Or is the Fed trying to draw attention away from the catastrophic impact of its zero interest and other policies on the massive increase in asset prices?
I don't know that people are really aware of the scale of what is going on here. The big finance houses have essentially been handed over ownership and control to corner the whole housing market ... by the captured and corrupt government.
A cheaper manufactured home would of course be nice if looking at costs, but dropping it on a $1.5m acre lot isn’t going to change the math that much.
Post WWII there were an actual housing crisis in the USSR, and those block buildings helped a lot.
A couple things to try to contextualize this claim:
1. Institutional investors are purchasing single-family homes at a greater rate than they used to, but they account for a minority of all purchases: "During the first three months of this [2021], investors bought nearly 15% of U.S. homes, up from about 10% during the previous three quarters."
2. Their overall share of the market remains small: "Yet of the roughly 15 million single-family rental homes in the U.S., institutional investors own only about 2%, according to real estate consulting firm RCLCO."
Source: https://www.realtrends.com/articles/institutional-ownership-...
Las Vegas is a city mostly surrounded by public lands. New private parcels are no longer made available as lots appropriate for single family homes. They are carved onto neighborhood sized chunks, sold to developers directly, and locked into HOA's for all eternity.
Only the big boys that can tackle multi-million dollar bids can enrich themselves by the sale of our public lands.
Question was for a shred of evidence for any cause other than FED policies.
There it is an evidence, at least for Las Vegas.
Most interesting is it shows this is not a single variable issue.
There are lots of factors involved and they probably change across geographies.
For the average person, this makes the land and construction costs unobtainable for the average person, effectively creating a monopoly for the builders and the HOA organizations with deep pockets to bid.
The construction industry might be considered a cartel though if they coordinate behind the scenes.
In some areas, maybe more like ‘collection of competing cartels that hate each other’.
Housing prices are sky rocketing and if you want a new one built you practically HAVE to do it through them unless you’re in the upper 10% of wealth.
I call that an unfair advantage at the very least. Based on what they’re saying about Las Vegas, it sounds like a similar arrangement has developed in their zoning and development contracts for their suburbia.
Even if there are 1000 bidding players… that’s 1000 people out of the millions living in Las Vegas. Seems pretty unfair no matter how you spin it. There was a time people just bought land and built a house themselves. That time has largely passed.
Only the big-boys that can tackle multi-million dollar bids and rental building development projects can enrich themselves by the upzoning of our existing neighborhoods, locking residents into a permanent rental class for all eternity.
Condos at least build some equity that you can recover when you sell. Sure there are some risks and maintenance costs that renters don't "pay" but it's all included in the rent, over time.
That equity is only monthly payment - debt, taxes. So the real difference is that you can invest X in your property or X-owner's profit in the investment of your choice.
With a condo, several entities are jointly responsible. If you don't like it, you can sue.
I would rather deal with a landlord than a Surfside Tower like incident.
They’re going to turn it into rentals, and do their best to maximize rent for each unit.
End result is paying an obscene monthly rent for ever-shrinking square footage, while anyone being paid below a living wage sits in the 20+-year-long queue for employer-subsidizing “affordable” apartments.
The actual data is very clear on this (FRED), despite the word of mouth "shortage" narrative.
Now that the narrative is turning, inventory is skyrocketing as you would expect, and we will be in a glut within 6 months. Look at the "all time low inventory" of the 2000s as another example. How quickly did the inventory narrative collapse back then? A few months
Show me the stats for housing units per household. Hint, it's the same as the year 2000 and in line with historically normal levels. 1.1 housing units per household
Show me the stat for rate of construction relative to population growth. Hint, it's at an all time high.
Show me the demographic trends? Hint, it's towards flat or negative population growth, with most boomers dying over the next 10y, and each successive generation being smaller than the last.
Where are your stats? Inventory, which has nothing to do with actual supply? What happened after the generationally low inventory of the 2000s?
Anyone holding to that peg as confirmation of anything is in for a rude awakening
The relevant stats are people reaching FTHB age (roughly 25-35), minus deaths, plus new construction. And that picture looks pretty bleak:
https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/u...
There are about 45M Americans ages 25-35. There are about 21-22M Americans in peak die-off age (75+). There are about 1.2M annual housing starts:
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf
Sure, by 2035 or so, when baby boomers reach peak die-off age, we're going to have a housing bust. But over the next decade? Most Millennials are screwed, and it doesn't get better until today's middle-schoolers come of age.
Household growth was flat prepandemic https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH
The likely explanation for current RE market is households temporarily expanded due to the various stimulus and forbearances giving many higher disposable income, but we'll likely see this contract again as the effect of inflation takes hold.
(Expanding/contracting can be through roommates splitting/joining, kids moving out etc).
Housing is fungible. Rental units draw from buy demand and vice versa. Substitutable goods work this way on a macro scale.
The millenials who buy, move out of rentals, which drives rents down (or less growth), increasing the spread between carrying cost to rent/own. There's a limit to how far this spread can widen nationally. You can't look at these markets independently.
Number of households show the actual number of housing units demanded, everything else is an input to number of households.
If the question is "Can I maintain the same standard of living as I grew up with?" or "Can I form a family?" or "What are housing prices going to do now?", this isn't an interesting statistic. The number you want to know is "How many people would like to form households but can't because there are no houses to be had?" And that's what I'm citing with the demographic numbers. If there are twice as many people desiring houses as houses available for them, only half the population is going to get a home, and the price that the median home sells for will be what the 75th percentile of the income distribution can support.
To extrapolate out permanent conclusions from a point in time inventory metric is completely flawed analysis.
I'll refer you to the generationally low inventory in the 2000s, coupled with similar widespread shortage narratives. It won't end via the same mechanism, but each bubble is unique.
Inventory will continue to rapidly increase as rates stay over 5%
And again, rate of construction relative to population growth is at an all time high. Every narrative around a supply shortage focused on inventory is clearly and obviously flawed/wrong
The simplistic view is that residences are either rented out or occupied by the owner. In reality a speculative boom creates excessive demand which increases the number of residences that are second homes, Airbnb's, undergoing renovation, on the market, land-banked, etc. Most of this is made possible as capital gains become more significant relative to yields.
It's counterintuitive but a speculative boom can lead to both higher prices and a higher proportion of underutilised residences.
I still have not seen a convincing response to the demographic argument I put forth. The generation entering the housing market now is the large Millennial generation; the generation dying is the small Silent generation. For everyone who wants a house to get one, we need to be building the delta in size between these, and we're short by several million.
Well, implicit in this argument is that a non-trivial percentage of the Millennial generation is actually able to enter this market. Is that actually true? I'm not really convinced that is it, as there's been a lot of chatter about this generation putting off important life milestones like family formation, which would precipitate home buying. To be fair, and to potentially anticipate the counter argument, when the boomers were at this same stage in their life interest rates were much higher. But ... family formation was a much stronger cultural imperative at that time. It very much is not so today.
>For everyone who wants a house to get one, we need to be building the delta in size between these, and we're short by several million.
I agree with this, but for philosophical reasons and not structural ones. If I'm some jerkoff investor, trying to maximize profits, yeah I'd only build high rise lux condos and squeeeeeze that yield because, let's be honest, building family homes doesn't really do that.
The number of households is significantly constrained by the supply of housing units, so that seems like a less relevant number.
Looking just at the past two years ignores them past 14 years since the 2008 crisis, from which housing construction is just barely beginning to recover. And houses under construction is not completed house construction rate; each individual build is taking far longer because of supply chain issues, so it looks like there are far more houses in the pipeline, but there isn't actually an oversupply of housing by any means.
If there was an oversupply, we'd see flatter prices, or maybe even declines. Housing prices are quite sticky, but we aren't seeing either massive vacancy rates or falling prices.
There is an element of changing preferences, but city centers also up greatly in price. Can't be the whole story
You can tie LCOL price increases to them. But if that's the case, you would expect HCOL/central places to decline in price via the flip side of the same effect. Yet instead we see massive price increase in LCOL and smaller yet still big price increases in central/HCOL.
Obviously a many variable system, but stating that remote work should lead to a national 20% increase in prices is nonsensical
In 2008 we found out there was a massive housing bubble.
https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2022/3/29/50377332-1...
On mobile now, but you can confirm the stats on FRED
The person posting that graph has a bridge to sell
Ergo building in FL or TX can reduce prices in CA. Why do you think the northeast and CA are losing population?
Aside from the snark, I'll make it clear. If you have 100 people and even just 5 of them prioritize LCOL to their current locale, those 5 moving away will reduce demand for the area, regardless if the other 95 would never move to Gary, IN in a million years. Housing is not a closed system, and building nice developments in Raleigh or Denver will take population from higher COL places in the aggregate. Which is exactly why we see population loss in HCOL areas.
Very small brained thinking in the residential real estate world unfortunately.
Nationwide stats hide a lot of regional realities.
People have basically come to understanding that house prices only go up, they use exotic financing and stupid leverage (BRRR method) to keep buying "assets" and jacking up their rental yield which then re-prices the asset so they can take an even bigger loan to buy more "assets".
Recently someone in the group asked how they could afford a house in Seattle and most answers resonated around buying houses in midwest/lcol areas and jacking up rent/renovating to take out further financing and keep buying properties till you can afford to buy a house in the hcol area.
This has to end, with FED inflicting pain on the stupid leveraged folks.
Homes should be for people to live in, not to purely speculate and grow their money.
Wait, if those speculating investors have “rental yield” then doesn’t that imply people are living in those homes?
Housing can’t both be a good investment and be affordable.
You can't make economic decisions on the basis that real estate will always grow more than income or even real gdp forever. Which is what these group of investors are doing.
This gets repeated a ton, but isn’t true unless you assume density never increases.
Buying a SFH and replacing it with a 4-plex would be profitable in almost every market — were it allowed, which it almost never is in the US. In that alternate universe, the SFH owner makes money, the developer makes money, and the new units in the new building can be affordable.
American new construction has doubled in size (in terms of sqft/unit) over the past 50 years. If “oppressively small” were the problem, things should have gotten better, not worse?
The demand you’re talking about in the SF Bay Area is not necessarily driven by ‘butts in seats’ (aka actual people needing a roof and willing to pay a concrete price for it), but also by the cheap money narrative the FED has been feeding for a very long time. Which is what they are referring to in their post as having changed.
I’m not sure why so many people believe that housing prices in high-demand markets are dominated by things like interest rates — there is certainly an effect, sure — but by far the predmoinant reason a 2br house on a small lot with a small yard costs $2m+ in Palo Alto is that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of well-off workers for nearby tech companies who would like to live there, there is not enough housing to go around, and $2m is the market clearing price.
The idea that the “demand” is being “driven” by some “cheap money narrative” is missing the forest for the trees. Low interest rates might be why that house is $2m and not $1.8m. But the narrative is definitely not the reason the median home price across the Bay Area is many multiples higher than the national average of $350k.
That’s pure supply and demand.
Secondly, the Bay Area is one of the markets subject to some of the more severe headwinds if remote work becomes the new normal, for the reasons you stated.
SF population declined ~7% over the past two years. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-populat...
The concept of being forced to live in a hyper local area for work may be a thing of the past, which doesn't bode well for employment driven locales. NYC being another example.
Bay area is one of the last places in the country I'd want to own a home right now
I don't know much about SF as I haven't lived there as an adult, but New York is an incredible place to live for lifestyle reasons too.
It has great food, a very high concentration of smart and highly educated people, great museums, great performance arts, etc. It's also an incredibly walkable city, which is rare in the US.
Hands down it would be my choice of city if I was a remote worker.
It's subject to debate which locales would stand to net gain/lose from WFH, but I'd pick NYC as a net loser. You gain some who enjoy the city life and amenities, but you lose more to lower COL locales.
Price will always be a factor weighed alongside amenities, even if one area is objectively nicer from an amenities perspective
Everything else pales compared to NYC.
This is far from an universal view - I live there (well, East Bay) and I think the weather isn't that great: too cold in summer, no nice evenings, never nice to hang out by the water. And I like cold winters as a contrast.
October to December are nicer though.
If demand plummets, of course prices will follow.
That’s the point folks are trying to make.
It doesn’t just magically appear.
It’s not driven by Fed policies around interest rates. It’s not driven by speculation.
It’s driven by people wanting to own homes. Period. The other factors are small.
That doesn’t create real demand on it’s own (as in anything that will impact a market). As any experienced realtor will tell you, every house is always ‘in demand’ by a near infinite amount of people that can’t afford it.
They have to be able to do something about that desire in a concrete way - high salaries count of course, but it’s always modulated by interest rates unless they are buying cash outright. Then it’s usually moderated less directly by other things they can be doing with that cash that are more interesting, and relative rents in the area.
But if it was "interest rates" driving everything -- then every area would be very expensive, not just the areas where there are high salaries and lots of inflow and basically zero new construction.
The Bay Area population grew 7.4% from 2010 to 2020 -- that's 614,901 residents according to census. New construction in that same time period was under 200,000 units.
So: where are all those people living? Many of them are living with roommates, etc., and because of the scarcity of housing, having your own place has become a luxury that costs extra money. If 600k people are complying for 200k units, prices will go up regardless of what interest rates do. Then, salaries rise in response where they can, because tech companies need to pay enough for people to be able to move here (always more expensive, thanks to rent control and Prop. 13, than already living here) -- which then pushes home prices even higher, because there still isn't enough housing to go around, and the 30% of people who can bid the most are the ones who clear the market. (And then, of course, everyone else who isn't pulling in tech salaries is just shut out of the market.)
Interest rates matter on the margin, yes, of course -- but the cost of capital is still low compared with availability. A couple making $400k combined is going to be able to bid more on a house at 3% interest than at 5% interest, but the only reason they're bidding so much at all is that there aren't enough homes to go around and they want one.
This tracks prices nationwide [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA]
Everything else you’re talking about is from side effects.
But not every area is very expensive.
The fact that a house in SF that costs $2m would go for $500k elsewhere is not a result of federal monetary policy, and it is not a result of construction costs. It is a result of supply and demand.
If the house in the sticks is $500k and the ‘same’ house is $2m in SF, my point is that without the fed pump, that house in the sticks may be $200k, and the house in SF $800k.
Mortgage rates have been dropping pretty consistently since the late 80s but price growth isn’t super consistent: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US
Money was super cheap 2008-2013 too but prices were down on that period.
They had started to raise rates in late ‘06 and ‘07, which ‘pulled the string’ and led to the explosion. (The tide went out, and it turns out a great many people were swimming naked, to abuse a Buffett quote).
[https://images.app.goo.gl/RXGY22drR2pfCXX68]
Real estate is highly illiquid and often highly leveraged. It often takes years for market changes to be visible in the data, and sometimes pricing signals get hidden entirely in many markets (you’ll see a backlog that can be years long, but no price drops - just no sales).
It’s also market dependent, but influenced by the larger market (so think of each specific market as a ship, floating on the overall tide which is ‘cost of money/debt’).
Agents tend to always be selling, and tend to hide bad numbers. The Economists working for realtors are especially bad for this.
Sellers tend to not want to admit they’re desperate, and can often hold out for years. Buyers always complain that things aren’t cheap enough, but
It makes for noisy data and sudden surprises.
The short sale I bought in ‘09 for instance, closed for 50% less than the initial offer AT THE BANKS INSISTENCE because of steady shifts in underwriting and appraisal standards in the approx. 5 months it took to close. It took another 6 months before that price signal got disclosed publicly.
Still, since we're talking about "solving the housing crisis", it's not clear how raising rates to reduce pricing solves anything, since this argument is somewhat circular: prices drop only because people can afford less, and if people can afford less, that price drop doesn't actually make housing any more affordable?
Again, am I missing something? If not I stand by my original "there's not enough supply to meet demand" observation and that "increase supply" might be an actual solution.
1) building more units/houses does increase capacity, of course. But unless capacity in a location exceeds the population of residents AND everyone who would want to move there (doesn’t happen in a desirable place), ‘empty’ units will be rare. That is assuming price based backpressure doesn’t exist of course.
It’s a bit like the freeway capacity fallacy. Adding more lanes to a freeway, until you exceed the capacity of anyone who would ever want or be able to use it, just makes traffic worse, as it becomes a more and more known artery and additional businesses/people start using it, which increases traffic.
NYC housing prices are still astronomical, for instance, despite them being on a housing building binge for at least a century.
2) since a ‘limited’ (non infinite supply, supply < available demand) housing location will generally have more than 1 person interested in every house for sale, and will always have a point where housing costs money, the gating factor for if someone wins a pricing competition for a house is their ability to pay more than everyone else.
That means more leverage allows people to push prices higher.
It isn’t just interest rates of course - underwriting standards play a part too. Someone who can’t document employment history can’t get a mortgage, for instance.
If you consider the ability to leverage a force multiplier - say 30x for someone who can get a 30 year loan, but It’s actually more, depending on downpayment requirements - then those able to use the leverage will outcompete those who can’t.
those who can’t meet underwriting have a leverage factor of 1x - they can only offer the cash they have on hand. No leverage.
If we wanted to make housing more affordable (but didn’t mind throwing the US and world economy into a black hole), we could for instance make it illegal to issue mortgages. Then as long as you could save money, even if you were a drug dealer with no documented income, you’d be one the same playing field as someone with the high tech salary. You might lose still of course.
When people had to pay cash for a house, the typical house was around 1-3x the typical personal yearly income at the time. The reality is that a ton of people still rented and were homeless though, but that is a different discussion.
As to why this means ‘cheap money’ vs ‘expensive money’ means there is a good/bad affordability impact, even when the funds rate should (in theory) just change some multipliers in a calculation, but not if someone can actually buy or not.
The part you’re missing is speculation, time, and cycles, which hasn’t come up yet.
When money is cheap, underwriting gets looser (but not loose! No one is writing a mortgage for someone homeless, even at the top of the boom without going to jail.). They do this because the loan originators need to compete for buyers.
When prices of an asset go up, and money is cheaper, there is an initial lag - people don’t think of the asset as a ‘sure thing’ because it hasn’t been growing year over year yet. They won’t lever as high. Underwriting standards are often still tight. They’ll be conservative.
This is when things tend to be more affordable/in reach.
If someone is stretching to pay at 15% interest, historically interest is lower than that too. So when rates drop, they can upgrade, and prices go up, so they get money off it too. They can get a bigger and better place. Or move somewhere nicer.
This starts raising prices, but it takes time.
As this starts happening, underwriting standards start loosening. After all, if prices have done nothing but go up the last 10 years, of course they’ll keep going up, right?
As prices show this upward trend, everyone starts speculating too. If money is still cheap and getting cheaper, they can use leverage effectively too. Why buy one house, when you can buy two after all? Especially when prices keep going up. You don’t want to miss out.
Some folks also start doing things like NOT selling that first starter home, and still buying the second home. And renting out the first one. They were able to refinance the first home at the lower rate after all, and are making more at work, so why not?
This decreases supply of for sale houses of course.
As things get hotter and hotter, the amount of leverage goes up. This prices out more and more people in the market, aka folks with less money and less ability to meet underwriting.
It doesn’t decrease demand though - there are more risk takers buying more, as they continue to escalate as they see their asset valuations ballon.
People start doing their forward projections using the last few years numbers, and holy moly. Let’s double down, we’ll get even richer!
Houses for sale get richer and richer offers, with fewer contingencies, all to beat the other guy and actually close the deal.
At some point though, something happens. It literally can’t go up forever, with ever increasing profits.
When that happens, folks start recalculating their projections using new numbers. Numbers that don’t show exponential forward growth.
And that often means all the deals that were happening only because people DID project that growth become untenable.
But sellers don’t give up that easily, and since they’re still cash flush and they’ll be rich if they can sell at the price they expect, they hold on as long as they can.
Which adds potentially years of ‘stuck’ prices. Depending on how wealthy the area is, it can be held up for 3-5 years, with zero volume closing, but lots of listings.
Poorer neighborhoods it’s usually much faster.
As things sell at less astronomical prices, that is a dip in the curve. If it’s short lived, it won’t change much.
But people after awhile start revising their projections. And a lot of deals stop making sense after that - for people and investors. When someone is going to stretch and be ‘house poor’ when prices are going up, they are very uninterested in doing that when prices are dropping. After all, they’re locked into that mortgage for 30 years, and can only refinance if interest rates are lower.
That pushes demand down a lot.
As mortgages written when money was cheap have issues (due to lax underwriting), and as dealflow shrinks due to overall shrinking number of actually closing deals, underwriting standards tend to tighten too, making it worse for new mortgages, and decreasing available leverage.
This takes years to play out however. ‘07-‘09 were strong contraction years, for instance.
Sellers start being interested in folks who aren’t levered so high (their deals will close). They might entertain contingencies, because they have to. They’ll have to drop the price, not sell, or be repossessed and have the bank take the loss.
All of these are great for sane people who can avoid being taken advantage of.
More supply from existing stock comes on the market, as it’s untenable to just keep it off hoping for gains. People who were previously making crazy living situations work stop doing so, moving people to less dense living arrangements.
Jobs start shifting around too, often to lower cost of living areas, as markets cool and it’s less worthwhile sticking it out in an overheated area.
I’d pick the Bay Area over anywhere else in the US, with or without remote. Judging by real estate prices after remote took off (ignoring condos) I’m guessing a lot of others feel the same way.
And if resale value then where will you live when you sell?
The amount that can be loaned/supported by a given income, and hence a lot of underwriting standards, are based indirectly on the cost to service the loan relative to the income the person has.
The lower the interest rate; the bigger the loan someone can get if they shop around for the same income and assets.
This isn’t perfectly linear, as principal payments vs interest payments have different ratios based on interest rates, but it very much applies.
The market clearing price is also driven by these things.
But let’s be clear: the primary driver of sky-high prices in the Bay Area is (1) people moving here, getting well-paying tech jobs, and wanting to buy housing, and (2) not nearly enough new construction to meet that demand.
See the Case-Schiller index [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA]
Changes in interest rates will be quite visible there, unless millions of people get ‘snapped’ and their houses remain intact anyway.
The most recent lull in prices correlated with a lull in rates, which kind of goes against your overall point of higher rates pushing prices down because the cost of capital increases? But maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
Or more specifically, whether it's a shortage of reasonably available units vs. a shortage of existing units.
Not in my area. Where I live, there are about 4 or 5 housing developments, and every time I drive by them, I never see any progress. Occasionally I may see one truck and maybe 3 or 4 people working, but most of the time, I see no one. In the year I've lived here, I have notices zero progress on all new construction that I know of.
Interest rate policy is not singularly to blame for the housing crisis, just as it wasn't in 2008.
The issue in 2008 was lack of internal enforcement at banks or by federal regulators of interest rate products.
In the case facing us today it is less to do with Fed policy, more to do with land use policies that have made housing construction literally illegal.
How did you quantify "less"? Low Fed rate made mortgage body 60-70% cheaper, hence prices are higher.
1. interest rates rise
2. peoples' stock porfolios have tanked
What about it do you find unconvincing?
The paper essentially argues that construction costs can be lowered significantly using factory production methods, especially for small-modular homes. I have no problem with that part. The title has no basis in the paper, though.
It is unrelated to the massive increase in housing (and other asset) prices in recent years which are the cause of the current housing crisis.
Houses are already as close to factory-built as is possible to do with today's tastes. Everything is pre-engineered and merely assembled on site.
Elsewhere here I asked why factory-built housing doesn't seem to be popular world-wide, which is what you would expect if it's only US Federal policy which prevents it from being popular in the US.
I'll add that I saw no discussion of how local housing policies were designed to prevent "Large numbers of low-income, city residents [from moving] to these areas", in order to keep property values high. Or the classism that caused people to look down on mobile homes.
The author rhetorically asks "But what stops public transportation from expanding upon the arrival of new residents?", when I've heard so many New Urbanist videos answering that question.
I didn't understand how "a uniform building code across the country would be a great benefit to factory producers" is a meaningful goal, given that the needs for Florida, Arizona, and Alaska are quite different, making me question his understanding.
I read "There is a literature that asks why the poor live in cities." and counter with the observation that the poverty rate is higher in rural areas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_poverty#Rural_versus_Urb... says "rural poverty rates are higher and more persistent than in urban areas, rural workers are disadvantaged by lower wages and less access to better paying labor markets" - note that housing prices aren't part of it.
And I didn't see mention that "stick housing" has moved towards factory methods. As https://priceonomics.com/in-defense-of-mobile-homes/ points out:
> Windows, doors, and other parts arrive prefabricated, Rybczynski writes, so labor costs have actually halved since 1949. Levitt and Sons spent $4 to $5 per square foot building Levittowners, and, adjusted for inflation, builders today spend the same amount.
> Instead the problem is almost wholly that land is too expensive. Reduce the size of a new, modern house by 50%, Rybczynski notes, and houses in metropolitan areas will still cost over $200,000.
> That’s the secret to the extreme affordability of a mobile home—take land out of the equation.
We aren't really using "traditional methods" - engineered wood is not traditional and is very common. "As of 2005, approximately half of all wood light framed floors were framed using I-joists" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_wood#Beams . These were made in a factory, and not "on-site" as the author describes the house-building process.
For people always referencing Tokyo -- why aren't you living in Tokyo then?
The idea I think you are assuming is that supply causes demand (i.e. demand will always rise to meet supply), and that the supply-demand curve is flat to maintain price regardless of supply.
It may not be physically possible for the entire world to live in NYC, but we surely could double in population without breaking any real physical constraints. Besides the political constraints that make it absurdly expensive (in time, capital and social power) to build for more growth.
I'm sure you could also house a few extra people in need in your living room!