market has plenty of appetite but it's muzzled by selfish and short-sighted NIMBYs
exactly wrong based on my argument. did NIMBYs cause the dramatic drop in building after the great financial crisis? (no)
Readit Newsgreenie_beans commented on How private equity is changing housing theatlantic.com/ideas/202... · Posted by u/harambae
greenie_beans commented on How private equity is changing housing theatlantic.com/ideas/202... · Posted by u/harambae
>this sounds nice, but neglects the fact that (1) materials cost has gone up
That's a red herring because most of the price increase comes from increase in land prices.
can you please explain how these graphics are supposed to support your argument? it's not clear to me and i'm trying to understand the georgist POV.
nonetheless, materials and the cost of labor are the most significant costs for new buildings. not land, taxes, or zoning regulations. here is one example where this is a fact: www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-23/uvm-halts-student-housing-project-construction-costs-workforce-shortage
greenie_beans commented on How private equity is changing housing theatlantic.com/ideas/202... · Posted by u/harambae
this sounds nice, but neglects the fact that (1) materials cost has gone up and (2) zoning requirements exist. (1) means its just more expensive to build overall, and (2) means that a lot of proposals for apartment complexes get voted down.
also neglects the market's appetite for this risk of building in the current environment, which is the biggest problem. market gonna act like a market
greenie_beans commented on Where are you supposed to go if you don't care about growth? ramones.dev/posts/where-a... · Posted by u/ramon156
government jobs or at state-owned companies might be your only choice.
Or maybe landing on a lucky spot of a run of the mill consultancy company where you're left at god's will until you retire. Their attrition is so high layoffs are rare, at least where I live (YMMV)
have worked government-adjacent for like 5 years now and don't recommend that if you care about the people or serving (which most gov't folks do).
find a boring corporation where you can slack. corporations are a great home for slackers.
greenie_beans commented on Where are you supposed to go if you don't care about growth? ramones.dev/posts/where-a... · Posted by u/ramon156
Kurt Vonnegut wrote that an aspiring writer should take any writing job he or she can get. A hack job will at least keep the creative wheels turning. I think the same applies to software development jobs. Take one where you can learn something, hone your chops. Doesn't have to be your passion, because turning an abstract conception into working software is intrinsically satisfying to someone who appreciates that particular form of magic.
Do your own projects on the side and keep your antenna peeled for other opportunities more in line with your own life goals.
he also famously quit his writing job so he could work on his writing art more
Deleted Comment
I suggest you read Amodei post called "machines of loving grace". It will change your worldview (probably).
as a counterpoint, you should read this essay with the same title: https://www.clunyjournal.com/p/machines-of-loving-grace
greenie_beans commented on High-income job losses are cooling housing demand jbrec.com/insights/job-gr... · Posted by u/gmays
This is a weird take. I get the desire to house people but someone choosing to rent rather than sell a home they own is not the crux of the issue. When there are corporations keeping swaths of housing empty to raise rent rates the real issue is market manipulation not small participants.
it's def not the crux of the issue, never said that. it's a dynamic of the market though
> When there are corporations keeping swaths of housing empty to raise rent rates the real issue is market manipulation not small participants.
curious where this is happening? would love to learn about that.
cool. i wish okie had been diagnosed with DLE :(
You can compare this to overall housing prices in the LA area[1], prices in 2024 is 262.7% of 2012 prices. Suppose you have a $100k house in 2012, that will worth $262k in 2024, an appreciation of $162k. Using the land value percentages above, the land value of the houses are $51k and $188k respectively, an appreciation of $137k. That means 85% of the appreciation was in land, not because building materials got more expensive or whatever.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LXXRSA