Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

Oh, yes, nothing conjures the notion of "affordable for families" quite like NYC condos and apartments.

You cannot be for real.

Hmmm? There are only so many acres in DC. There is a maximum limit to how many people can live in THs and detached SFHs in DC. No room for more. Unless you move most of the jobs out of DC, or get most people to prefer long commutes to living in DC, there is no way to make it possible for most people who want detached SFHs (or even THs) to be able to afford them (though building enough apts to get the singles living as roommates out of the houses would help)

So again, the only way to make it possible for families with kids to be a much larger share of people who live in DC, is to change the culture so that raising a kid in an apt is more acceptable. I doubt that would lead to apt rents as high as in NYC, because DC is a smaller employment center than NYC - I mentioned NYC only to indicate a place where middle class people do not feel "poor" because they raise a kid in an apt or condo.

"Change the culture so that raising a kid in an apt is more acceptable"? Are you for real? You obviously don't have children or you would know how utterly ridiculous that sounds. Also, why are people even talking about NYC? There are no children in NYC. Everybody leaves when they have kids because kids need space and there is no space in NYC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

Oh, yes, nothing conjures the notion of "affordable for families" quite like NYC condos and apartments.

You cannot be for real.

Hmmm? There are only so many acres in DC. There is a maximum limit to how many people can live in THs and detached SFHs in DC. No room for more. Unless you move most of the jobs out of DC, or get most people to prefer long commutes to living in DC, there is no way to make it possible for most people who want detached SFHs (or even THs) to be able to afford them (though building enough apts to get the singles living as roommates out of the houses would help)

So again, the only way to make it possible for families with kids to be a much larger share of people who live in DC, is to change the culture so that raising a kid in an apt is more acceptable. I doubt that would lead to apt rents as high as in NYC, because DC is a smaller employment center than NYC - I mentioned NYC only to indicate a place where middle class people do not feel "poor" because they raise a kid in an apt or condo.

Anonymous wrote:
It is very weird that people emphasize the importance of the supply of housing, and downplay the importance of interest rates. That's exactly backwards. Yes, the supply matters but only over many decades. If you want to change housing prices, increasing the supply is an extremely slow way to do it.

1. Given the many other econ impacts of rates, its hard to argue (at least for me) that the fed should raise rates just to bring down prices in the central areas of the higher cost metros.

2. Raising interest rates will bring down prices, but not really the cost per year of housing so much.

3. Supply does not change housing prices over night, but certainly much faster than decades.

4. Increasing supply in transit oriented areas can help address transportation and enviro problems - it can be more targeted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

I know this is the super trendy arguments among lefties -- that anything that increases supply is good, even if it's luxury condos for the rich. I find it so, so ironic, because this is basically a form of trickle-down economics. It's so funny that people on the left side of the political spectrum have found a form of trickle-down economics they can get behind. Paul Ryan would be very proud.

1. Lefties tend to oppose this. Its centrists, third way people, etc who mostly support this - though it gets support from some "progressives" and also from many libertarians. IOW its not really about your favorite ideological war

2. The idea that raising taxes high enough will lower govt revenues was never wrong. That is what supply side econ was. The problem with it was determining exactly what tax level that effect comes in at. Recent studies suggest its far higher than current marginal income tax rates

3. Trickle down was vague, in that it meant tax cuts on the rich/on capital could make others better off - but was unclear if this was due to more productivity by the rich, or to added demand.

Via demand, it is certainly true - the same can be achieved more directly with tax cuts to lower incomes, or increases in spending. And the GOP (and Paul Ryan) wanted such tax cuts even when there was no need for more demand, and they were trying to cut spending to reduce demand

Via productivity - probably true to some extent, but again, probably a limited effect until the tax rates are much higher than we have now. And probably less effective than lowering taxes on lower accounts.

Anonymous wrote:


This makes no sense. Interest rates have been extremely low since the 2008 financial crisis. Yes, they've come up a bit but they're still at 2.5 percent and Powell is getting ready to cut them again. The Federal Reserve is why housing prices go up so fast. This is not disputed. It's a deliberate byproduct of Fed policy -- they've said explicitly that this is what they are doing.

When interest rates go back up to normal levels -- and it is inevitable -- everyone is going to be in for a shock. Because sellers suddenly won't be able to get anything near what they thought their house was worth and buyers won't be able to afford nearly as much as they thought they could. The result is housing prices are going to go way down. Even in Washington D.C. This has already been happening, even with interest rates going from zero to 2.5 percent. Ask a realtor -- they see this firsthand.

It is very weird that people emphasize the importance of the supply of housing, and downplay the importance of interest rates. That's exactly backwards. Yes, the supply matters but only over many decades. If you want to change housing prices, increasing the supply is an extremely slow way to do it.

On the other hand, if you want to increase the supply of housing, then increasing the supply of housing is the very thing to do.

I see this trend in my own family. My younger cousins, ages 23-30, don't want kids at all. Only one out 9 wants kids. They all cite the reasons you hear all the time in the news: cost of living, cost of housing, student loans, having jobs rather than having careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

Oh, yes, nothing conjures the notion of "affordable for families" quite like NYC condos and apartments.

You cannot be for real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this thread was how I experienced Capitol Hill when we first bought there (1996).

I remember telling my ILs (who lived in NoVa) that the only time I see children is when I come to visit them.

And now the Hill is crawling with kids. Not just babies - teens too. A lot of us are just stubborn and stayed out once we had kids.

How odd. I grew up on the Hill in the eighties and nineties and had a bunch of neighborhood friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

I know this is the super trendy arguments among lefties -- that anything that increases supply is good, even if it's luxury condos for the rich. I find it so, so ironic, because this is basically a form of trickle-down economics. It's so funny that people on the left side of the political spectrum have found a form of trickle-down economics they can get behind. Paul Ryan would be very proud.

The real issue is the Federal Reserve. By holding interest rates so low, more people can get huge mortgages. More people able to get more huge mortgages means more people bidding on houses, which drives prices up. When the Powell starts really raising rates, the size of the mortgages people can get will crash. That will mean fewer people bidding on houses, and prices will fall. Increasing the supply of homes might eventually affect prices but probably not until decades from now.

Except they started raising the rates in 2016. All that did was send people in a buying frenzy and bidding war.

Real estate in this area doesn't work the way you think.

This makes no sense. Interest rates have been extremely low since the 2008 financial crisis. Yes, they've come up a bit but they're still at 2.5 percent and Powell is getting ready to cut them again. The Federal Reserve is why housing prices go up so fast. This is not disputed. It's a deliberate byproduct of Fed policy -- they've said explicitly that this is what they are doing.

When interest rates go back up to normal levels -- and it is inevitable -- everyone is going to be in for a shock. Because sellers suddenly won't be able to get anything near what they thought their house was worth and buyers won't be able to afford nearly as much as they thought they could. The result is housing prices are going to go way down. Even in Washington D.C. This has already been happening, even with interest rates going from zero to 2.5 percent. Ask a realtor -- they see this firsthand.

It is very weird that people emphasize the importance of the supply of housing, and downplay the importance of interest rates. That's exactly backwards. Yes, the supply matters but only over many decades. If you want to change housing prices, increasing the supply is an extremely slow way to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

I know this is the super trendy arguments among lefties -- that anything that increases supply is good, even if it's luxury condos for the rich. I find it so, so ironic, because this is basically a form of trickle-down economics. It's so funny that people on the left side of the political spectrum have found a form of trickle-down economics they can get behind. Paul Ryan would be very proud.

The real issue is the Federal Reserve. By holding interest rates so low, more people can get huge mortgages. More people able to get more huge mortgages means more people bidding on houses, which drives prices up. When the Powell starts really raising rates, the size of the mortgages people can get will crash. That will mean fewer people bidding on houses, and prices will fall. Increasing the supply of homes might eventually affect prices but probably not until decades from now.

Except they started raising the rates in 2016. All that did was send people in a buying frenzy and bidding war.

Real estate in this area doesn't work the way you think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

I know this is the super trendy arguments among lefties -- that anything that increases supply is good, even if it's luxury condos for the rich. I find it so, so ironic, because this is basically a form of trickle-down economics. It's so funny that people on the left side of the political spectrum have found a form of trickle-down economics they can get behind. Paul Ryan would be very proud.

The real issue is the Federal Reserve. By holding interest rates so low, more people can get huge mortgages. More people able to get more huge mortgages means more people bidding on houses, which drives prices up. When the Powell starts really raising rates, the size of the mortgages people can get will crash. That will mean fewer people bidding on houses, and prices will fall. Increasing the supply of homes might eventually affect prices but probably not until decades from now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

+1000. This is nice-sounding theory but literally no one will do this. They will just move to the burbs and then we'll just have more sprawl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

I know this is the super trendy arguments among lefties -- that anything that increases supply is good, even if it's luxury condos for the rich. I find it so, so ironic, because this is basically a form of trickle-down economics. It's so funny that people on the left side of the political spectrum have found a form of trickle-down economics they can get behind. Paul Ryan would be very proud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

Ha! You obviously don't have children. The idea that families are going to start buying these places is pure fantasy. (Also, everyone I know who lived in NYC left once they had children because the housing situation is impossible unless you're completely loaded).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

Amen.
When I was born there were about 4 billion of us, now we are almost to 8.
The handwringing over birthdate decline is ridiculous.

Thanks, Thomas Malthus. What other crazy, discredited theories from the 18th century do you have? I'm guessing you hate vaccines too.

I’m all for vaccines! I love ‘em... for me and mine. Totally great with you and yours skipping it.