I really hope we can find a way to make voters actually believe an abundant future is possible, and that it'll benefit them and their families.
It's the biggest difference I see in societies like China, there's this pervasive optimism about technology, progress and abundance (~700 million people have first hand experience). No idea if they can keep up the growth but we sure won't.
The bigger the housing crisis gets, the more people are going to change things on the state level instead of the local level.
This isn't a pendulum shifting event, it's a cascade, and that's why Abundance is doing so well, and that's why things are getting ugly on the left.
It won't be pretty I'm afraid; not much else we can do however.
Hopefully over time yimby can take hold in some pockets and gradually expand out from those strongholds.
The point is numbers of voters. There are more young voters now than older voters, this is why we are seeing things change at the state level. Now that many millennials are in there 40's with no real shot at home-ownership it's starting to freak people out. Which is why we will continue to see the YIMBY and Strong Towns movements, not just grow, but accelerate in growth.
Acceleration is great hope/source of optimism.
10 years later, the governor is a self-proclaimed YIMBY (even though he isn't), a book on YIMBYism is a national best seller, and nationally, folks are finally realizing that the reason why we're losing the working class on the left is because the left cares more about their own property values than about helping working folks. All the while, there is the parallel center-right focused Strong Towns organization that is making the exact same argument for the exact same movement in more conservative areas.
If that's not extreme acceleration I don't know what is.
No, it's not. The people who own houses pass them down to their kids. As people invading a neighborhood, YIMBYs may be new, but they are not that young. They are early middle-aged and wealthy. They are trying to move into elite neighborhoods and cities that they can't afford, not trying to avoid homelessness. That's not a crisis. All of them can afford property, just not the best property in the world, (not coincidentally) near the jobs that pay them the most.
The problem is normal-case housing affordability, not elites wanting to build high-rises. Normal housing affordability is ruined due to the asymmetry between resident homeowners as buyers and wealthy buyers. Wealthy buyers are trying to extract wealth from housing. Resident homeowners and renters are the extractees.
The YIMBY goal is to make somebody in e.g. SF refusing to sell, and/or refusing to allow the houses on the corner to be demolished and a high-rise put in, the enemy. I have no idea why YIMBYs think they are either more rational, more likeable, or more victimized than that homeowner. Maybe all of the self-praise.
>The people who own houses pass them down to their kids.
Pass them to one of their kids, who will likely be 65 or older when they inherit it. That leaves about 45 years where these kids will need to find housing.
>As people invading a neighborhood
That's an interesting way to say "moving somewhere for a job and to build a life."
>They are trying to move into elite neighborhoods and cities that they can't afford
Yea, this is absurd. People just want a decent place to live.
I agree with you re the need to convince modern western voters of an (actual) abundant future, but china seems like they're not doing so hot either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping
But right now they are in the acute/fallout phase of a massive economic disruption (the deleveraging of a highly indebted real estate sector, no less severe than the GFC, they overbuilt to a massive degree). No matter what folks are going to be struggling bad atm.
The trillion dollar question is what does this look like in ten years? It could go either way. A Japan style lost decade, or they manage to find and exploit new growth opportunities. I guess we'll see whether having pretty much the cheapest energy on the planet and impressive logistics allows them to get through this.
Do not discount the tremendous potential of electrification, and cheap renewable energy.
It is encouraging what we see with their EV boom, but a car industry alone cannot sustain a nation with declining population levels. China has sold so few technological innovations over the decades that I do not see them innovating their way out of this.
What the immigration argument overlooks is domestic migration, particularly urbanization. It's zero sum for sure and rural communities will be hollowed out but I think there's a real possibility that they'll be able to soak up much of the excess capacity in the coming decade.
Urbanization massively increases productivity, reduces infrastructure costs etc. There's a real economic beauty to scale. Downside it suppresses fertility even further.
Elder care will be a real nightmare though, but the Chinese elders are willing to accept far more modest conditions and outcomes than their western counterparts. Confucian values for better or worse really help here.
It could go either way at this point.
China prevents dissent through suppression, while the U.S. redirects it into endless debates that never challenge the underlying system.
As a capitalism enjoyer this is good for me, these systems only exist to waste the time of "idealists" and reactionaries. The hands off approach used to be better, but with more technology population control becomes much cheaper, and now all the wasted time from arguing about politics and political decisions becomes a real cost center for the US.