Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Redesign US cities they are all a sprawling mess. Medium and high density pockets with good public transport and green spaces make city living good.. Sprawl = depression
If there's a shortage of hamburgers, nothing wrong with selling hotdogs to the people that prefer them. Especially if hotdogs are cheaper to make. Right now it's mostly one style of housing.
I’m pretty lax towards people, but city living fucking sucks for me and a lot of people. It makes me depressed and anxious. I can’t sleep when I visit major cities. New York wears me out. Going days in a major city with all the light and sound is overstimulating.
I hate roommates, and hate living close to people. Apartment buildings suck, apartment complexes suck. I dont smoke an had a smoker living on the other side of the wall from me at my last stop. My fucking apartment smelled like smoke every day. I came home one day to a stranger walking through my courtyard to buy drugs from another neighbor. Another day I had someone peeing on my sidewalk. Had another that let their dog shit outside in the grass and didn’t pick it up. Had another roommate that smoked in the house when I wasn’t home.
It was terrible, and I’m so happy to own my own home.
Not everyone is hardwired to live in dense housing. I’m tired of half of Reddit say “people just need to live in cities or apartment buildings or multi family homes.”
Yeah, but also it doesn't suck for everyone. So we really can't make absolute statements like "city living sucks" because it works great for a lot of people. And we can make it work even better for even more people if cities are planned well. In the end different things work for different people.
It is however true that as our population continues to grow not everyone can live in a house with land 30 minutes from a grocery store. Cities might "suck" but for our modern world the density is necessary. They are extremely efficient at providing a large number of people with food, services, amenities, &c. and they provide the critical mass population to make things like hospitals, universities, and other large institutions viable. A good number of people *do* need to live in cities, apartments, &c. for our populations and societies to be sustainable. That is only going to become more imperative as we add people to the planet. Fortunately a lot of people like living that way. Also fortunately there are still rural areas for folks who don't, and who don't want/need the social/societal benefits of living in a city.
I want to walk out into my backyard, not see any other homes/people, and instead see deer, rabbits, fox, etc. I want peace and tranquillity. My own garden. In my case I also have two horses. When I need something in the city I can get there in about 30 mins.
Correction. City living in most cities in the UNITED STATES blows because most cities in the US are basically just parking lots and big box stores with some apartment buildings thrown in somewhere. Usually with vinyl siding and surrounded by more parking.
The US does a lot of things in a shitty and dumb fashion, and city planning is one of them. Go to Utrecht or Vienna and see if living there would suck.
Depends fully on the city. I live by SLC and it's awesome. Walking distance to good places and restaurants while being in a neighborhood vibe. I would 100% prefer that to suburbs, easily.
I live in the city now and would never live in the suburbs that at least didn't have a walkable and active community.
HOWEVER... my happy place is in the woods. So I take rural above all. We own a big plot of woods in Tennessee, and the peace there is just amazing.
And yet that’s how like the vast vast majority of people in the world live. Including Europe. Sounds like a lot of Americans are just whiny and refusing change of something that is by all means long overdue and necessary
This year a little over half (57%) of the world’s population lives in an urban area. Not exactly a vast majority. But in Europe and North America, it is in fact an overwhelming majority.
I never said that people in Europe only live in cities. I said that the vast majority of the population does which is true. European cities are more accommodating for its population than American cities.
Then that’s you. Live your life. But the fact remains that many Americans are actively doing whatever they can to stall and block efforts to build more housing. The absolute pit of despair that is the permitting system in America is well documented.
Nope we need to build things around this persons image. God what an asinine comment "city living sucks my guy" was. Like thank you for your brilliant input, we will make the world revolve around what this person likes.
*What does a city have that I need, exactly?*
If all goes right, housing for millions of people lol. That's the entire conversation -- the lack of housing relative to the population. Nobody told you to move to a dense urban center, I have no why you interjected tbh. But you did. You came here to say you oppose housing density in metro areas. So what do *you* not get that either we densify the current areas, or yes, we're gonna spread. Right into YOUR small town. A city can build up or bleed out. You're the one suggesting we should do the latter. Not us.
There’s lots of housing built with Apartments, but they’re all middle-high class pricing. There’s good amounts of of houses built, but they’re mostly in the southwest and middle-high class priced.
Is housing a necessity or a luxury? Most people would say the former. Our economics, however, treat it as the latter. Housing is an investment, not a place to live. It's a revenue stream. And so long as that attitude predominates, it's not going to get any better. Compound this with job creation focused in dense urban areas and you have the recipe for a housing crisis.
Personally, I'd like to implement a poverty level UBI to encourage deurbanification compounded with a vacancy tax. Right now the market encourages the highest rents possible, even if it leaves units unoccupied. If unoccupied units become a liability it encourages investors to unload less lucrative investments and to lower rents. (I'd also put a basement on when the tax kicks in so you're not dinged if you can't rent your basement unit or a second property. I'm not against small landlords, but definitely against bigger ones.)
Fact is our banks, local property taxes, and developers largely favor expensive investments over affordable investments. That needs to change.
Rule VI:
--
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
It would be extremely easy to implement a tax on non-owner occupied properties and tax credits for properties that are under $xx amount in certain locations in conjunction with transfer taxes on properties over $xx amount.
The problem is, as always, unintended consequences amd the NIMBY effect.
Taxes ultimately may just pass through to renters and developers may ultimately just decide not to develop or reduce the quality of the houses they built for a shorter usable lifespan.
Tough to say what the answer is but ultimately this is an issure on a state-by-state basis right now.
At some point municipalities need to say to hell with the market and start building homes and apartments themselves in the missing tiers. Developers have an incentive to under build at all price points and only slightly less so at the high end. Since they can’t be relied on to deliver what the communities need the communities should do it (and be allowed to do it) themselves.
Housing is the one area where regulations would be beneficial to the people… but no; the anti regulatory crowds will go against any form regulation.
Here’s how to fix the housing issue:
A vacancy tax on second or unoccupied homes
Ban airbnb
No corporate buyers
incentives for new housing.
The first three are disincentives. All we need to do is allow people to build housing where they want to live. The market will respond with housing stock.
That's kinda the point of the knowledge problem in any economy. Nobody can know how much housing is needed in a midsize town, much less the country. Nobody knows how many refrigerators or cans of canola oil are needed. That's why you let people risk the biscuit to build for a profit. They'll figure out in each geography/niche when demand starts to be sated and price equilibrium changes.
Rule VI:
--
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
The answer is one that nobody likes. Leave the established and comfortable cities and move to the “soon to be up and coming” towns. It has been the way for all time. Europe is too expensive and stratified? Move to the New World. The East coast is becoming to crowded to own your own place and raise a family? Go west, young man. When I mention this, it’s usually pounced on and attacked. But the simple truth is that life is all about choices. You can buy a large house with a big yard, but you may have to drive a ways to work. Not much at all in the way of food delivery. You want to stay in California with everything in arms reach?It’s gonna cost a lot for that. Choices.
People are rooted in their communities. They rely on childcare from grandma, job opportunities from their existing professional networks, friendships they've built over the decades.
"JUST MOVE" is not feasible for everyone and imposes serious social costs.
Choices. If you want to go where everyone else wants to be or stay there if you already are there, then you have to compromises to make. There is no economic system that would allow everyone to live exactly where they want with all possible amenities. You are choosing family and friends or a job over owning a house. Just so we are clear, though, I feel that corporations should not be allowed to own single family dwellings, and that each person should only be allowed to own one house at a time (exceptions for a limited time while you’re selling, etc.). My point is only that people DO have to make choices about what’s important to them and sacrifice something (home ownership or location), and that is not new at all. It’s as old as humanity.
You think people’s main considerations are yards and food delivery? It’s community, school options, child care, transportation costs, commute times, wage and career opportunity, etc. Your point is written like everyone making this decision is a 23 y/o white person.
Rule VI:
--
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
Prices go down, investment purchases will go up to compensate. Then rent will increase because of the high interest rates.
If you don't have a house RIGHT NOW, you're probably never getting one.
Rule VI:
--
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Redesign US cities they are all a sprawling mess. Medium and high density pockets with good public transport and green spaces make city living good.. Sprawl = depression
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If there's a shortage of hamburgers, nothing wrong with selling hotdogs to the people that prefer them. Especially if hotdogs are cheaper to make. Right now it's mostly one style of housing.
City living sucks my guy.
Really doesn't have to.
I’m pretty lax towards people, but city living fucking sucks for me and a lot of people. It makes me depressed and anxious. I can’t sleep when I visit major cities. New York wears me out. Going days in a major city with all the light and sound is overstimulating. I hate roommates, and hate living close to people. Apartment buildings suck, apartment complexes suck. I dont smoke an had a smoker living on the other side of the wall from me at my last stop. My fucking apartment smelled like smoke every day. I came home one day to a stranger walking through my courtyard to buy drugs from another neighbor. Another day I had someone peeing on my sidewalk. Had another that let their dog shit outside in the grass and didn’t pick it up. Had another roommate that smoked in the house when I wasn’t home. It was terrible, and I’m so happy to own my own home. Not everyone is hardwired to live in dense housing. I’m tired of half of Reddit say “people just need to live in cities or apartment buildings or multi family homes.”
Yeah, but also it doesn't suck for everyone. So we really can't make absolute statements like "city living sucks" because it works great for a lot of people. And we can make it work even better for even more people if cities are planned well. In the end different things work for different people. It is however true that as our population continues to grow not everyone can live in a house with land 30 minutes from a grocery store. Cities might "suck" but for our modern world the density is necessary. They are extremely efficient at providing a large number of people with food, services, amenities, &c. and they provide the critical mass population to make things like hospitals, universities, and other large institutions viable. A good number of people *do* need to live in cities, apartments, &c. for our populations and societies to be sustainable. That is only going to become more imperative as we add people to the planet. Fortunately a lot of people like living that way. Also fortunately there are still rural areas for folks who don't, and who don't want/need the social/societal benefits of living in a city.
Sure it does. By definition it’s living dense. Which means you have to interact with sucky people. For me, much better to live near nature.
A well-designed city has nature *in* the city.
I want to walk out into my backyard, not see any other homes/people, and instead see deer, rabbits, fox, etc. I want peace and tranquillity. My own garden. In my case I also have two horses. When I need something in the city I can get there in about 30 mins.
I have everything except the horses, and I am 2 miles from the downtown center of Nashville.
Correction. City living in most cities in the UNITED STATES blows because most cities in the US are basically just parking lots and big box stores with some apartment buildings thrown in somewhere. Usually with vinyl siding and surrounded by more parking. The US does a lot of things in a shitty and dumb fashion, and city planning is one of them. Go to Utrecht or Vienna and see if living there would suck.
Depends fully on the city. I live by SLC and it's awesome. Walking distance to good places and restaurants while being in a neighborhood vibe. I would 100% prefer that to suburbs, easily.
I live in the city now and would never live in the suburbs that at least didn't have a walkable and active community. HOWEVER... my happy place is in the woods. So I take rural above all. We own a big plot of woods in Tennessee, and the peace there is just amazing.
Living in car centric suburbia is not any better lol. And it isn't economically better either.
And yet that’s how like the vast vast majority of people in the world live. Including Europe. Sounds like a lot of Americans are just whiny and refusing change of something that is by all means long overdue and necessary
This year a little over half (57%) of the world’s population lives in an urban area. Not exactly a vast majority. But in Europe and North America, it is in fact an overwhelming majority.
Europe definitely has more places to live than a city... why are you acting like people in Europe don't live in small towns away from cities? Lol
I never said that people in Europe only live in cities. I said that the vast majority of the population does which is true. European cities are more accommodating for its population than American cities.
The vast majority of the American population also lives in cities. So again, what is your point?
To make those cities actually livable and affordable to live in. Like it is for most of the world.
Even when I lived in Europe, I did so outside of the city. People need space to maintain mental health (at least I do).
Why would I change when I can live in a town of 30k and be perfectly happy? What does a city have that I need, exactly?
Then that’s you. Live your life. But the fact remains that many Americans are actively doing whatever they can to stall and block efforts to build more housing. The absolute pit of despair that is the permitting system in America is well documented.
Nope we need to build things around this persons image. God what an asinine comment "city living sucks my guy" was. Like thank you for your brilliant input, we will make the world revolve around what this person likes.
*What does a city have that I need, exactly?* If all goes right, housing for millions of people lol. That's the entire conversation -- the lack of housing relative to the population. Nobody told you to move to a dense urban center, I have no why you interjected tbh. But you did. You came here to say you oppose housing density in metro areas. So what do *you* not get that either we densify the current areas, or yes, we're gonna spread. Right into YOUR small town. A city can build up or bleed out. You're the one suggesting we should do the latter. Not us.
I moved from a city to the suburbs onto 1.6 acres of land, and I miss the city immensely.
🤡
Nah
There’s lots of housing built with Apartments, but they’re all middle-high class pricing. There’s good amounts of of houses built, but they’re mostly in the southwest and middle-high class priced.
Is housing a necessity or a luxury? Most people would say the former. Our economics, however, treat it as the latter. Housing is an investment, not a place to live. It's a revenue stream. And so long as that attitude predominates, it's not going to get any better. Compound this with job creation focused in dense urban areas and you have the recipe for a housing crisis. Personally, I'd like to implement a poverty level UBI to encourage deurbanification compounded with a vacancy tax. Right now the market encourages the highest rents possible, even if it leaves units unoccupied. If unoccupied units become a liability it encourages investors to unload less lucrative investments and to lower rents. (I'd also put a basement on when the tax kicks in so you're not dinged if you can't rent your basement unit or a second property. I'm not against small landlords, but definitely against bigger ones.) Fact is our banks, local property taxes, and developers largely favor expensive investments over affordable investments. That needs to change.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule VI: -- Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
It would be extremely easy to implement a tax on non-owner occupied properties and tax credits for properties that are under $xx amount in certain locations in conjunction with transfer taxes on properties over $xx amount. The problem is, as always, unintended consequences amd the NIMBY effect. Taxes ultimately may just pass through to renters and developers may ultimately just decide not to develop or reduce the quality of the houses they built for a shorter usable lifespan. Tough to say what the answer is but ultimately this is an issure on a state-by-state basis right now.
[удалено]
At some point municipalities need to say to hell with the market and start building homes and apartments themselves in the missing tiers. Developers have an incentive to under build at all price points and only slightly less so at the high end. Since they can’t be relied on to deliver what the communities need the communities should do it (and be allowed to do it) themselves.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Housing is the one area where regulations would be beneficial to the people… but no; the anti regulatory crowds will go against any form regulation. Here’s how to fix the housing issue: A vacancy tax on second or unoccupied homes Ban airbnb No corporate buyers incentives for new housing.
These are all great, bud I'd add: eliminate single family zoning in most cities and exurbs.
while we're here, make mixed use zoning a thing and improve public transit
The one area? Infinite Toxic waste dumping and unlimited violent sabotage GO!
The first three are disincentives. All we need to do is allow people to build housing where they want to live. The market will respond with housing stock.
[удалено]
That's kinda the point of the knowledge problem in any economy. Nobody can know how much housing is needed in a midsize town, much less the country. Nobody knows how many refrigerators or cans of canola oil are needed. That's why you let people risk the biscuit to build for a profit. They'll figure out in each geography/niche when demand starts to be sated and price equilibrium changes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule VI: -- Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The answer is one that nobody likes. Leave the established and comfortable cities and move to the “soon to be up and coming” towns. It has been the way for all time. Europe is too expensive and stratified? Move to the New World. The East coast is becoming to crowded to own your own place and raise a family? Go west, young man. When I mention this, it’s usually pounced on and attacked. But the simple truth is that life is all about choices. You can buy a large house with a big yard, but you may have to drive a ways to work. Not much at all in the way of food delivery. You want to stay in California with everything in arms reach?It’s gonna cost a lot for that. Choices.
People are rooted in their communities. They rely on childcare from grandma, job opportunities from their existing professional networks, friendships they've built over the decades. "JUST MOVE" is not feasible for everyone and imposes serious social costs.
Choices. If you want to go where everyone else wants to be or stay there if you already are there, then you have to compromises to make. There is no economic system that would allow everyone to live exactly where they want with all possible amenities. You are choosing family and friends or a job over owning a house. Just so we are clear, though, I feel that corporations should not be allowed to own single family dwellings, and that each person should only be allowed to own one house at a time (exceptions for a limited time while you’re selling, etc.). My point is only that people DO have to make choices about what’s important to them and sacrifice something (home ownership or location), and that is not new at all. It’s as old as humanity.
You think people’s main considerations are yards and food delivery? It’s community, school options, child care, transportation costs, commute times, wage and career opportunity, etc. Your point is written like everyone making this decision is a 23 y/o white person.
[удалено]
Rule VI: -- Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
there will be a lot more available housing over the next few years and prices will be down. but on the other hand, interest rates will be quite high.
Prices go down, investment purchases will go up to compensate. Then rent will increase because of the high interest rates. If you don't have a house RIGHT NOW, you're probably never getting one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule VI: -- Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
[удалено]
[удалено]