housing

Home price targeting

pnrj inequality, public policy , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan 29 JDN 2459973

One of the largest divides in opinion between economists and the general population concerns the question of rent control. While the general public mostly supports rent control (and often votes for it in referenda), economists almost universally oppose it. It’s hard to get a consensus among economists on almost anything, and yet here we have one; but people don’t seem to care.

Why? I think it’s because high rents are a genuine and serious problem, which economists have invested remarkably little effort in trying to solve. Housing prices are one of the chief drivers of long-term inflation, and with most people spending over a third of their income on housing, even relatively small increases in housing prices can cause a lot of suffering.

One thing we do know is that rent control does not work as a long-term solution. Maybe in response to some short-term shock it would make sense. Maybe you do it for awhile as you wait for better long-term solutions to take effect. But simply putting an arbitrary cap on prices will create shortages in the long run—and it is not a coincidence that cities with strict rent control have the worst housing shortages and the greatest rates of homelessness. Rent control doesn’t even do a good job of helping the people who need it most.

Price ceilings in general are just… not a good idea. If people are selling something at a price that you think is too high and you just insist that they aren’t allowed to, they don’t generally sell at a lower price—they just don’t sell at all. There are a few exceptions; in a very monopolistic market, a well-targeted price ceiling might actually work. And short-run housing supply is inelastic enough that rent control isn’t the worst kind of price ceiling. But as a general strategy, price ceilings just aren’t an effective way of making things cheaper.

This is why we so rarely use them as a policy intervention. When the Federal Reserve wants to achieve a certain interest rate on bonds, do they simply demand that people buy the bonds at that price? No. They adjust the supply of bonds in the market until the market price goes to what they want it to be.

Prices aren’t set in a vacuum by the fiat of evil corporations. They are an equilibrium outcome of a market system. There are things you can do to intervene and shift that equilibrium, but if you just outlaw certain prices, it will result in a new equilibrium—it won’t simply be the same amount sold at the new price you wanted.

Maybe some graphs would help explain this. In each graph, the red line is the demand and the blue line is the supply.

Here is what the market looks like before intervention: The price is $6. We’ll say that’s too high; people can’t afford it.

[no_intervention.png]

Now suppose we impose a price ceiling at $4 (the green line). You aren’t allowed to charge more than $4. What will happen? Companies will charge $4. But they will also produce and sell a smaller quantity than before.

Far better would be to increase the supply of the good, shifting to a new supply curve (the purple line). Then you would reduce the price and increase the amount of the good available.

[supply_intervention.png]

This is precisely what we do with government bonds when we want to raise interest rates. (A greater supply of bonds makes their prices lower, which makes their yields higher.) And when we want to lower interest rates, we do the opposite.

Of course, with bonds, it’s easy to control the supply; it’s all just numbers in a network. Increasing the supply of housing is a much greater undertaking; you actually need to build new housing. But ultimately, the only way to ensure that housing is available and affordable for everyone is in fact to build more housing.

There are various ways we might accomplish that; one of the simplest would be to simply relax zoning restrictions that make it difficult to build high-density housing in cities. Those are bad laws anyway; they only benefit a small number of people a little bit while harming a large number of people a lot. (The problem is that the people they benefit are the local homeowners who show up to city council meetings.)

But we could do much more. I propose that we really use interest-rate targeting as our model and introduce home price targeting. I want the federal government to exercise eminent domain and order the construction of new high-density housing in any city that has rents above a certain threshold—if you like, the same threshold you were thinking of setting the rent control at.

Is this an extreme solution? Perhaps. But housing affordability is an extreme problem. And I keep hearing from the left wing that economists aren’t willing to consider “radical enough” solutions to housing (by which they always seem to mean the tried-and-failed strategy of rent control). So here’s a radical solution for you. If cities refuse to build enough housing for their people, make them do it. Buy up and bulldoze their “lovely” “historic” suburban neighborhoods that are ludicrous wastes of land (and also environmentally damaging), and replace them with high-rise apartments. (Get rid of the golf courses while you’re at it.)

This would be expensive, of course; we have to pay to build all those new apartments. But hardly so expensive as living in a society where people can’t afford to live where they want.

In fact, estimates suggest that we are losing over one trillion dollars per year in unrealized productivity because people can’t afford to live in the highest-rent cities. Average income per worker in the US has been reduced by nearly $7000 per year because of high housing prices. So that’s the budget you should be comparing against. Keeping things as they are is like taxing our whole population about 9%. (And it’s probably regressive, so more than that for poor people.)

Would this destroy the “charm” of the city? I dunno, maybe a little. But if the only thing your city had going for it was some old houses that are clearly not an efficient use of space, that’s pretty sad. And it is quite possible to build a city at high density and have it still be beautiful and a major draw for tourists; Paris is a lot denser than far-less-picturesque Houston. (Though I’ll admit, Houston is far more affordable than Paris. It’s not just about density.) And is the “charm” of your city really worth making it so unaffordable that people can’t move there without risking becoming homeless?

There are a lot of details to be worked out: How serious must things get before the federal government steps in? (Wherever we draw the line, San Francisco is surely well past it.) It takes a long time to build houses and let prices adjust, so how do we account for that time-lag? Where does the money come from, actually? Debt? Taxes? But these could all be resolved.

Of course, it’s a pipe dream; we’re never going to implement this policy, because homeowners dread the idea of their home values going down (even though it would actually make their property taxes cheaper!). I’d even be willing to consider some kind of program that would let people refinance underwater mortgages to write off the lost equity, if that’s what it takes to actually build enough housing.

Because there is really only one thing that’s ever going to solve the (global!) housing crises:

Build more homes.

Housing prices are out of control

pnrj inequality, public policy , , , , ,

Oct 2 JDN 2459855

This is a topic I could have done for quite awhile now, and will surely address again in the future; it’s a slow-burn crisis that has covered most of the world for a generation.

In most of the world’s cities, housing prices are now the highest they have ever been, even adjusted for inflation. The pandemic made this worse, but it was already bad.

This is of course very important, because housing is usually the largest expenditure for most families.

Changes in housing prices are directly felt in people’s lifestyles, especially when they are renting. Homeownership rates vary a lot between countries, so the impact of this is quite different in different places.

There’s also an important redistributive effect: When housing prices go up, people who own homes get richer, while people who rent homes get poorer. Since people who own homes tend to be richer to begin with (and landlordsare typically richest of all), rising housing prices directly increase wealth inequality.

The median price of a house in the US, even adjusted for inflation, is nearly twice what it was in 1993.

This wasn’t a slow and steady climb; housing prices moved with inflation for most of the 1980s and 1990s, and then surged upward just before the 2008 crash. Then they plummeted for a few years, before reversing course and surging even higher than they were at their 2007 peak:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA

[housing_prices_US_2.png]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USSTHPI

This is not a uniquely American problem. The UK shows almost the same pattern:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HPIUKA

But it’s also not the same pattern everywhere. In China, housing prices have been rising steadily, and didn’t crash in 2008:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCNN628BIS

In France, housing prices have been relatively stable, and are no higher now than they were in the 1990s:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP0410FRM086NEST

Meanwhile, in Japan, housing prices surged in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, ending up four times what they had been in the 1960s; then they suddenly leveled off and haven’t changed since:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JPNCPIHOUMINMEI

It’s also worse in some cities than others. In San Francisco, housing now costs three times what it did in the 1990s, even adjusting for inflation:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA

Meanwhile, in Detroit, housing is only about 25% more expensive now than it was in the 1990s:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS19804Q

This variation tells me that policy matters. This isn’t some inevitable result of population growth or technological change. Those could still be important factors, but they can’t explain the strong varation between countries or even between cities within the same country. (Yes, San Francisco has seen more population growth than Detroit—but not that much more.)

Part of the problem, I think, is that most policymakers don’t actually want housing to be more affordable. They might say they do, they might occasionally feel some sympathy for people who get evicted or live on the streets; but in general, they want housing prices to be higher, because that gives them more property tax revenue. The wealthy benefit from rising housing prices, while the poor are harmed. Since the interests of the wealthy are wildly overrepresented in policy, policy is made to increase housing prices, not decrease them. This is likely especially true in housing, because even the upper-middle class mostly benefits from rising housing prices. It’s only the poor and lower-middle class who are typically harmed.

This is why I don’t really want to get into suggesting policies that could fix this. We know what would fix this: Build more housing. Lots of it. Everywhere. Increase supply, and the price will go down. And we should keep doing it until housing is not just back where it was, but cheaper—much cheaper. Buying a house shouldn’t be a luxury afforded only to the upper-middle class; it should be something everyone does several times in their life and doesn’t have to worry too much about. Buying a house should be like buying a car; not cheap, exactly, but you don’t have to be rich to do it. Because everyone needs housing. So everyone should have housing.

But that isn’t going to happen, because the people who make the decisions about this don’t want it to happen.

So the real question becomes: What do we do about that?

If I had a trillion dollars…

pnrj development economics, ethics, inequality, market failure, politics, public policy , , , , , , , , , ,

May 29 JDN 2459729

(To the tune of “If I had a million dollars” by Barenaked Ladies; by the way, he does now)

[Inspired by the book How to Spend a Trillion Dollars]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had a trillion dollars!

I’d buy everyone a house—and yes, I mean, every homeless American.

[500,000 homeless households * $300,000 median home price = $150 billion]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had a trillion dollars!

I’d give to the extreme poor—and then there would be no extreme poor!

[Global poverty gap: $160 billion]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had a trillion dollars!

I’d send people to Mars—hey, maybe we’d find some alien life!

[Estimated cost of manned Mars mission: $100 billion]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had a trillion dollars!

I’d build us a Moon base—haven’t you always wanted a Moon base?

[Estimated cost of a permanent Lunar base: $35 billion. NASA is bad at forecasting cost, so let’s allow cost overruns to take us to $100 billion.]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had a trillion dollars!

I’d build a new particle accelerator—let’s finally figure out dark matter!

[Cost of planned new accelerator at CERN: $24 billion. Let’s do 4 times bigger and make it $100 billion.]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had a trillion dollars!

I’d save the Amazon—pay all the ranchers to do something else!

[Brazil, where 90% of Amazon cattle ranching is, produces about 10 million tons of beef per year, which at an average price of $5000 per ton is $50 billion. So I could pay all the farmers two years of revenue to protect the Amazon instead of destroying it for $100 billion.]

If I had a trillion dollars…

We wouldn’t have to drive anymore!

If I had a trillion dollars…

We’d build high-speed rail—it won’t cost more!

[Cost of proposed high-speed rail system: $240 billion]

If I had a trillion dollars… if I had trillion dollars!

Hey wait, I could get it from a carbon tax!

[Even a moderate carbon tax could raise $1 trillion in 10 years.]

If I had a trillion dollars… I’d save the world….

All of the above really could be done for under $1 trillion. (Some of them would need to be repeated, so we could call it $1 trillion per year.)

I, of course, do not, and will almost certainly never have, anything approaching $1 trillion.

But here’s the thing: There are people who do.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos together have a staggering $350 billion. That’s two people with enough money to end world hunger. And don’t give me that old excuse that it’s not in cash: UNICEF gladly accepts donations in stock. They could, right now, give their stocks to UNICEF and thereby end world hunger. They are choosing not to do that. In fact, the goodwill generated by giving, say, half their stocks to UNICEF might actually result in enough people buying into their companies that their stock prices would rise enough to make up the difference—thus costing them literally nothing.

The total net wealth of all the world’s billionaires is a mind-boggling $12.7 trillion. That’s more than half a year of US GDP. Held by just over 2600 people—a small town.

The US government spends $4 trillion in a normal year—and $5 trillion the last couple of years due to the pandemic. Nearly $1 trillion of that is military spending, which could be cut in half and still be the highest in the world. After seeing how pathetic Russia’s army actually is in battle (they paint Zs on their tanks because apparently their IFF system is useless!), are we really still scared of them? Do we really need eleven carrier battle groups?

Yes, the total cost of mitigating climate change is probably in the tens of trillions—but the cost of not mitigating climate change could be over $100 trillion. And it’s not as if the world can’t come up with tens of trillions; we already do. World GDP is now over $100 trillion per year; just 2% of that for 10 years is $20 trillion.

Do these sound like good ideas to you? Would you want to do them? I think most people would want most of them. So now the question becomes: Why aren’t we doing them?

What I think “gentrification” ought to mean

pnrj public policy , , , , , , , ,

Mar7 JDN 2459281

A few years back I asked the question: “What is gentrification?”

The term evokes the notion of a gentry—a landed upper class who hoards wealth and keeps the rest of the population in penury and de facto servitude. Yet the usual meaning of the term really just seems to mean “rich people buying houses in poor areas”. Where did we get the idea that rich people buying houses in poor areas constitutes the formation of a landed gentry?

In that previous post I argued that the concept of “gentrification” as usually applied is not a useful one, and we should instead be focusing directly on the issues of poverty and housing affordability. I still think that’s right.

But it occurs to me that there is something “gentrification” could be used to mean, that would actually capture some of the original intended meaning. It doesn’t seem to be used this way often, but unlike the usual meaning, this one actually has some genuine connection with the original concept of a gentry.

Here goes: Gentrification is the purchasing of housing for the purpose of renting it out.

Why this definition in particular? Well, it actually does have an effect similar in direction (though hardly in magnitude) to the formation of a landed gentry: It concentrates land ownership and makes people into tenants instead of homeowners. It converts what should have been a one-time transfer of wealth from one owner to another into a permanent passive income stream that typically involves the poor indefinitely paying to the rich.

Because houses aren’t very fungible, the housing market is one of monopolistic competition: Each house is its own unique commodity, only partially substitutable with others, and this gives market power to the owners of houses. When it’s a permanent sale, that market power will be reflected in the price, but it will also effectively transfer to the new owner. When it’s a rental, that market power remains firmly in the hands of the landlord. The more a landlord owns, the more market power they can amass: A large landholding corporation like the Irvine Company can amass an enormous amount of market power, effectively monopolizing an entire city. (Now that feels like a landed gentry! Bend the knee before the great and noble House Irvine.)

Compare this to two other activities that are often called “gentrification”: Rich people buying houses in poor areas for the purpose of living in them, and developers building apartment buildings and renting them out.

When rich people buy houses for the purpose of living in them, they are not concentrating land ownership. They aren’t generating a passive income stream. They are simply doing the same thing that other people do—buying houses to live in them—but they have more money with which to do so. This is utterly unproblematic, and I think people need to stop complaining about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying a house because you want to live in it, and if it’s a really expensive house—like Jeff Bezos’ $165 million mansion—then the problem isn’t rich people buying houses, it’s the massive concentration of wealth that made anyone that rich in the first place. No one should be made to feel guilty for spending their own money on their own house. Every time “gentrification” is used to describe this process, it just makes it seem like “gentrification” is nothing to worry about—or maybe even something to celebrate.

What about developers who build apartments to rent them out? Aren’t they setting up a passive income stream from the poor to the rich? Don’t they have monopolistic market power? Yes, that’s all true. But they’re also doing something else that buying houses in order to rent them doesn’t: They are increasing the supply of housing.

What are the two most important factors determining the price of housing? The same two factors as anything else: Supply and demand. If prices are too high, the best way to fix that is to increase supply. Developers do that.

Conversely, buying up a house in order to rent it is actually reducing the supply of housing—or at least the supply of permanent owner-occupied housing. Whereas developers buy land that has less housing and build more housing on it, gentrifiers (as I’m defining them) buy housing that already exists and rent it out to others.

Indeed, it’s really not clear to me that rent is a thing that needs to exist. Obviously people need housing. And it certainly makes sense to have things like hotels for very short-term stays and dorms for students who are living in an area for a fixed number of years.

But it’s not clear to me that we really needed to have a system where people would own other people’s houses and charge them for the privilege of living in them. I think the best argument for it is a libertarian one: If people want to do that, why not let them?

Yet I think the downsides of renting are clear enough: People get evicted and displaced, and in many cases landlords consistently fail to provide the additional services that they are supposed to provide. (I wasn’t able to quickly find good statistics on how common it is for landlords to evade their responsibilities like this, but anecdotal evidence would suggest that it’s not uncommon.)

The clearest upside is that security deposits are generally cheaper than down payments, so it’s generally easier to rent a home than to buy one. But why does this have to be the case? Indeed, why do banks insist on such large down payments in the first place? It seems to be only social norms that set the rate of down payments; I’m not aware of any actual economic arguments for why a particular percentage of the home’s value needs to be paid in cash up front. It’s commonly thought that large down payments somehow reduce the risk of defaulting on a mortgage; but I’m not aware of much actual evidence of this. Here’s a theoretical model saying that down payments should matter, but it’s purely theoretical. Here’s an empirical paper showing that lower down payments are associated with higher interest rates—but it may be the higher interest rates that account for the higher defaults, not the lower down payments. There is also a selection bias, where buyers with worse credit get worse loan terms (which can be a self-fulfilling prophecy).

The best empirical work I could find on the subject was a HUD study suggesting that yes, lower down payments are associated with higher default risk—but their effect is much smaller than lots of other things. In particular, one percentage point of down payment was equivalent to about 5 points of credit score. So someone with a credit score of 750 and a down payment of 0% is no more likely to default than someone with a credit score of 650 and a down payment of 20%. Or, to use an example they specifically state in the paper: “For example, to have the same probability of default as a prime loan, a B or C [subprime] loan needs to have a CLTV [combined loan-to-value ratio] that is 11.9 percentage points lower than the CLTV of an otherwise identical prime loan.” A combined loan-to-value ratio 12 percentage points lower is essentially the same thing as a down payment that is 12 percentage points larger—and 12% of the median US home price of $300,000 is $36,000, not an amount of money most middle-class families can easily come up with.

I also found a quasi-experimental study showing that support from nonprofit housing organizations was much more effective at reducing default rates than higher down payments. So even if larger down payments do reduce defaults, there are better ways of doing so.

The biggest determinant of whether you will default on your mortgage is the obvious one: whether you have steady income large enough to afford the mortgage payment. Typically when people default it’s because their adjustable interest rate surged or they lost their job. When housing prices decline and you end up “underwater” (owing more than the house’s current price), strategic default can theoretically increase your wealth; but in fact it’s relatively rare to take advantage of this, because it’s devastating to your credit rating. Only about 20% of all mortgage defaults in the crisis were strategic—the other 80% were people who actually couldn’t afford to pay.

Another potential upside is that it may be easier to move from one place to another if you rent your home, since selling a home can take a considerable amount of time. But I think this benefit is overstated: Most home leases are 12 months long, while selling a house generally takes 60-90 days. So unless you are already near the end of your lease term when you decide to move, you may actually find that you could move faster if you sold your home than if you waited for your lease to end—and if you end your lease early, the penalties are often substantial. Your best-case scenario is a flat early termination fee; your worst-case scenario is being on the hook for all the remaining rent (at which point, why bother?). Some landlords instead require you to cover rent until a new tenant is found—which you may recognize as almost exactly equivalent to selling your own home.

I think the main reason that people rent instead of buying is simply that they can’t come up with a down payment. If it seems too heavy-handed or risky to simply cap down payments, how about we offer government-subsidized loans (or even grants!) to first-time home buyers to cover their down payments? This would be expensive, but no more so than the mortgage interest deduction—and far less regressive.

For now, we can continue to let people rent out homes. When developers do this, I think the benefits generally outweigh the harms: Above all, they are increasing the supply of housing. A case could be made for policies that incentivize the construction of condos rather than rentals, but above all, policy should be focusing on incentivizing construction.

However, when someone buys an existing house and then rents it out, they are doing something harmful. It probably shouldn’t be illegal, and in some cases there may be no good alternatives to simply letting people do it. But it’s a harmful activity nonetheless, and where legal enforcement is too strict, social stigma can be useful. And for that reason, I think it might actually be fair to call them gentrifiers.

Reasons to like Joe Biden

pnrj current events, public policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sep 6 JDN 2459099

Maybe it’s because I follow too many radical leftists on social media (this is at least a biased sample, no doubt), but I’ve seen an awful lot of posts basically making this argument: “Joe Biden is terrible, but we have to elect him, because Donald Trump is worse.”

And make no mistake: Whatever else you think about this election, the fact that Donald Trump is a fascist and Joe Biden is not is indeed a fully sufficient reason to vote for Biden. You shouldn’t need any more than that.

But in fact Joe Biden is not terrible. Yes, there are some things worth criticizing about his record and his platform—particularly with regard to civil liberties and war (both of those links are to my own posts making such criticisms of the Obama administration). I don’t want to sweep these significant flaws under the rug.

Yet, there are also a great many things that are good about Biden and his platform, and it’s worthwhile to talk about them. You shouldn’t feel like you are holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils; Biden is going to make a very good President.

First and foremost, there is his plan to invest in clean energy and combat climate change. For the first time in decades, we have a Presidential candidate who is explicitly pro-nuclear and has a detailed, realistic plan for achieving net-zero carbon emissions within a generation. We should have done this 30 years ago; but far better to start now than to wait even longer.

Then there is Biden’s plan for affordable housing. He wants to copy California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights at the federal level, fight redlining, expand Section 8, and nationalize the credit rating system. Above all, he wants to create a new First Down Payment Tax Credit that will provide first-time home buyers with $15,000 toward a down payment on a home. That is how you increase homeownership. The primary reason why people rent instead of owning is that they can’t afford the down payment.

Biden is also serious about LGBT rights, and wants to pass the Equality Act, which would finally make all discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity illegal at the federal level. He has plans to extend and aggressively enforce federal rules protecting people with disabilities. His plans for advancing racial equality seem to be thoroughly baked into all of his proposals, from small business funding to housing reform—likely part of why he’s so popular among Black voters.

His plan for education reform includes measures to equalize funding between rich and poor districts and between White and non-White districts.

Biden’s healthcare plan isn’t quite Medicare For All, but it’s actually remarkably close to that. He wants to provide a public healthcare option available to everyone, and also lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 instead of 65. This means that anyone who wants Medicare will be able to buy into it, and also sets a precedent of lowering the eligibility age—remember, all we really need to do to get Medicare For All is lower that age to 18. Moreover, it avoids forcing people off private insurance that they like, which is the main reason why Medicare For All still does not have majority support.

While many on the left have complained that Biden believes in “tough on crime”, his plan for criminal justice reform actually strikes a very good balance between maintaining low crime rates and reducing incarceration and police brutality. The focus is on crime prevention instead of punishment, and it includes the elimination of all federal use of privatized prisons.

Most people would give lip service to being against domestic violence, but Biden has a detailed plan for actually protecting survivors and punishing abusers—including ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment and ending the rape kit backlog. The latter is an utter no-brainer. If we need to, we can pull the money from just about any other form of law enforcement (okay, I guess not homicide); those rape kits need to be tested and those rapists need to be charged.

Biden also has a sensible plan for gun control, which is consistent with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent but still could provide substantial protections by reinstating the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring universal background checks, and adding other sensible restrictions on who can be licensed to own firearms. It won’t do much about handguns or crimes of passion, but it should at least reduce mass shootings.

Biden doesn’t want to implement free four-year college—then again, neither do I—but he does have a plan for free community college and vocational schooling.

He also has a very ambitious plan for campaign finance reform, including a Constitutional Amendment that would ban all private campaign donations. Honestly if anything the plan sounds too ambitious; I doubt we can really implement all of these things any time soon. But if even half of them get through, our democracy will be in much better shape.

His immigration policy, while far from truly open borders, would reverse Trump’s appalling child-separation policy, expand access to asylum, eliminate long-term detention in favor of a probation system, and streamline the path to citizenship.

Biden’s platform is the first one I’ve seen that gives detailed plans for foreign aid and international development projects; he is particularly focused on Latin America.

I’ve seen many on the left complain that Biden was partly responsible for the current bankruptcy system that makes it nearly impossible to discharge student loans; well, his current platform includes a series of reforms developed by Elizabeth Warren designed to reverse that.

I do think Biden is too hawkish on war and not serious enough about protecting civil liberties—and I said the same thing about Obama years ago. But Biden isn’t just better than Trump (almost anyone would be better than Trump); he’s actually a genuinely good candidate with a strong, progressive platform.

You should already have been voting for Biden anyway. But hopefully now you can actually do it with some enthusiasm.

The real cost of high rent

pnrj inequality, market failure , , , , , , , , ,

Jan 26 JDN 2458875

The average daily commute time in the United States is about 26 minutes each way—for a total of 52 minutes every weekday. Public transit commute times are substantially longer in most states than driving commute times: In California, the average driving commute is 28 minutes each way, while the average public transit commute is 51 minutes each way. Adding this up over 5 workdays per week, working 50 weeks per year, means that on average Americans spend over 216 hours each year commuting.

Median annual income in the US is about $33,000. Assuming about 2000 hours of work per year for a full-time job, that’s a wage of $16.50 per hour. This makes the total cost of commute time in the United States over $3500 per worker per year. Multiplied by a labor force of 205 million, this makes the total cost of commute time over $730 billion per year. That’s not even counting the additional carbon emissions and road fatalities. This is all pure waste. The optimal commute time is zero minutes; the closer we can get to that, the better. Telecommuting might finally make this a reality, at least for a large swath of workers. Already over 40% of US workers telecommute at least some of the time.

Let me remind you that it would cost about $200 billion per year to end world hunger. We could end world hunger three times over with the effort we currently waste in commute time.

Where is this cost coming from? Why are commutes so long? The answer is obvious: The rent is too damn high. People have long commutes because they can’t afford to live closer to where they work.

Almost half of all renter households in the US pay more than 30% of their income in rent—and 25% pay more than half of their income. The average household rent in the US is over $1400 per month, almost $17,000 per year—more than the per-capita GDP of China.

Not that buying a home solves the problem: In many US cities the price-to-rent ratio of homes is over 20 to 1, and in Manhattan and San Francisco it’s as high as 50 to 1. If you already bought your home years ago, this is great for you; for the rest of us, not so much. Interestingly, high rents seem to correlate with higher price-to-rent ratios, so it seems like purchase prices are responding even more to whatever economic pressure is driving up rents.

Overall about a third of all US consumer spending is on housing; out of our total consumption spending of $13 trillion, this means we are spending over $4 trillion per year on housing, about the GDP of Germany. Of course, some of this is actually worth spending: Housing costs a lot to build, and provides many valuable benefits.

What should we be spending on housing, if the housing market were competitive and efficient?

I think Chicago’s housing market looks fairly healthy. Homes there go for about $250,000, with prices that are relatively stable; and the price-to-rent ratio is about 20 to 1. Chicago is a large city with a population density of about 6,000 people per square kilometer, so it’s not as if I’m using a tiny rural town as my comparison. If the entire population of the United States were concentrated at the same density as the city of Chicago, we’d all fit in only 55,000 square kilometers—less than the area of West Virginia.
Compare this to the median housing price in California ($550,000), New York ($330,000), or Washington, D.C. ($630,000). There are metro areas with housing prices far above even this: In San Jose the median home price is $1.1 million. I find it very hard to believe that it is literally four times as hard to build homes in San Jose as it is in Chicago. Something is distorting that price—maybe it’s over-regulation, maybe it’s monopoly power, maybe it’s speculation—I’m not sure what exactly, but there’s definitely something out of whack here.

This suggests that a more efficient housing market would probably cut prices in California by 50% and prices in New York by 25%. Since about 40% of all spending in California is on housing, this price change would effectively free up 20% of California’s GDP—and 20% of $3 trillion is $600 billion per year. The additional 8% of New York’s GDP gets us another $130 billion, and we’re already at that $730 billion I calculated for the total cost of commuting, only considering New York and California alone.

This means that the total amount of waste—including both time and money—due to housing being too expensive probably exceeds $1.5 trillion per year. This is an enormous sum of money: We’re spending an Australia here. We could just about pay for a single-payer healthcare system with this.

Why will no one listen to economists on rent control?

pnrj current events, inequality, market failure, public policy , , , , , , , ,

Sep 22 JDN 2458750

I am on the verge of planting my face into my desk, because California just implemented a statewide program of rent control. I understand the good intentions here; it is absolutely the case that housing in California is too expensive. There are castles in Spain cheaper than condos in California. But this is not the right solution. Indeed, it will almost certainly make the problem worse. Maybe housing prices won’t be too high; instead there simply won’t be enough homes and more people will live on the street. (It’s not a coincidence that the Bay Area has both some of the world’s tightest housing regulations and one of the highest rates of homelessness.)

There is some evidence that rent control can help keep tenants in their homes—but at the cost of reducing the overall housing supply. Most of the benefits of rent control actually fall upon the upper-middle-class, not the poor.

Price controls are in general a terrible way of intervening in the economy. Price controls are basically what destroyed Venezuela. In this case the ECON 101 argument is right: Put a cap on the price of something, and you will create a shortage of that thing. Always.

California makes this worse by including all sorts of additional regulations on housing construction. Some regulations are necessary—homes need to be safe to live in—but did we really need a “right to sunlight”? How important is “the feel of the city” compared to homelessness? Not every building needs its own parking! (That, at least, the state government seems to be beginning to understand.) And yes, we should be investing heavily in solar power, and rooftops are a decent place to put those solar panels; but you should be subsidizing solar panels, not mandating them and thereby adding the cost of solar panels to the price of every new building.

Of course, we can’t simply do nothing; we need to fix this housing crisis. But there are much better ways of doing so. Again the answer is to subsidize rather than regulate.

Here are some policy options for making housing more affordable:

  1. Give every person below a certain income threshold a one-time cash payment to help them pay for a down payment or first month’s rent. Gradually phase out the payment as their income increases in the same way as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  2. Provide a subsidy for new housing construction, with larger subsidies for buildings with smaller, more affordable apartments.
  3. Directly pay for the construction of new public housing.
  4. Relax zoning regulations to make construction less expensive.
  5. Redistribute income from the rich to the poor using progressive taxes and transfer payments. Housing crises are always and everywhere a problem of inequality.

Some of these would cost money, yes; we would probably need to raise taxes to pay for them. But rent control has costs too. We are already paying these costs, but instead of paying them in the form of taxes that can be concentrated on the rich, we pay them in the form of a housing crisis that hurts the poor most of all.

The weirdest thing about all this is that any economist would agree.

Economists can be a contentious bunch: It has been said that if you ask five economists a question, you’ll get five answers—six if one is from Harvard. Yet the consensus among economists against rent control is absolutely overwhelming. Analyses of journal articles and polls of eminent economists suggest that over 90% of economists, regardless of their other views or their political leanings, agree that rent control is a bad idea.

This is a staggering result: There are economists who think that almost all taxes and regulations are fundamentally evil and should all be removed, and economists who think that we need radical, immediate government intervention to prevent a global climate catastrophe. But they all agree that rent control is a bad idea.

Economists differ in their views about legacy college admissions, corporate antitrust, wealth taxes, corporate social responsibility, equal pay for women, income taxes, ranked-choice voting, the distributional effects of monetary policy, the relation between health and economic growth, minimum wage, and healthcare spending. They disagree about whether Christmas is a good thing! But they all agree that rent control is a bad idea.

We’re not likely to ever get a consensus much better than this in any social science. The economic case against rent control is absolutely overwhelming. Why aren’t policymakers listening to us?

I really would like to know. It’s not that economists have ignored the problem of housing affordability. We have suggested a variety of other solutions that would obviously be better than rent control—in fact, I just did, earlier in this post. Many of them would require tax money, yes—do you want to fix this problem, or not?

Maybe that’s it: Maybe policymakers don’t really care about making housing affordable. If they did, they’d be willing to bear the cost of raising taxes on millionaires in order to build more apartments and keep people from being homeless. But they want to seem like they care about making housing affordable, because they know their constituents care. So they use a policy that seems to make housing more affordable, even though it doesn’t actually work, because that policy also doesn’t affect the government budget (at least not obviously or directly—of course it still does indirectly). They want the political support of the poor, who think this will help them; and they also want the political support of the rich, who refuse to pay a cent more in taxes.

But it really makes me wonder what we as economists are even really doing: If the evidence is this clear and the consensus is this overwhelming, and policymakers still ignore us—then why even bother?

Five Spanish castles cheaper than condos in California

pnrj inequality, public policy , , ,

July 21 JDN 2458686

1. Santa Coloma: A steal at 90,000 EUR ($100,000)

Area: 600 square meters (6500 square feet)

This one is so cheap that it can undercut even affordable condos, like this 1300 square foot one in Santa Ana for $200,000. Yes, it’s technically a castle ruin, but I’m sure it could be fixed up. And I could literally afford to buy it right now.

2. Cal Basaacs: 700,000 EUR ($780,000)

Area: 600 square meters (6500 square feet)

This castle is already more expensive than most houses in the US, but it’s still cheaper than this 1650 square foot $880,000 condo in Los Angeles. And this one isn’t a ruin; it’s a fully-functional castle. It even has central air conditioning!

3. Casa Palacio Cargadores a Indias: 1.4 M EUR ($1.6 M)

This 6-bedroom castle is also a fixer-upper, and without many listed specs or even a listed area, I’d be disinclined to buy it. But it is in a very nice beachside location, and it has a lot of history behind it. And it still makes it in under this 2400 square foot condo in Beverly Hills that’s going for $2.0 million.

4. Cáceres Extremadura: 1.6 M EUR ($1.8 M)

Area: 820 square meters (8800 square feet)

This is a lovely 7-bedroom castle with a guest house, and it’s in the historic region of Cáceres, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It even has its own pool. The only downside is that it’s a fixer-upper. But it’s still somehow cheaper than this $2.4 million 2150-square-foot condo in San Francisco.

5. Torremolinos: 1.8 M EUR ($2.0 M)

Area: 550 square meters (5900 square feet)

Though a bit smaller than the others, this 5-bedroom castle is fully renovated and ready to move in. If you’re looking for an income property, it is already licensed to be converted into a hotel. And it’s still a lot cheaper than this $3.2 million 2850-square-foot condo in Beverly Hills.

I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking maybe housing in California is too expensive?

Green New Deal Part 4: Guaranteeing employment and housing is very hard—but we should still try (public policy)

pnrj ethics, public policy , , , , ,

Apr 28 JDN 2458602

In previous posts I have talked about the “easy parts” of the Green New Deal (infrastructure, healthcare and education), as well as one of the “hard parts” (net-zero carbon emissions). But today it’s time for the “very hard parts”: guaranteed employment and housing.

“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

“Providing all people of the United States with – […] (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; […].

Let me start by giving you a sense of how difficult this is: No country on Earth has ever successfully guaranteed employment and housing. Even Scandinavia’s extensive social safety nets and active labor market programs are not sufficient to eliminate homelessness or unemployment (though they do dramatically reduce them).
The Soviet Union came close to guaranteed employment, but only as part of a labor system that was extremely inefficient and unproductive. Effectively, they guaranteed everyone a job by not even firing people who didn’t actually do the jobs they were given. This is clearly not a sustainable solution.
There are serious proposals on the table for a job guarantee program, but they are extremely ambitious.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a proposal that would add 9.7 million people to the federal workforce and cost over $500 billion per year to operate. For comparison, the current non-postal federal workforce is only 2.1 million. The postal service has about another 600,000. So we are talking about quintupling the federal workforce, at a cost comparable to the entire (bloated) military budget. That’s a huge number of people and a lot of money.
The basic idea of such a program is that we can (hopefully) find various forms of public service that need to be done, and pay people to do that public service at a certain minimum level of pay and benefits. These jobs would be available to anyone who wanted them, and any time you lost a private-sector job you could always take the guaranteed job. This would effectively create a floor on wages and benefits; any job that offered a worse deal than the government job would be competed out of existence.
I’ve written before about why I’m skeptical of such programs. If there is all this work that needs done, why aren’t we already doing it? If people have the skills they need to do this work, why is no one currently employing them?
Maybe there is a way to solve these problems. Maybe I’m underestimating the public goods that could be produced by people with low levels of skill. But at the very least we need to face up to the fact that it is a problem. We need to actually find work that it makes sense to guarantee—we can’t just wave our hands and say that “obviously” there is plenty of valuable work to be done that will happen to line up exactly with the skills of the people who are currently unemployed.
And then we need to think about the fact that we can’t really guarantee it, not the way the Soviet Union did. We do need to be able to fire people. We need to be able to fire them for not showing up to work, for being drunk at work, for sexually harassing co-workers, or simply for being incompetent. We need to be have some sort of policy in place for what happens to people who get fired: How long before they can get another guaranteed job? And being fired should hurt: It’s supposed to be an incentive to do your job correctly. We don’t need to punish laziness or incompetence with homelessness—but we do need to punish it with something.
Ultimately what I would like to see is not guaranteed jobs but guaranteed income: A basic income that everyone gets, no questions asked. And then I would hope that our norms about work would change, and people would stop defining themselves by their paid employment and start defining themselves by other things, like creating art, supporting their family, or contributing to their community.
What about guaranteed housing? On that front I am more optimistic.
Housing is quite expensive, particularly in major cities. But homelessness is also very expensive from a societal perspective. In the long run, free housing might actually pay for itself.
One of the most successful programs at reducing homelessness is called Housing First. Rather than going through the usual machinations of shelters and transitional housing, the program just takes people off the streets and gives them homes. Like a basic income, it sounds ludicrously simple; it’s the sort of thing a five-year-old would suggest. Surely it can’t be that easy?
Well, the results speak for themselves. Implementation of Housing First programs in several major US cities has resulted in reductions in homeless of over 30% and reductions in the social cost of homelessness of over 50%.

The current population of about 80,000 chronically homeless Americans each cost taxpayers about $40,000 per year in social costs, via emergency room visits, shelter maintenance, crime, court costs, and so on. This is about $3 billion per year. For that same amount of money—or potentially even less—we could have put all those people into homes.

There is an additional population of about 500,000 transient homeless—people who are homeless for a short period after an adverse life event (such as losing a job, having a divorce, or getting their mortgage foreclosed) but will find housing within a few weeks or months. Their situation is not as dire, and the costs they impose on society are not as large. But standard estimates are still generally over $10,000 per person per year—which, if given to them in cash, would probably be enough to get most of these people into homes.
So this is not a question of affordability: We are already paying these costs, but doing so in a way that doesn’t actually solve homelessness.
The real challenge is subtler than that: How do we make this fair and politically feasible?
When we’re talking about chronically homelessness, I think we can make a pretty strong case: These people are in a really bad way and they need our help. Since we’re already spending all this money anyway, we may as well spend it in a way that would actually help them.
But transient homelessness gets a bit more complicated. Many people who are transiently homeless are not all that poor. They may be college students, or recent divorcees, or failed entrepreneurs, or people who could afford a home but not the expensive home they actually tried to buy. Once they get back on their feet, they will probably go on to maintain a middle-class standard of living. So it really does seem unfair to just hand these people free homes that other people would not get.
And making housing in general completely free is simply a pipe dream. No country has ever even gotten close to that. Housing is such a huge part of a country’s expenditures that even a country like Denmark where the government is half the economy still can’t afford to put everyone in public housing.
I think what I would do instead is provide guaranteed subsidized loans—much as we do for student loans. These loans could be used to pay rent, to pay a mortgage, or even to make a down payment. They would be available to any adult US citizen, regardless of credit history, in relatively large amounts (the average down payment in the US is about $14,000, but as high as $50,000 is not unusual), at very low interest rates (I’d say aim for 0% real interest, so target the nominal interest rate to inflation) and very generous repayment terms (like student loans, you would never be required to pay more than a certain percentage of your adjusted gross income on the loan). If someone did try to avoid paying, their wages could be garnished or their taxes could be increased—this would make the default rates very low.
This policy would allow people who are temporarily homeless to get back into a home immediately, rather than having to wait until they can get more income—which can become a paradox as most employers will require a permanent address. But it wouldn’t be a free home; this policy would cost taxpayers next to nothing. The only costs would come from subsidizing interest rates and bearing defaults, which wouldn’t be more than about 5% of the outstanding balance—even if we loaned out as much as $100 billion, that still wouldn’t be more than what we’re currently losing in social costs of homelessness.
Had this policy been in place during the 2008 crash, people who lost their homes to foreclosure would have been able to immediately re-borrow and buy new homes. This would have blunted the financial crisis and maybe even done as much as the far more expensive stimulus package and quantitative easing programs.
These policies would not, unfortunately, eliminate unemployment and homelessness. Maybe that’s not even possible. But they would at least greatly reduce the harm caused by unemployment and homelessness, and that alone makes them worth doing.

How we can actually solve the housing shortage

pnrj current events, inequality, market failure, public policy , , , , , , ,

Sep 16 JDN 2458378

In previous posts I’ve talked about the housing crisis facing most of the world’s major cities. (Even many cities in Africa are now facing a housing crisis!) In this post, I’m going to look at the empirical data to see if we can find a way to solve this crisis.

Most of the answer, it turns out, is really not that complicated: Build more housing.

There is a little bit more to it than that, but only a little bit. The basic problem is simply that there are more households than there are houses to hold them.

One of the biggest hurdles to fixing the housing crisis comes ironically from the left, in resistance to so-called “gentrification”. Local resistance to new construction is one of the greatest obstacles to keeping housing affordable. State and federal regulations are generally quite sensible: No industrial waste near the playgrounds. It’s the local regulations that make new housing so difficult.

I can understand why people fight “gentrification”: They see new housing going in as housing prices increase, and naturally assume that new houses cause higher prices. But it’s really the other way around: High prices cause new construction, which brings prices down. By its nature, new housing is almost always more expensive than existing housing. Building new housing still brings down the overall price of housing, even when the new housing is expensive. Building luxury condos does make existing apartments more affordable—and not building anything most certainly does not.

California’s housing crisis is particularly severe: California has been building less than half the units needed to sustain its current population trend since the crash in 2008. It’s worst of all in the Bay Area, where 500,000 jobs were added since 2009—and only 50,000 homes. California also has a big problem with delays in the permit process: Typically it takes as long as three or four years between approval and actual breaking ground.

We are seeing this in Oakland currently: The government has approved an actually reasonable amount of housing for once (vastly more than what they usually do), and as a result they may have a chance at keeping Oakland affordable even as it grows its population and economy. And yet we still get serious journalists saying utter nonsense like “The building boom and resulting gentrification are squeezing the city’s most vulnerable.” Building booms don’t cause gentrification. Building booms are the best response to gentrification. When you say things like that, you sound to an economist like you’re saying “Pizza is so expensive; we need to stop people from making pizza!”

Homeowners who want to increase their property values may actually be rational—if incredibly selfish and monopolistic—in trying to block new construction. But activists who oppose “gentrification” need to stop shooting themselves in the foot by fighting the very same development that would have made housing cheaper.

The simplest thing we can do is make it easier to build housing. Streamline the permit process, provide subsidies, remove unnecessary regulations. Housing is one of the few markets where I can actually see a lot of unnecessary regulations. We don’t need to require parking; we should provide better public transit instead. And while requiring solar panels (as the whole state is now doing) sounds nice, it makes everything a lot more expensive—and by only requiring it on new housing, you are effectively saying you don’t want any new housing. I love solar panels, but what you should be doing is subsidizing solar panels, not requiring them. Does that cost the state budget more? Yes. Raise taxes on something else (a particularly good idea: electricity consumption) if you have to. But by mandating solar panels without any subsidies to support them, you are effectively putting a tax on new housing—which is exactly what California does not need.

It’s still a good idea to create incentives to build not simply housing, but affordable housing. There are ways to do this as well. Denver did an excellent job in creating an Affordable Housing Fund that they immediately spent in converting vacant apartments into affordable housing units.

There are also good reasons to try to fight foreign ownership of housing (and really, speculative ownership of housing in general). There is a strong correlation between current account deficits and housing appreciation, which makes sense if foreign investors are buying up our housing and making it more expensive. If Trump could actually reduce our trade deficit, that would drive down our current account deficit and quite likely make our housing more affordable. Of course, he has absolutely no idea how to do that.

Victor Duggan has a pretty good plan for lowering housing prices in Ireland which includes a land tax (as I’ve discussed previously) and a tax on foreign ownership of real estate. I disagree with him about the “Help-to-Buy” program, however; I actually think that was a fine idea, since the goal is not simply to keep housing cheap but to get people into houses. That wealth transfer is going to raise prices at the producer side—increasing production—but not at the consumer side—because people get compensated by the tax rebate. The net result should be more housing without more cost for buyers. You could have done the same thing by subsidizing construction, but I actually like the idea of putting the money directly in the pockets of homeowners. The tax incidence shouldn’t be much different in the long run, but it makes for a much more appealing and popular program.