Hacker News Reader

Comment by ricardobeat | Hacker News Reader

Why would housing become unaffordable if the state intervenes? The purpose is precisely to control affordability. Prices are controlled for social housing, and flexing supply allows you to influence the free market prices.

Supply is always less than demand in dense cities/countries, leaving it for the 'invisible hand' only ensures that the whole market is unaffordable and/or gentrified. Like what we are seeing in this news piece.

I don't know exactly how it works here in the Netherlands, but as far as I understand the government leases land to the constructors at its own pace, with strict quotas on social housing, to let vs to buy ratio, and free-market properties. It isn't perfect (massive bubble on the free market right now) but seems to work well enough.

View on HN

>It isn't perfect (massive bubble on the free market right now) but seems to work well enough.

No it doesn't. We have massive wait lists for social housing, and being middle class arguably leaves you in a worse state due to social housing eligibility only applying to very low incomes, and anyone with an office job close to the city will easily earn too much for social housing, but not enough for private norms. Meanwhile those with social housing are incentivized to stay as the costs are far lower than private, and the repercussions are lacking.

The problem has been obvious for decades, yet the government felt zero incentive to do anything when it was possible. To top it off, there's a general reluctance to build due to emission limits. And our government is actively bending over to the farmers making things even worse.

The Netherlands is the perfect example of what not to do when trying to intervene.

This is what I remember when I lived in Utrecht a decade ago. It would only work for a subset of people. People who would get on the list for public housing once they moved there for college. And in some cases delay getting married so that their combined income wouldn't go over the threshold...

Utrecht is probably the worst offender of all. Huge demand, but most notably huge demand from people willing to work for low wages. I've noticed employers in Utrecht being extreme cheapskates despite the way higher CoL compared to even its immediate surroundings, and being a hub city in the heart of the country, far more pushing for hybrid.

I don't expect it to change either. Too many students still under the impression earning 2.5k-3.5k gross out of college is "great", despite that exact salary putting them in the uncanny valley of renting (no social housing, not enough too entice landlords). Unless you left your student time with a partner to share, which has become increasingly more rare.

> Supply is always less than demand in dense cities/countries, leaving it for the 'invisible hand' only ensures that the whole market is unaffordable and/or gentrified

Is that the case in Detroit? I’d wager there’s substantially more supply than demand.

> It isn't perfect (massive bubble right now) but seems to work well enough.

If there’s a massive bubble then it seems like that system didn’t control prices.

> If there’s a massive bubble then it seems like that system didn’t control prices.

The bubble mostly affects new home buyers, which are the ones who need the least protection.

Rent is inflation-adjusted and can't be raised at will, so there is a very long delay between market prices increasing and most tenants actually bearing the cost. Everyone living in social housing still has a home, and won't be evicted so that another person can come in to pay 2x the rent. Seems pretty good to me.

I don't know much about Detroit but it seems to demonstrate that the simple supply-demand model does not reflect reality. Prices should have dropped significantly, but instead it followed the same curve as the rest of the USA, with those $500 properties being a localized phenomenon.

> The bubble mostly affects new home buyers, which are the ones who need the least protection.

So now you (or more generally the government) get to decide who is more deserving of appropriately priced housing? Why do new home buyers need less protection?

> Rent is inflation-adjusted and can't be raised at will, so there is a very long delay between market prices increasing and most tenants actually bearing the cost.

This is precisely the problem with this policy. When price doesn’t feed through to the market, the market can’t adjust. People simultaneously argue that the free market doesn’t work while endorsing policies that prevent the market from working.

> it seems to demonstrate that the simple supply-demand model does not reflect reality

The population dropped from its peak by 1.2mm people. Prices subsequently fell so much that it was possible to buy houses for $500. That’s exactly what the supply/demand model would predict.

Those $500 homes are not inhabitable. As someone who was in Detroit less than 24 hours ago, I can tell you I was surprised at how expensive the housing was. Not that it was close to Bay Area prices, but I was expecting to see places I liked for 300-400k. The reality is more like 600k for less than 2,000 square feet.

> The reality is more like 600k for less than 2,000 square feet.

"In June 2022, Detroit home prices were up 32.3% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $99K. On average, homes in Detroit sell after 27 days on the market compared to 23 days last year. There were 463 homes sold in June this year, down from 512 last year."

[0] https://www.redfin.com/city/5665/MI/Detroit/housing-market

You absolutely can get houses for 300-400K in Detroit. Where exactly were you looking at? Houses that you're describing are definitely possible in hot areas like Downtown and Downtown adjacent areas like Corktown, Indian Woods, and Midtown.

I was looking in those areas.

Agreed that you can find $300k houses (and cheaper). I was just surprised that the nicer areas were still pricy. I mean Indian Village, and the neighborhoods you mentioned, have some nice homes, but those neighborhoods feel like an oasis surrounded by areas that are dealing with very tough economic situations.

Again, I was just surprised at the price for places I liked. If I wanted to take a chance on a neighborhood that might turn around in the next few years I could find some deals (although a lot of those homes need a lot of work).

> Why would housing become unaffordable if the state intervenes? The purpose is precisely to control affordability.

Because intended purpose differs from actual outcome, and such regulation almost always creates different consequences.

Best intentions pave the road to hell.

> Prices are controlled for social housing, and flexing supply allows you to influence the free market prices.

When you control prices, you destroy investment in supply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com