{"items": [{"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212", "anchor": "fb-841607245212", "service": "fb", "text": "This also implies that if we magically figured out how to build a trillion-unit skyscraper overnight, more than a hundred gainfully employed adults would burst fully formed out of the forehead of each existing human being.", "timestamp": "1485197389"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212&reply_comment_id=841607559582", "anchor": "fb-841607245212_841607559582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Eh; it's fine to talk about marginal things within a reasonable range without implying all effects are linear out to infinity.
Like, this kind of reads like the \"what if everyone became an EA and did the current top EA recommendations\" objections.", "timestamp": "1485197630"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212&reply_comment_id=841607953792", "anchor": "fb-841607245212_841607953792", "service": "fb", "text": "→ My point is that induced demand has to come from somewhere, and there's a big difference between \"this is good globally but imposes costs locally\" and \"this is bad globally.\" Seems obviously plausible to me that destroying some units can reduce demand in a neighborhood, since there are *some* gains from density, otherwise people wouldn't be so excited about moving to cities.
The value of your sort of thought experiment is that a marginal reversal test points out the obvious *local* implications. The value of gigantic hypotheticals is that they point to *global* consequences.
I think one good thing that can come with considering absurdly large hypotheticals is getting some clarity on exactly where and how we expect the marginal effects to change.", "timestamp": "1485197828"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212&reply_comment_id=841609066562", "anchor": "fb-841607245212_841609066562", "service": "fb", "text": "→ OK, on reflection, I'm *actually* not sure your reversal test is quite so clear-cut. It really does seem to me like if you deleted half the housing units and tenants from San Francisco, or Manhattan, each city would be considerably less attractive as a place to live. And I suspect this effect is true on the margin, it's just hard to see because adding or subtracting 1 + delta units of demand is a small effect when distributed among all the housing units in the city.", "timestamp": "1485198252"}, {"author": "Richard", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212&reply_comment_id=841687140102", "anchor": "fb-841607245212_841687140102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The reversal wasn't \"removing one housing unit and one tenant\". It was \"removing one housing unit\", and hoping the unavailability to find housing induces >1 people to leave, just like how the story on the other side is that we just build n units of housing, and allegedly >n people come in as a result of the increase in housing supply. I don't think that's at all likely; if a certain percentage of the housing disappeared overnight, a lot of people would leave, but others would accept smaller living quarters or more roommates in order to keep the higher quality of life in the area.", "timestamp": "1485205284"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212&reply_comment_id=841714410452", "anchor": "fb-841607245212_841714410452", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Richard: right, and because people don't all leave we expect rents to rise if we lose units", "timestamp": "1485206720"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841607245212&reply_comment_id=842644252042", "anchor": "fb-841607245212_842644252042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Proof: build a modest apartment building, and the increased demand from the available housing will cause you to sell out instantly, making enough to cover the costs of getting the permits.", "timestamp": "1485295575"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841613996682", "anchor": "fb-841613996682", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, when you build, you build new, and the area gets nicer because there's more new housing compared with the same amount of old housing. So yes, you can reverse this -- if you destroy housing stock, demand will probably fall by more than the number of units destroyed, as long as you make this an actual reversal of the build scenario -- i.e. you have to destroy the newest houses to make this work. So what you suggest is mathematically correct, to help reduce rents, but not something you really want to do.", "timestamp": "1485199010"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841752908302", "anchor": "fb-841752908302", "service": "fb", "text": "This is called the Curley effect. It is how you produce Detroit: https://scholar.harvard.edu/.../files/curley_effect_1.pdf", "timestamp": "1485208919"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841752908302&reply_comment_id=841772733572", "anchor": "fb-841752908302_841772733572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I find some of the wording uncomfortable as well, but don't agree that is the implication. At the time Detroit had a white population that was wealthier than it's black population (sadly this has been true for history of America). They were not Coleman's constituents (one can argue Coleman figured they were racist and would never vote for him (Curley's view of Anglo Saxons), or he just didn't see them as people that mattered to get him elected). It is hard to argue that Coleman didn't drive out the wealthier residents, and did things for the benefit of the people who did vote for him using the tax roles. It is also hard to argue that the city didn't decline dramatically during his run as mayor.", "timestamp": "1485210450"}, {"author": "Anish", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841752908302&reply_comment_id=997059308032", "anchor": "fb-841752908302_997059308032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ wow, this is a really interesting article, but worded such that it would make Moldbug blush.", "timestamp": "1559848505"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841755543022", "anchor": "fb-841755543022", "service": "fb", "text": "The real issue is gentrification. Back in the days when new housing for the middle class was built further and further out into the suburbs, poor people could get reasonable rents living in the older homes in the city, much of which were still quite livable, even if not up to the most modern standards. But as the middle class returned to the city, rehabbing older homes and moving back, making those neighborhoods more desirable for other middle class people to rehab and move there, then the supply of homes with affordable rent decreased dramatically. Regarding the policy of promoting affordable rents for poor people, this was terrible. But the incentives were for property owners to increase the value of their investments, for middle class people to live closer to their workplace -- the incentives were all, indirectly, against keeping rents in the city affordable.", "timestamp": "1485209281"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841755543022&reply_comment_id=842644885772", "anchor": "fb-841755543022_842644885772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The incentives were all /directly/ against keeping the inner-city housing at low desirability.", "timestamp": "1485295804"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841842224312", "anchor": "fb-841842224312", "service": "fb", "text": "More succinct phrasing: if building more housing would raise rents, then destroying housing would lower rents for the remaining housing. But that really doesn't seem likely, at least at the scales we're taking about.", "timestamp": "1485215929"}, {"author": "Alice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841842224312&reply_comment_id=841876685252", "anchor": "fb-841842224312_841876685252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This is probably true, hence, we must expand our scale.", "timestamp": "1485218734"}, {"author": "Alice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841842224312&reply_comment_id=841877433752", "anchor": "fb-841842224312_841877433752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ From my perspective, each unit means one more person can live in SF, and is therefore good. I also suspect that we are near a rent ceiling. Demand is reaching a maximum imposed by distribution of income.", "timestamp": "1485218823"}, {"author": "Alice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841861775132", "anchor": "fb-841861775132", "service": "fb", "text": "I feel like the phrase \"the problem\" is not sufficiently descriptive. I'm struggling to articulate the problem statement that matches my feelings. But basically, the problem is that SF is AWESOME and not everyone gets to live there. Making SF no longer awesome \"solves\" the problem, but not in a way that should count.
Rents are only a problem because they stop people from living in SF.", "timestamp": "1485217675"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1485222544"}, {"author": "Alice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841861775132&reply_comment_id=841910996492", "anchor": "fb-841861775132_841910996492", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elliot Well, I'm someone who voluntarily left, and now finds that she can likely never return :P", "timestamp": "1485222637"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1485222759"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841861775132&reply_comment_id=842645240062", "anchor": "fb-841861775132_842645240062", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Build. Lots. Of. High. Density. Housing.
Until the price goes down. If the price of high-density housing keeps going up, keep building higher-density. Either it will stop growing or we can put a 1% tax on it and pay up the pension fund and cure malaria.", "timestamp": "1485295973"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841881869862", "anchor": "fb-841881869862", "service": "fb", "text": "I liked the point some earlier commenters were making: It depends a lot on what you create and destroy. If you create new housing that's towards the high end of desirability, then you may well get more demand; and likewise if you destroy housing that's towards the low end of desirability. Conversely, if you destroy existing desirable housing, you'll probably reduce demand; and likewise if you build undesirable housing.
Since housing creators and destroyers generally want to create desirable housing, and not destroy it; and destroy undesirable housing, not create it; then it's not surprising that any change might lead to more demand.
Put another way: Housing creators and destroyers are both interested in increasing demand, so it's not surprising that the choices they make would lead to increased demand.", "timestamp": "1485219147"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841995177792", "anchor": "fb-841995177792", "service": "fb", "text": "\"This isn't possible: adding a unit and removing a unit can't both result in higher rents.\" <--- it could, if you are at a local minimum for housing rents.", "timestamp": "1485232455"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841995177792&reply_comment_id=842439866632", "anchor": "fb-841995177792_842439866632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That is logically possible, but seems very unlikely", "timestamp": "1485258833"}, {"author": "Owen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=841995177792&reply_comment_id=842482461272", "anchor": "fb-841995177792_842482461272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ At that point the marginal effect either way will be almost zero in any case.", "timestamp": "1485262359"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/841602998722?comment_id=842052532852", "anchor": "fb-842052532852", "service": "fb", "text": "I think SF is terrible and would never want to live there. Therefore, I support building more apartments in SF, so people keep living in places that aren't terrible, and I can conveniently hang out with them. ;D", "timestamp": "1485236519"}]}