply look into this. However none of that will change the fact that in the end there is deep deep problem that isn't addressed.

Plus there is the problem that this link even openly says that this video was made by TV station funded by authoritarian oil exporting country from the Middle east. What basically makes this video to be in evident conflict of interest. I don't think you are bad person, it is just that I really don't agree with the message.

I'm omnivorous in my food for thought(for instance, see my use of the American Conservative in previous post for contrast). Al Jazeera isn't inherently pro-middle east, but keeping the source in mind is important.

Nevertheless, the points she made still stands.
1) Yes resources are limited, but per person, the rich still destroys more and creates more damage by several multiples. I have posted using other sources about the energy use of car dependant suburbia, compared to more human centered spaces.
2) If we could figure how people live like the most poor, there's still plenty of room for people. Further still, if we could figure out renewable energy use, and coexistence, the number of people become irrelevant.
3) The overpopulation story steers away from efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of an individual. This is her ultimate point.

You can interpret what she said as political talking points. But would you explicitly disagree with any of these? If so, that would be a more productive discussion. For me, point 2) is most contentious. However, as a technologist, I am hopeful if human ingenuity is pointed in the proper directions, this can be done.

One point not made in the video, but still important in discussions about overpopulation.
4) Population collapse leads to economic collapse if a large population aged out of productive work needs to be supported by a smaller population of productive workers.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm omnivorous in my food for thought(for instance, see my use of the American Conservative in previous post for contrast). Al Jazeera isn't inherently pro-middle east, but keeping the source in mind is important.

Nevertheless, the points she made still stands.
1) Yes resources are limited, but per person, the rich still destroys more and creates more damage by several multiples. I have posted using other sources about the energy use of car dependant suburbia, compared to more human centered spaces.
2) If we could figure how people live like the most poor, there's still plenty of room for people. Further still, if we could figure out renewable energy use, and coexistence, the number of people become irrelevant.
3) The overpopulation story steers away from efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of an individual. This is her ultimate point.

You can interpret what she said as political talking points. But would you explicitly disagree with any of these? If so, that would be a more productive discussion. For me, point 2) is most contentious. However, as a technologist, I am hopeful if human ingenuity is pointed in the proper directions, this can be done.

One point not made in the video, but still important in discussions about overpopulation.
4) Population collapse leads to economic collapse if a large population aged out of productive work needs to be supported by a smaller population of productive workers.

In my opinion her points don't really stand. Since unlike you or her I am not after positive vision. In other words you are both avoiding the depth of the shit that is this. It is true that rich destroys more per capita, but in my book that doesn't mean that the poor contribute in a positive way. Especially since they are evidently more numerous on the planet. Since in the end it doesn't really matter who pollutes or destroys the environment. What really matters is the sum of all of us. In other words pollution by quantity or pollution by amount of consumption are only adding to the sum. While neither is on the solution side.


Yes, the point number 2 is quite questionable. Since in finite space the number of people can't become irrelevant. Plus figuring out renewable energy is only a part of the story. Since you need space where people will live, work and grow food. While at the same time you must leave plenty of nature in order to have the world and the climate as we know them. In other words when you clear forests for the sake of extra food production good chunk of that forest biomass ends up as CO2. Therefore just figuring out renewable energy isn't enough, since consumption of fossil fuels isn't the only source of our green house gas emissions. However if you don't control those gasses you will end up in the run away green house effect that will end the world as we know it. Even if you run your economy 100% on renewable energy that will not be enough if you ignore this part of the equation. Therefore the number of people simply can't become irrelevant in finite space. This just isn't how this works.


In my opinion everything above 3 billion people is evidently pure overpopulation. Since that already erodes the foundations of the biosphere and creates the feedback loop that leads into global chaos (to put it mildly). I know that my looking at the subject isn't comforting at all and this is just tip of the iceberg on my part. However this is why I disagree since as I told you I am not looking at this in search for positive vision. I would really like to see the solution(s) but I will not try to grasp for the straws if I think this wouldn't do the job.

 

[ygolo]

In my opinion her points don't really stand. Since unlike you or her I am not after positive vision. In other words you are both avoiding the depth of the shit that is this. It is true that rich destroys more per capita, but in my book that doesn't mean that the poor contribute in a positive way. Especially since they are evidently more numerous on the planet. Since in the end it doesn't really matter who pollutes or destroys the environment. What really matters is the sum of all of us. In other words pollution by quantity or pollution by amount of consumption are only adding to the sum. While neither is on the solution side.


Yes, the point number 2 is quite questionable. Since in finite space the number of people can't become irrelevant. Plus figuring out renewable energy is only a part of the story. Since you need space where people will live, work and grow food. While at the same time you must leave plenty of nature in order to have the world and the climate as we know them. In other words when you clear forests for the sake of extra food production good chunk of that forest biomass ends up as CO2. Therefore just figuring out renewable energy isn't enough, since consumption of fossil fuels isn't the only source of our green house gas emissions. However if you don't control those gasses you will end up in the run away green house effect that will end the world as we know it. Even if you run your economy 100% on renewable energy that will not be enough if you ignore this part of the equation. Therefore the number of people simply can't become irrelevant in finite space. This just isn't how this works.


In my opinion everything above 3 billion people is evidently pure overpopulation. Since that already erodes the foundations of the biosphere and creates the feedback loop that leads into global chaos (to put it mildly). I know that my looking at the subject isn't comforting at all and this is just tip of the iceberg on my part. However this is why I disagree since as I told you I am not looking at this in search for positive vision. I would really like to see the solution(s) but I will not try to grasp for the straws if I think this wouldn't do the job.

It actually sounds like you agree with 1) and that the rich actually are per capita more destructive.

You say the poor aren't contributing in a positive way. Are you stating that's impossible for humans to contribute in a positive way, or that the way things are right now, they aren't contributing? Are we dealing with something you believe to be true in principle, or something that you believe is true, in fact?

Point 2) is most interesting for me because this is where we can be most quantitative, and play with assumption? What is the basis of your 3 billion person limit for example?

There are models built where there's an inbuilt "carrying capacity" that we can use to think through various scenarios. One model based off of the preditor-prey relationship is presented here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615

We're actually alarmingly close to the collapse according to this and other similar models.

Do you use a particular model?

I believe there are ways to remove the carrying capacity limitation, but would at least temporarily require great societal reorganization through collective goal setting.

When we talk about the moral implications with dealing with the problem, there are many dystopian futures to imagine. But part of the reason for making this thread is to come up with some sort of non-dystopian future to imagine.

 

[The Cat]

Hedge funds just bought an entire community nearish where I live and jacked the price and the people right out, apparently its more profitable to let them sit empty...I loathe the corporate dystopia we seem to be bee lining too. Let me guess: "Raise the child and earn our freedom" huh? hedge fund realty utterly horrifying. >_<

 

[Virtual ghost]

When we talk about the moral implications with dealing with the problem, there are many dystopian futures to imagine. But part of the reason for making this thread is to come up with some sort of non-dystopian future to imagine.

In the big picture level I really don't have much to offer other than dystopia, despite decades of studying the problem. Plus I will dare to say that a number of people around me openly request that I don't open this topic since it mess up their mental health every time. Especially since I can be pretty convincing in my presentation of the dystopia and that this is our future. Also until the war in Ukraine I had some hopes that some kind of a global compromise will be found and that we will at least find ways to avoid the worst case scenario. But with current events and politics as it is playing out there is no way that there will be a genuine global solution that will come on time. Which is clearly the biggest problem. Yes, caring capacity can be greatly expanded but that takes time. The right time to start doing things in the topic were at least 50s and 60s, but we wasted way too much time and the tipping points are too close. If we didn't already passed them but due to the size and inertia of the system we aren't aware of it. So I will skip dystopia.


Therefore if you want something positive about city planning and US suburbia. In my opinion there should be some changes of law in that regard. So that if one family decides to sell their house that on it's place someone can or should build local super market. So that you always have a local supermarket in a waking distance from your home. Or if you have enough space somewhere in the neighborhood you can build it there. This way people don't have to drive across the city to buy some small things they are missing. Plus walking there is good for your health and it lowers air pollution. From what I understand the suburbs were mostly build with some wrong premises. However that doesn't mean that this can't be fixed to some degree. Since bringing content into them is more a matter of law then something that is fundamentally impossible.

 

[The Cat]

In the big picture level I really don't have much to offer other than dystopia, despite decades of studying the problem. Plus I will dare to say that a number of people around me openly request that I don't open this topic since it mess up their mental health every time. Especially since I can be pretty convincing in my presentation of the dystopia and that this is our future. Also until the war in Ukraine I had some hopes that some kind of a global compromise will be found and that we will at least find ways to avoid the worst case scenario. But with current events and politics as it is playing out there is no way that there will be a genuine global solution that will come on time. Which is clearly the biggest problem. Yes, caring capacity can be greatly expanded but that takes time. The right time to start doing things in the topic were at least 50s and 60s, but we wasted way too much time and the tipping points are too close. If we didn't already passed them but due to the size and inertia of the system we aren't aware of it. So I will skip dystopia.


Therefore if you want something positive about city planning and US suburbia. In my opinion there should be some changes of law in that regard. So that if one family decides to sell their house that on it's place someone can or should build local super market. So that you always have a local supermarket in a waking distance from your home. Or if you have enough space somewhere in the neighborhood you can build it there. This way people don't have to drive across the city to buy some small things they are missing. Plus walking there is good for your health and it lowers air pollution. From what I understand the suburbs were mostly build with some wrong premises. However that doesn't mean that this can't be fixed to some degree. Since bringing content into them is more a matter of law then something that is fundamentally impossible.

You and I would be just adorable at parties.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You and I would be just adorable at parties.

Not really, I am actually much more of a cameleon than it seems. Plus I plan to party this weekend. As that post shows I have a sense for when it is time to change the topic.

 

[The Cat]

Not really, I am actually much more of a cameleon than it seems. Plus I plan to party this weekend. As that post shows I have a sense for when it is time to change the topic.

I wasnt being sarcastic lol.

 

[ygolo]

I binged a bunch of Strong Towns materials.

I actually even joined as a member and donated. I am planning to learn as much as I can.
You don't have to just to read. But I wanted to support them.

A few ideas I found very interesting:

1. The Growth Ponzi Scheme
   
   A crash course: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/28/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-a-crash-course
   Essential Reading: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020
   Parts:
   
   

   The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 1

   The underpinnings of the current financial crisis lie in a living arrangement—the American pattern of development—that does not financially support itself.

   www.strongtowns.org
   

   The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 2

   If you want a simple explanation for why our economy is stalled and cannot be restarted, it is this: Our places do not create wealth, they destroy wealth.

   www.strongtowns.org
   

   The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 3

   Our development pattern is not productive enough to sustain itself.

   www.strongtowns.org
   

   The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 4

   Our national economy is "all in" on the suburban experiment. We cannot sustain the trajectory we are on, but we've gone too far down the path to turn back.

   www.strongtowns.org
   

   The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 5 (finale)

   How did we build such an amazing place before the home mortgage interest deduction? How did we accomplish this before zoning? What created this place before we had state and federal subsidies of local water and sewer systems?

   www.strongtowns.org
2. The Suburban Experiment
   
   

   America's Suburban Experiment

   For thousands of years, humans built settlements scaled to people who walked. In a generation, Americans transformed an entire continent around a new transportation technology. We often fail to appreciate how we are testing this approach as we go. Quite simply: it's a massive experiment.

   www.strongtowns.org
   Auto-oriented development is a huge experiment. on Vimeo
   

   This is the End of the Suburban Experiment

   Contrary to what has been asserted elsewhere, the suburbs are not about to have a renaissance. In fact, there are many reasons to believe we are nearing the end.

   www.strongtowns.org
3. Stroads
   
   

   What's a STROAD and Why Does It Matter?

   Show this video to anyone who needs a crash course in what makes our streets dangerous and how to make them safer and more financially productive.

   www.strongtowns.org
4. The Swarm and Incremental Development
   
   

   Unleash the Swarm

   What if we had a class of semi-amateur developers 10 or 100 times larger than it is today?

   www.strongtowns.org
   

   Incremental Doesn't Mean Slow

   Incremental change doesn’t mean slow change. In fact, unleashing the power of the many to make small changes in response to immediate needs may be the only approach that is up to the scale of the problems our cities face.

   www.strongtowns.org
   (I really liked the saying: "No small plans. No large leaps.")

Some background concepts that I had prior that made things click with me when I saw this.

1. Default Aliveness and Cash-flow Positivity
   

   Default Alive or Default Dead?

   www.paulgraham.com

   Startup Growth Calculator

   growth.tlb.org
   

   Present Value of Cash Flows Calculator

   Calculate the present value of uneven, or even, cash flows. Finds the present value (PV) of future cash flows that start at the end or beginning of the first period. Similar to Excel function NPV().

   www.calculatorsoup.com
2. Anti-fragility and Resilient Systems
   

   Antifragility - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org
   

   System Resilience: What Exactly is it?

   Over the past decade, system resilience (a.k.a., system resiliency) has been widely discussed as a critical concern, especially in terms of data centers and cloud computing....

   insights.sei.cmu.edu

 

[ygolo]

I know inflation has been top-of-mind for a lot of people. But as I mentioned in the first post, inflation as a single number is very misleading. People's lives are affected by the change in daily expenses in complex ways.

One specific way is through housing. In fact, it has become a norm that about 1/3 of your income goes towards housing. You can find so many calculators and advice centered around this norm.
You can seach and play with a few to get a feel:

How Much House Can I Afford? Affordability Calculator - NerdWallet

See how far your homebuying budget could take you. Enter your income, monthly debt payments, and available cash for a down payment into our home affordability calculator, and we’ll crunch the numbers for you.

www.nerdwallet.com

How to figure out how much house you can afford

CNBC Select outlines several strategies to determine how much you can afford in monthly mortgage payments.

www.cnbc.com

(The following is specifically for rents)
https://www.zillow.com/rent-affordability-calculator/

But this is the main norm I want to challenge in this thread. My contention is that the norm should be like Moore's Law, Wright's Law, or Carlson Curve if we are to say that society is itself making progress. Once again, these norms based on a set of observations with a group of people collectively dreaming and putting together organizations to make and keep that norm a reality. See again Moore's Second Law, the roadmap for semiconductors, the National Human Genome Research Group Institute. These are norms and expectations with groups working to continually keep their industry vibrant and dynamic by staying in the sweet spot of the learning curves inherent in their work.

These exponentials are neither accidents nor laws of nature. They are held through tremendous collective effort and established norms.

Back to housing: From a progress in society perspective, I think the metric should be how much of a person's income is spent on housing, and I am arguing once again that this should be on an exponential decrease and not a 1/3 as is the supposed norm, but is actually exponentially increasing instead.

We can look at home prices divided by annual income as a guide. Here is one set of charts:

Home Price to Income Ratio - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends

Historically, an average house in the US cost around 5 times the yearly household income. The ratio in this chart divides the Case-Shiller Home Price Index by the US median annual household income.

www.longtermtrends.net

If you look at the US chart from about 1954 to 1999, you can actually see a nice steady decline from about 6.5 to a little about 4.3. This was around the time I had a lot of acquaintances that were learning to become super-savers and there were many pushing to only get a house 3 times their annual income, and pay it off aggressively in 5 years. These days even if you pay off your home, property taxes alone could require ridiculous amounts just to stay in your home.

The subsequent period, in about half the time, saw an increase from 4.3 to about 8 right now. This is society going in the wrong direction. Remember this isn't just house as an asset (though it a large contributor the phenomenon), this is housing measured in years worked with no other expenditures. This is access to a self-secured human right as measure of human life to achieve it.

For some people reading this, they may even be gleeful that that number had gone up as a means of their own "wealth" going up.

Imagine if we treated water that way? Access to basic human rights (and securing those rights through ownership) are being denied in favor of another "number goes up" collective seeking of economic rents using local local lobbying of zoning boards and NIMBYism.

 

[The Cat]

I know inflation has been top-of-mind for a lot of people. But as I mentioned in the first post, inflation as a single number is very misleading. People's lives are affected by the change in daily expenses in complex ways.

One specific way is through housing. In fact, it has become a norm that about 1/3 of your income goes towards housing. You can find so many calculators and advice centered around this norm.
You can seach and play with a few to get a feel:

How Much House Can I Afford? Affordability Calculator - NerdWallet

See how far your homebuying budget could take you. Enter your income, monthly debt payments, and available cash for a down payment into our home affordability calculator, and we’ll crunch the numbers for you.

www.nerdwallet.com

How to figure out how much house you can afford

CNBC Select outlines several strategies to determine how much you can afford in monthly mortgage payments.

www.cnbc.com

(The following is specifically for rents)
https://www.zillow.com/rent-affordability-calculator/

But this is the main norm I want to challenge in this thread. My contention is that the norm should be like Moore's Law, Wright's Law, or Carlson Curve if we are to say that society is itself making progress. Once again, these norms based on a set of observations with a group of people collectively dreaming and putting together organizations to make and keep that norm a reality. See again Moore's Second Law, the roadmap for semiconductors, the National Human Genome Research Group Institute. These are norms and expectations with groups working to continually keep their industry vibrant and dynamic by staying in the sweet spot of the learning curves inherent in their work.

These exponentials are neither accidents nor laws of nature. They are held through tremendous collective effort and established norms.

Back to housing: From a progress in society perspective, I think the metric should be how much of a person's income is spent on housing, and I am arguing once again that this should be on an exponential decrease and not a 1/3 as is the supposed norm, but is actually exponentially increasing instead.

We can look at home prices divided by annual income as a guide. Here is one set of charts:

Home Price to Income Ratio - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends

Historically, an average house in the US cost around 5 times the yearly household income. The ratio in this chart divides the Case-Shiller Home Price Index by the US median annual household income.

www.longtermtrends.net

If you look at the US chart from about 1954 to 1999, you can actually see a nice steady decline from about 6.5 to a little about 4.3. This was around the time I had a lot of acquaintances that were learning to become super-savers and there were many pushing to only get a house 3 times their annual income, and pay it off aggressively in 5 years. These days even if you pay off your home, property taxes alone could require ridiculous amounts just to stay in your home.

The subsequent period, in about half the time, saw an increase from 4.3 to about 8 right now. This is society going in the wrong direction. Remember this isn't just house as an asset (though it a large contributor the phenomenon), this is housing measured in years worked with no other expenditures. This is access to a self-secured human right as measure of human life to achieve it.

For some people reading this, they may even be gleeful that that number had gone up as a means of their own "wealth" going up.

Imagine if we treated water that way? Access to basic human rights (and securing those rights through ownership) are being denied in favor of another "number goes up" collective seeking of economic rents using local local lobbying of zoning boards and NIMBYism.

Stay Tuned. It's already starting.

 

[ygolo]

This was brought up by @Doctor Cringelord in the economics rents thread, but weirdly, strong towns actually has a lot of information on this as well.

It's interesting how even after binging the material on that site earlier and even taking one of their certification courses (the free one), this concept was new to me when @Doctor Cringelord mentioned it.

There is so much there, I can get lost reading and thinking about it for hours...

Land Value Tax

A land value tax is assessed on the value of a piece of land, rather than the value of the buildings that sit on it. Under a land tax, you are effectively taxed on the value of your location, which is mostly a result of what is nearby.

www.strongtowns.org

Non-Glamorous Gains: The Pennsylvania Land Tax Experiment

Since 1913, Pennsylvania has allowed cities to tax land at a higher rate than buildings. This decision has led to some unique success stories: cities that have weathered post-industrial decline and revitalized their urban cores.

www.strongtowns.org

The Power of the Land Value Tax

Conventional approaches to property taxation can be summed up as follows: “No good deed goes unpunished.” The Land Value Tax is the surprisingly simple alternative—and it can help spur the kind of growth we actually need.

www.strongtowns.org

You Get What You Tax For

The property tax punishes modest improvements and rewards steady decline. People who take steps to add value to their property pay more taxes, while slumlords and speculators pay less. There are a lot of reasons for cities to switch to a tax on land value, and more states should allow cities to make

www.strongtowns.org

If the Land Tax Is Such A Good Idea, Why Isn’t It Being Implemented?

Taxing land rather than improvements is a good idea whose time has come. Why aren’t more places already doing it? And how can you make the case for it in your city?

www.strongtowns.org

To Address the Housing Crisis, We Need a Fairer Tax System

Two charts illustrate the massive housing shortage in Buncombe County, NC, and show why we need to get property taxes right.

www.strongtowns.org

Some other implications and rabbit holes:

Mapping the Effects of California's Prop 13

New maps from Urban3 visualize the shocking disparities in who is actually footing municipal bills in California.

www.strongtowns.org

Home - Center for the Study of Economics

Welcome to The Center for the Study of Economics. We'll be adding news, a blog, video, and podcasts as we move forward. Our mission is to research land value taxation, as an alternative to familiar property taxes (and other taxes harmful to people and commerce), to assist governments in...

www.urbantoolsconsult.org

https://justeconomicsllc.com/

 

[ygolo]

I think one way to get learning curves to become part of the housing norms more is to reduce the hurdles involved in pre-fab homes.

The Pros and Cons of Prefab Homes - SmartAsset

Prefab homes offer relative ease of construction, lower costs and greater energy efficiency. On the other hand, they have many extra responsibilities.

smartasset.com

tl;dr

1. There are three main types of pre-fab homes.

   • Manufactured homes: A home in this category is built in sections and pieced together by professionals and heavy machinery at its final site. These must follow HUD requirements, though.

   • Kit homes: These homes are much simpler than a manufactured home, though they follow a similar build to piecing style. In fact, most homebuyers can build a kit home themselves.

   • Modular homes: These homes feature much more personalization, companies will often let you customize the floor plan of your purchase. However, unlike manufactured and kit homes, modular homes have an immovable foundation.

2. Pros are:
   • Energy Efficiency

     One of the benefits of prefab homes is that they tend to be highly energy efficient.

   • Fast Construction

     Fast construction is one of the big advantages of prefab homes.

   • Affordability

     Building a prefab home is generally less expensive than building a comparable stick-built home.

3. Cons are:
   • Land Costs

     If you want to put up a prefab home you’ll need to own the land underneath it.

   • More Up-Front Payment

     While financing and construction loans are available for many prefab homes, you’ll need to pay for the home’s construction before you move in. Your contract will include a schedule for paying in installments while your home is being built.

   • Utilities Hook-Up

     One of the disadvantages of prefabricated houses is that it can be tough to arrange for utilities and other site details.

What if economic development funds could give very good terms for loans for pre-fab, amortize the preparation of land, hook up of utilities, and then sell lots (just like the on-site stick/balloon framed housing) and sell to individuals in relatively small lot sizes making pre-fab more normal? It is almost a return to the way things used to be done, but now with better technology.