I just couldn't keep reading with the constant "antitrust left" being refered to on every sentence.
The issue, is that for me, the reader, it framed the piece as the author seemingly positioning themselves as the "the other side", the one that knows best and isn't those "antitrust left". It felt like it was creating a strawman and was engaging in tribal signaling.
And when you consider the rest of the piece was them claiming they called the sources, and that the sources said that the "antitrust left" had misquoted them and misrepresented their findings, but the author somehow is this unbiased truth, and definitely really for real called the the sources and didn't at all misconstrue or anything, no they wouldn't do that, unlike the "antitrust left".
Excessive regulation is 90% of it.
Here's how a rational market works. If I build an apartment complex, eventually those apartments will get older and more affordable. And even before that upper middle class folks will move in, freeing up their previous homes.
But that's not how many in local governments see it. So you have affordable housing quotas on new developments.
You have developers building units for the homeless at 600k each. https://abc7news.com/post/new-high-rise-building-house-skid-...
Affordable housing vouchers, section 8, etc, become a dystopian nightmare.
11 year waiting list. https://laist.com/news/section-8-waiting-list
The problem is twofold, first it's too difficult to build homes. In California you can literally just claim a new highrise will block your sunlight and make you sad. That's enough to delay a construction.
Parking requirements ensure space that could be occupied by people is instead reserved for vehicles. Plus the parking structure itself drives up the cost to build, 30% of your construction cost isn't unreasonable.
On a macro level, many cities should of fixed their issues with inadequate housing construction decades ago.
On a personal level, you need to go where you can afford.
After about 4 generations of living in LA about half my family has left. It's more than possible to make it off a middle class salary, but you need to make that choice.
If you stay in an unaffordable city you can't wait around waiting for politicians to fix it.
There is an incredibly large lobby group who is fully invested in house prices rising or at least not falling, namely homeowners. and since most politicians at a high level usually own one or more houses, they are fully invested in it as well.
What about wealth inequality as the root cause of housing shortage? Even if supply is eased, the wealthy (those who have enough capital to earn passive income) will buy the extra supply and rent to the poor. The Piketty effect takes over, they invest their profit in more housing, wealth inequality continues to get worse, and while more housing exists, it owned by an increasingly small cohort.
Personally I'd like to see legal constraints on investment in primary, single-family homes, and fewer legal constraints on building them.
In Australia most of the narrative on the housing affordability crisis is around lack of supply and nimbyism. In the meantime Melbourne has dropped to 4th most expensive city in the country and becoming more affordable. Most likely reason - land tax change in that state which is turning off accumulating multiple properties through investment and investors turning to other states where prices are still going up. So, while supply is relevant, I would say it is investor demand that is driving prices up.
Pretty much any criticism of a current housing market can't happen without mentioning the quality of said housing. I have just come back from one of the apartments I was looking at to see an abysmally small shoebox with some sort of doors and windows installed in there. I live in a house with 9-foot ceilings and I feel like a king. But this is insane.
Recently I've visited a rental property to find shallow, not sound-proofed walls, askew doors made of something that looks like paper and not a single straight corner. And this is a 2023 build! It's brand new. And still looks awful.
I have an article about that. https://medium.com/@ifcllc/qualification-f33ec8fcb736 but man, it's getting worse and worse.
Just to have a 2-room apartment that I used to live in 30 years ago would cost over 1.5 mil today. Adjusted for that inflation of quality.
This is a very online oriented debate. Derek Thompson might hear mostly from left coded anti-trust types on twitter, but I really don't think that's the main opponent to abundance.
If you spend time in the individual communities where this battle happens, the voice of the classic NIMBY (worried about property values and crime) drowns out the left-NIMBYs that worry about "greedy developers" and gentrification. At least that's been my experience in West LA. Many of the less-online left critics eventually come around to realize that upzoning type solutions and public housing type solutions aren't actually in conflict with each other even if they disagree on relative priority and impact.
Gary's Economics claims wealth inequality is at the root of housing unaffordability. Basically as wealth concentration grows, the ultra-rich bid up the assets. See the price of gold doubling in the past few years. Government stimulus is also captured by the richest. It's also a global phenomenon, i.e., every major city is now unaffordable for most people.
Monopolistic activity and corporate consolidation are driving up prices in many industries in the United States. Why wouldn't corporate consolidation be a major factor in driving up housing prices, like it is in so many other sectors? I am suspicious of journalists like Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein because their solutions seem to punch down on municipal governments and homeowners instead of punching up at our nation's corporate masters and elite class, who would be much more threatened by effective antitrust action against homebuilders than they would by a movement to deregulate zoning in cities. I am open to the idea that excessively restrictive zoning could be a part of the problem, maybe even a big part. But I am skeptical of anyone who wants to act like excessive regulation is the sole driver of skyrocketing housing prices. It doesn't hold water to me.
The housing crisis is a cultural problem. We don't want to build density, and we don't want to build transportation, because this all lowers housing values, and besides the millions of homeowners you'll piss off, you'll destabilize an economy primarily built on the mortgage. Not a good reelection plan.
The places you're seeing growth are places where we could buy the land for cheap: suburbs and exurbs. We build huge ass subdivisions and then we run highways to them. This fucks no one's housing value, it bails out struggling/dying land owners, the auto industry loves it, the energy industry loves it, people love their faux-castles with lawn moats, it's a full employment plan to developers, and it's essentially all middle/upper-middle class housing so it's thoroughly unobjectionable to the voting majority.
The reason cities in Texas are out building blue cities is that they just do the suburb/exurb thing. Blue cities don't: where are the workable SF or NYC exurbs? Abundance gets so close, it more or less blames bureaucrats and the Jane Jacobs veto points built into the liberal building process. But these things arise out of the culture on the left, and whether we admit it or not, we like the walled gardens we built. We like our multi-million dollar castles we've got something like $80k in. We like people not driving/riding trams/buses through our neighborhoods, and we vote accordingly.
I personally think this is intractable. I think SF/NYC/etc have reached the ceiling and if we're gonna fix the housing crisis we need to build density elsewhere. I think we should lean heavily into remote work, lighten the infra grid costs with off-grid tech like solar, lighten the construction costs with low-car built environments (few if any parking requirements, rail instead of huge highways for shipping/transit, etc), invest heavily in the schools, and subsidize people moving to these areas--like with cash, not tax rebates. This is essentially "build the exurbs", but the progressive version of it that better meets health and climate goals, while also building communities we know are better for human flourishing (less isolation, more eyes on the street, etc). Focusing on permitting reform or democratic veto points is way, way too small a vision here.
This makes sense, but as far as I can tell it doesn't really answer the question of whether the housing crisis is driven by "monopolies and the corruption of big business". It just rebuts a particular article's claims about whether the housing market is driven by monopolies in the homebuilding industry. But I would say the issue is larger than that. Monopolies and corruption in general have led to great wealth inequality and that is at least exacerbating (if not driving) a housing crisis in many places.
The antitrust pushback against regulatory efforts to increase housing development is approaching a reversal of that New Yorker cartoon.
[ set in an urban tent city ]
"Sure, we destroyed the expectation of dignified living standards, but the glorious fact remains that we've capped returns to certain shareholders."
Here's the political solution: Do both public housing and zoning reform.
Unlike zero-sum political disputes where there is a winner and loser, this is a rare issue where both camps can win without impacting the other camp.
What we should not do is give the left their worst ideas, like rent control or stopping AirBNB. Give them their best idea, which is public housing.
This article appears to be focused mostly on the line of argument that there is some cabal of builders that keep housing prices high. This also mostly seems to use Dallas as a case study, which is weird, b/c you can't test a lot of other argument about the effects of building/permitting requirements.
It should probably instead be titled something like "This one anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong"
It's always pretty suspect when you first hear about the opposition to something in its rebuttal. I've heard lots of critiques of the abundance movement and this is my first time hearing anything about housing cartels. Maybe someone had this critique but it isn't the dominant strain of criticism of the abundance people. It feels like Thompson picked the weakest argument to debunk rather than one of the many stronger ones.
Too often people hear that some lions escaped from the zoo, and then hear that shoplifting went up, and decide that the lions must be robbing convenience stores.
Sometimes a problem and a cause don't snap together so obviously. I'm no fan of private equity but I've tried to inject some perspective into discussions on HN where people automatically assume that "private equity has operated in a space" and "there are problems in the space" form a complete mathematical equation and we don't need to look beyond them for any other factors.
> Small companies can have downsides, and big companies can have benefits. A virtue of scale is that it can provide resilience in an age of crisis.
Nassim Taleb would argue the polar opposite of this.
I like the article. Starting to make assertions about benefits seems premature.
Fish Tank Thinking is where your thinking is so constrained by some artificial walls that you cannot actually ... well actually think. It is the wages stupid. Let me repeat that. It is the wages stupid. What happens when a society is so brain washed that it cannot even consider that if you don't pay people they can't afford housing. Or cars. Or medical care. Or food.
If you actually have some desire to consider the problem rather than discuss how many angels can dance on a pin head, start with considering why "Inflation" is not a measure of anything thing, but rather the sound of one hand clapping. What is the other hand? Wages.
In this country rather than fixing wages we are discussing solutions that make things worse. Let us add tariffs so that people can buy less. Let's create tax incentives that create more housing people cannot afford, with the tax incentives coming out of the pockets of the people who cannot afford that housing.
Housing crisis is just a result of increasing income inequality and the resulting real estate investment craze. The population of America (real demand) did not suddenly double at any state/city.
Rich have become so much richer that can afford bidding wars at unattainable prices. They can buy investment homes and be cashflow negative for decades in anticipation of the increased market bidding prices. Of course they oppose any sort of legislation that would increase competition.
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when the value of his home depends on his not understanding it.
Where I live the city has gained 90,000 people in the past 5 years. It’s about 68 new residents a day or about 30 families.
They have been building houses as fast as possible here. When single family houses weren’t springing up fast enough then came the explosion of giant apartment complexes.
I am not discounting the actual economic causes mentioned in the article, but securing financing appears to be a major factor that slows things down.
A contributing factor to housing costs I don't often see mentioned is urbanization. In the 21st century, population density has increased faster in major cities than rural areas.
The picture is probably more nuanced in the last half decade (post COVID), with many people moving to the countryside.
As someone whose built houses as a contractor and subcontractor for 20+ years, I’d say these article has it mostly right, but misses two major factors in increased costs.
And that is permitting time/costs and the costs of complying with ever more stringent codes.
If we could build homes to the codes of 1990 and the permitting process was the same as it was in 1990, you’d immediately knock 20-30% off of the cost of construction.
What leftists and bureaucrats (and most people in general) never understand is the time value of money. Every extra day added to the construction of a $500K project is a few hundred dollars of interest costs, risk costs, and lost opportunity costs. Those numbers add up quickly. And nowadays, projects take much longer from idea to completion than they used to.
Not surprising at all to hear that Matt Stoller got the economics of an antitrust issue wrong. I appreciate the attention he brings to the topic and his diligence in digging up stories but his own analysis is often just totally wrong. I don’t think he’s worth taking seriously as an analyst. Maybe as a reporter at best.
> So, Dallas doesn’t meet Quintero’s oligopoly threshold. Now let’s consider the rest of the country. I tracked down a complete listing of the country’s 50 largest homebuilding markets, from #1 Dallas to #50 Cincinnati. How many meet Quintero’s first oligopoly threshold (two companies = 90 percent of the market)? Zero out of 50. And how many meet his second threshold (six companies = 90 percent of the market)? One: Cincinnati. It turns out that the largest homebuilding markets just aren’t that concentrated
> I wanted to know how a careful monopoly-hunter like Roberts would answer the question: If six firms account for 90 percent of a local industry, is that automatic proof of a monopoly? “No, it’s not,” Roberts said. “The statistic isn’t totally vacuous, but there’s basically no useful information about market power in that statistic alone.”
---
> the number of new single-family houses permitted per capita in the Dallas metro area rose steadily between 2010 and 2022. (This is illustrated in the graph below[1].) I mentioned to Quintero that steadily rising construction per capita in a fast-growing city seemed like a weird example of monopolistic abuse.
> First, he uses 2006 as his baseline. This was a highly atypical year in housing. Just before the housing crash that triggered the Great Recession, May 2006 was the peak of 21st century construction employment. That very month was construction's single highest share of total employment since the postwar era. Using a bubble year as a baseline could easily throw off the overall findings of any economic analysis.
[1] graph clearly shows long term downward trend, with growth from 2010 to 2022 being entirely recovery post 2008 crash and still being below late 90s levels.
---
> The whole thing looks like a lawyer who arrived in Dallas with a conviction in hand and shaped the evidence to fit the indictment.
*spends entire article cherry picking evidence in an attempt to discredit one article specifically to advance a competing narrative.
Am I wrong, or is this kind of a silly date range considering the housing crash was in the middle?
> According to the National Association of Home Builders, profit margins as a share of overall home-sale prices actually declined slightly between 2002 and 2024.
> The Builder’s Daily sounds like an anti-monopoly shop. But in our conversation, McManus sounded like a straight-up YIMBY.
This is a false dichotomy. His opponents are clearly claiming that oligopolies restrict supply. Therefore they are intending to be YIMBY even if they might be wrong about the cause of the restriction.
So this is a weird rhetorical attack that undermines the claims in the rest of the piece.
And now I think about it, it applies to the title too.
If you like instances of people calling out citation misrepresentation, you may enjoy Brian Conrad's report about drafts of the California Math Framework: https://sites.google.com/view/publiccommentsonthecmf/#h.ko8q...
Sadly, many of the issues he called out remain in the final, approved version.
Quote: "I don’t see the value in discussing a “national” crisis in homebuilding oligopoly from which the 49 biggest metros are exempt."
I enjoyed most of this article, but it did slide into opinions periodically. This quote in particular stood out given the issues rural communities face regarding availability of competition in a lot of other services.
I find the term “anti-abundance left” odd. He wrote a book called “Abundance” laying out the case for deregulating zoning laws. Claiming global monopolies in aggregate seems more like a conspiracy theory. I thought the mainstream (left) opposition to deregulation was to subsidize affordable housing regardless of the cause.
For the Western US? It's all about water scarcity.
> … profit margins as a share of overall home-sale prices actually declined slightly
So the profit in real terms more than doubled? At a constant percentage home building and gas pumping both become more profitable when unit prices increase faster than inflation.
The vapid arguments around this topic are tiring.
While we’re debunking that can we debunk the weird leftist conspiracy theories around index fund companies like Blackrock “buying up all the residential homes.”
Yes, the largest index fund company that sells investment products that allow people to invest in indexes (entire markets) is going to defacto be a custodian on holdings across the entire economy, including homes. Operating the funds offered in your 401k doesn’t mean they own the companies that invest in residential real estate. It means you actually do.
If you have a 401k it’s actually you who is in this “secret evil cabal.”
That builders can't construct housing in whatever form-factor they want and whatever part of a municipality they want might be a problem. But the analysis of why these kinds of restrictions exist, to my mind, is not correct.
Do niche interest groups have influence on housing policy? Sure. But these niche interest groups don't usually have a monetary interest in the outcomes they're promoting. But individual homeowners (who often band into interest groups of their own) and large real estate conglomerates do have such a monetary interest. They consider certain types of housing built in a certain way to have *more value* and be worth more. So they promote politicians who introduce zoning and other rules to protect that value.
For someone looking to make a profit off of housing (or even to invest in housing), what is more appealing? A traditional U.S. suburb? Or a Kowloon walled city? One is denser, cheaper per capita, and (if you're not careful) unappealing to look at. In other words, it's worth less. So there is a great monetary pressure from people who already own homes to prevent "mixing" this type of housing into existing planned communities. People who need homes, on the other hand, are a little bit less discerning (to say the least). They don't have a monetary interest necessarily. They're primarily looking for a permanent residence.
So I just don't buy this "abundance" stuff in general. If you remove all of these restrictions, will some companies start building housing? Some will. But my guess is most will say the juice is not worth the squeeze -- the profit margins and the long-term values of these properties will make it unappealing. Just like it's unappealing for grocery stores to set up in big urban areas. Or for hospital providers to set up in rural areas. Food deserts don't exist because of too much government intervention. A lack of rural hospitals is not a problem because of too much government intervention. It's because those things are not profitable.
So in my opinion, if you want to reform zoning rules or things of that nature, it's only really going to be effective if you *force* (or if you want to be politically correct, "incentivize") housing companies to build in these areas too.
I don't really consider this an "anti-trust" argument. It can be equally true if there's a lot of competition in the housing market and if there's next to no competition. It's more of an incentives argument. This is an argument that, like with medical care, we're treating something that is a fundamental need of every living human to have a stable and peaceful and fruitful life as if it were a standard market commodity. And when you do that, you get poor outcomes. We need to support the building of housing *even if* it's unaffordable or has low (or even non-existent) profit margins
i hope the next part of his article covers the zoning issues. because I'm certainly not seeing the zoning issues making the homes be on bigger lots or requiring things like 3 car garages? If anything the lots in new tract developments in dallas fort worth are smaller and have less land using features like they don't have alleys. and then in Dallas city limits any small slice of land that can possibly be used for new houses have way smaller lots than any neighboring decades old homes.
the only instance I can think of that I know of is there as a historical black neighborhood near love field airport where Dallas changed the zoning to make redevelopment less profitable by requiring the houses take up less of the lot. This way developers can't build huge houses to offset the fact that the land is expensive or they can't build duplexes big enough to make them worth selling either. In fact there were a few duplexes going in to replace detached SFH and the developers were left in the lurch. I think even had to tear them down? I never followed up on the story. This was basically a policy to prevent gentrification by making the land less valuable by policy. Unfortunately gentrification and yimbyism seem like they go hand in hand because if you can develop bigger or more dense the property value goes up and people scream.
Where I can see regulation getting in the way is in the new codes. You can't build a house like you could in the 50s-70s anymore The code today is insanely expensive. Now those 70s houses weren't great. But they aren't didn't cost $200-300+/sqft at the low end.
in my view new single family housing can never be affordable because the cost is just so high. in fact. generic home ownership is as unaffordable as ever due to inflation. call a plumber to fix a leaky faucet? That will be $300. A new fence? $10k. A new HVAC system? $20k. A roof? $12k. These are all real costs for "small" homes. At least in the rental scenario the costs are controlled because not every single thing is a one-off. There are efficiencies at scale. If it's a housing rental company your maintenance guy is on a route, if it's an apartment you have building maintenance, etc.. The roof repair is a contract worth a million bucks where every roof is only $8000 instead of $12000.
"Abundance" is really just supply and demand 101. Which has proven to work over and over and over and over again throughout human history.
Three major problems with housing economics.
The first two go hand in hand, and could elegantly be solved together:
1 & 2. Pervasively (and perversely), "property taxes" greatly undertax negative externalities, and then heavily (punitively) tax positive externalities.
1. The undertax is that only a fraction of property taxes are just for the land. Land is a limited resource, and "ownership" of land is exclusionary. Exclusion is a negative externality, which is ok as long as that is economically accounted for.
So taxing land more, would encourage more efficient and effective use of it.
2. Property on land is the positive externality. We all benefit when land enables higher active value. More housing, office space, etc.
But it requires investment to improve the usefulness of land, and we not only tax that, but tax it annually, an annual wealth tax!
This is highly perverse, in that it undermines the economics of increasing the productivity of land. Whether a land owner is rich or poor, the economics of putting work or capital into improving one's property come at the cost of being taxed on that improvement - every year - forever.
The solution is to only tax land, not property on it, so land is incentivized to be used efficiently, and investments that improve its active usefulness, are not economically disincentivized.
Making that change and renormalizing "property taxes", not just land taxes, for neutral public revenue, solves both problems with one stone.
A decade or so transition, would allow this change to happen, while giving land and property owners who have made investments under today's regime, time to adapt.
But the end result would be better for everyone.
More efficient, parsimonious, effective use of land. More investments and innovation in increasing property's useful for everyone.
Unlocked growth in real estate returns, as a market primarily based on improving net usefulness, with higher returns, than passive ownership. The latter providing no net benefit to society or the net real estate market.
Credit for the above analysis: Economist Henry George [0]
The third problem significantly compounds the problems of the first two, but would go away naturally if they were solved:
3. Markets take advantage of anything, even inefficiencies.
Given that land is a limited resource, that the value of land increases as investments are made in adjacent properties, even without investments in one's own land, buying up land (with whatever property is on it), and letting others invest in neighboring land is a very good way to get a reliable return on capital. Because demand for land is always going to up, even when used inefficiently, with the current tax regime.
This is an economically parasitical way to make money. It treats land like Bitcoin or gold, in prioritizing its use for passive returns, instead of investment in increasing its active value.
And "parking" of money, for its passive returns, is so reliable, that the financial instrument demand for land drives up prices. Not just by a percentage, but in a self-sustaining and compounding circle of ever rising prices. For an investment "use" that has no net benefit to society.
Resolving problems 1 and 2 would greatly reduce the passive return on land. Which would not only make land use more efficient, but eliminate the compounding pricing problems of near universal use of land as a passive parking place for wealth.
> The sharpest criticisms of the book Abundance have sometimes come from the antitrust movement. This group, mostly on the left, insists that the biggest problems in America typically come from monopolies and the corruption of big business.
ctrl-F "RealPage" - nothing. hmm.
ctrl-F "rent" - also nothing. really?
from about a year ago: Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions of American Renters [0]
> The Justice Department, together with the Attorneys General of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today against RealPage Inc. for its unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing and to monopolize the market for commercial revenue management software that landlords use to price apartments.
> ...
> Another landlord commented about RealPage’s product, “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That’s classic price fixing…”
if I hear about antitrust in the context of housing policy, RealPage making it easier for apartment buildings to collude on rent prices is the very first thing that leaps to mind.
it seems like Thompson is being awfully selective about which antitrust-related criticisms he's responding to here. he seems to be focusing exclusively on building single-family homes, and completely ignoring the concrete example of monopoly power being used for apartment rentals, and antitrust laws being used to address that.
0: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
Over reglementation and over regulation is also destroying housing markets in Europe. In some European cities new homes are scarce and prices are skyrocketing. While politicians claim they are protecting the people and the environment.
So the simple easy to digest lie ends up wrong...
There's a common theme emerging here.
Correlation isn't causation - the post here says smaller homebuilders can't get financing right now, and so a supply shortage is correlated with larger actors who can, but it isn't caused by concentration directly. The question is if government can have remedies for broken markets other than breaking up companies, because here it sounds like "fixing builder financing" would help:
Most interesting proposal I heard on this topic, is that the solution to housing prices is to ban renting altogether.
It's so radical that it's almost impossible to predict if it would be better or worse. But at least it had the moral ground that rent is one of the last remnant of pre-capitalist lords and barons economies.
The idea being it would commoditize housing. Millions of units would now be for sale, prices would drop, tons of people would now be able to afford buying. Home builders would be incentivize to build nicer, cheaper, as the competition would move entirely to the selling/buying market.
It's radical for sure, but I've always found the thought experiment fascinating.
Y'all are discovering how censorship in capitalism works...
It's about volume(loudness), access(to data) and exposure(visibility).
Abundance liberalism still seems like a poor attempt to curb the populist left to me.
Let's look at it from a high-level. "Fixing" the housing criris would require a major depreciation of housing assets. Does anyone believe the companies and individuals holding onto multiple homes will accept this without fighting? Of course not. The same people that are arguably responsible (directly or indirectly) for the housing crisis have a vested interest in it persisting. And we know how powerful their voices are with the establishment democrats, the ones this ad-hoc "abundance" movement defends.
There is no simple solution to this crisis, it will require something more radical than just tweaking some numbers on a spreadsheet.
Incredibly dishonest article. It's shocking to see people support this. And I love the way it's framed in a conspiratorial tone, and uses coded language to make you doubt this is a quantifiable problem.
All while he ignored many parts of the text he allegedly was critiquing. I'm still shocked that this is getting upvoted.
The very first sentence in the article is this:
>This group, mostly on the left, insists that the biggest problems in America typically come from monopolies and the corruption of big business.
"Insists" is doing a lot of work here to support the rest of the article. But it's lies through omission.
>At a high level, I have never found these arguments persuasive
Irrelevant if it persuades you. This isn't a high school debate class, facts and metrics are what matters.
>One hallmark of a monopolistic market is rising profits.
Not even close to true in theory or practice. In theory, monopolies have ever way in order to set prices for whatever goal their after. They may also lower supply thereby lowering aggregate profits. Long term profits can justify anything now.
Anti competitive practices are mainstays of monopolies. Not whatever the author just made up.
>The Musharbash essay on Dallas—like too much of the antitrust left’s work on housing
Oh boy here we go! The boogeyman has been setup, the ominous "they" is out.. checks notes... make housing available for average people.
>is filled with out-of-context quotes, overconfident assertions lacking evidence, and generally misguided claims.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The next 5 paragraphs are about him talking to Quintero. He starts by framing the issue saying Dallas is not a good fit for Quintero’s theoretical model or previous research, which Quintero agrees with. He then uses this agreement to act like he's right about everything else and even misquotes his "100%".
It was shocking to see how we just kind took one affirmative agreement for one thing and turned it into an agreement about another. Talk about hearing what you want!
But that's not the rub.
The rub is that the Musharbash's essay isn't referencing the John Hopkin's research paper (Quintero) to say DFW fits it's described model, it's that the use of a market intelligence broker has effectively made the firms act as single (or a few) unit(s), enough to make the DFW's conclusions relevant.
Here's the snippet from Musharbash:
>Over the past two decades, most — if not all — significant builders in DFW have converged on the same source of market intelligence to drive their decision-making: a consulting firm named Residential Strategies, Inc. (“RSI” for short). [0]
> [...] While RSI is reportedly careful not to share sensitive information or facilitate explicit collusion among builders, it does not have to do so to play a role in limiting competition. [1]
Moving back (unfortunately) to the Thompson article, here's his next little "misquote":
>Claim #2: Dallas housing experts say local homebuilders are monopolies who are “devouring” the market.
The article didn't even claim this. The quote the source articles quote DIRECTLY below the claim from Musharbash's article really highlights how far out of the way Thompson went to misquote it:
From Musharbash's article, whihch again Thompson also hilariously quotes:
>Indeed, “[t]he scale and sway of market leaders” — particularly D.R. Horton and Lennar — means they “often monopolize access to trades and vendor resources” in local markets, constraining the ability of smaller builders to build at all, according
Unless D.R. Horton is a "local", "Dallas" builder I'm not even sure Thompson misread this piece so badly. If he wasn't an established journalist I'd call into question his reading comprehension skills.
So I have to assume it's not stupidity, it's malice.
There's also a subtext claim here where he continues to talk with McManus about land use regulations. McManus says land use regulation is the primary and SINGULAR cause of the housing issue, but what Musharbash's article points out is that land use regulations and zoning laws really have changed while the issue continues to intensify:
> I discovered that pretty much the same dynamics afflicting blue states are also afflicting red ones — a fact that should have important implications for how we think about housing politics and policy in this country. [2]
> [...] not of land use regulations, which have remained relatively stable in recent decades, but of two critical segments of the housing supply chain: The homebuilding industry that builds new houses, and the resale market in which people buy and sell existing housing stock. Both have experienced dramatic changes over the past four decades [3]
This is exhausting, not going to lie. But let's continue.
>Claim #3: Industry experts have data proving that homebuilding oligopolies are holding back national housing construction [...] Did Lambert agree with the antitrust folks, who love to quote him so much, that the consolidation of big homebuilding companies was hurting housing supply?
No. Nope. No again. That's not what was written. Here's what was written:
>By facilitating high-priced home sales with these cut-rate mortgages, large homebuilders impose a double handicap on small builders while inflating property valuations in the region as a whole. [4]
> [...] The largest homebuilders benefit from this dynamic because they sit on large amounts of real estate whose valuations they want to maintain or raise, but it makes it that much more expensive for small builders to buy land to build on in the first place.[5]
>>By tying home sales and mortgages, Dominant homebuilders can sell their houses at higher prices with higher gross margins, while issuing bigger mortgages with bigger origination fees and bigger resale values on the securitization market. As their below-market mortgages get buyers to accept higher sticker prices, these inflated prices feed high-priced comps into local property databases — pushing land and home valuations up market-wide. The largest homebuilders benefit from this dynamic because they sit on large amounts of real estate whose valuations they want to maintain or raise, but it makes it that much more expensive for small builders to buy land to build on in the first place. [6]
The picture being painted here is not one of "no one is building houses" but people are building the wrong houses for the wrong reasons. And smaller, local builders aren't able to build the houses people WANT and NEED because the system is let's just say... self-fulfilling.
The big builder's aren't going to build you your affordable home. It's not just that they don't have to, but it benefits them not to. More homes at the appropriate market prices would cause their stranglehold to completely unravel.
Let me just tab back over to the article yet again and continue.
>Claim #4: “X companies account for Y percent of this industry” is a smart way to think about market concentration.
You know what, I'm actually done.
Terrible article. Terrible journalist. I would say he should feel ashamed but the fact that he's willing to be so dishonest on paper with his name stamped over it tells me he couldn't give a shit.
Full on Bullshit Asymmetry Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law) on display here.
Links:
[0]: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi...
[1]: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi...
[2]: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi...
[3]: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi...
[4]: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi...
[5] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi...
This "Abundance" nonsense is simply liberal repackaging of Reagan's trickle down economics and deregulation. That's all it is. Reagan's policies were designed to transfer wealth from the young and the poor to the old and the wealthy. Abundance will do (more of) exactly the same.
The very best case fo housing deregulation as per this Abundance nonsense is Houston. And that's only if you have essentially unlimited land.
Private industry simply will not lower house prices long term. We need to stop with this nonsense of looking for market-based solutions and public-private partnerships.
The only solution to housing is for the government to maintain a sufficient stock of quality housing such that the private sector simply cannot corner the market to drive up prices.
The example I always come back to is Vienna where ~60% of the housing stock is owned by the government. Residents essentially have permanent leases. It's affordable and accessible. Vienna has some of the lowest rents in a European city.
The purpose of the modern Democratic Party in the US is support American imperialism and to not upset their corporate donors. "Abundance" only exists so Ezra Klein can get invited to all the cool parties, get speaking engagements and generally curry the favor of the billionaire class and the Democratic establishment. It's just a liberal face on Reaganism.
Sigh. The whole housing narrative has been hopelessly taken off the rails by well-meaning but clueless urbanists.
And quite predictably, once the poisoned fruits of their labors start to bloom, it's always the fault of capitalism. Or maybe foreign investors and private equity.
“Abundance” is neoliberal BS. Typical centrism, half measures that don’t actually make anything better and manage to make everyone angry.
This is one of the funniest articles I’ve read in a a long time. I’m not sure what is better, the “I quite literally set out to find support for my narrative and find exactly one (1) guy that’s both willing to call himself an expert and give me my desired answer for each of my individual points” thing or the lazy neocon virtue signaling
> The antitrust left
I love this phrasing. Derek Thompson has done some Serious Journalism and has discovered that if you support competition between homebuilders you are a Leftist.
Also there isn’t a concentration of homebuilders (in Dallas) but even if there was it doesn’t affect prices (in Dallas). Well there may be a concentration of homebuilders nationally, but Thomson spoke to a guy that doesn’t care about that. Anyway, wasn’t the takeaway from the Great Recession that monopolies are good?
But then I’m not sure he knows what a monopoly is
> If a homebuilding monopoly purposefully made crappy new homes, they’d be out-competed quickly
Or what is a good outcome or a bad outcome
> Can big companies hurt subcontractors by forcing them to accept lower prices?
> “Maybe, but if big homebuilders can offer trades longer guaranteed contracts”
Hmm… they can force subcontractors to accept lower rates, but that’s not that big of a deal because they can force them to accept lower rates for a longer period of time. Like for example it would suck to have your paycheck cut in half but knowing that there’s no chance of it going back up for several years would take the sting out of it. This is the reasoning of somebody that took a Hat Man dose of Benadryl
All I know is I moved to the Dallas area 4 years ago, and I'm still shocked at the housing affordability compared to where I moved from. Both in terms of absolute price and general overall cost of living.
I know this isn't how our political system works, but if I were king of America I'd try to solve the problem of expensive housing like this:
-Confirm housing is too expensive (for whom, where)
-Ask people why they think housing is too expensive and read some books on the topic
-Come up with a list of a few reasonable reasons from said reading
-try addressing those reasons with experiments in different locations to see what works (or check if someone has already done this)
-apply learnings broadly.
Instead our system is more like: -try to get elected and win points by criticizing others' ideas
-do nothing or spend a trillion dollars trying to solve it based on an idea a lobbying group told me is the reason housing is expensive
-be replaced by someone who disagree with me completely in 2 or 4 years
The bigger problem, at least in my neck of the woods, is they're not building affordable housing. By-and-large they are building luxury apartments and luxury homes. We've torn down half the city to build luxury apartments that sit at 20-30% occupancy.
Building luxury housing won't help the housing crisis until the sellers are on the brink of bankruptcy and forced to sell their properties at a reasonable price.
So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed.
We're often so down on journalism on HN, and I believe a big part of that is we tend to read so much opinion and analysis and so little basic reporting.
I've been loving Thompson's substack (which is mostly not about housing policy so far).