Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by grungydan 986 days ago
This being just a few lines down from a story on housing being unaffordable for the vast majority of Americans in 99% of the country is...well.
3 comments

They are different issues really. Housing is due to prior low interest rates and a restricted supply, not people living a bit long.
Imagine how constricted the supply would be if people lived 50% longer and stayed in their homes for 40 years more than they do today.
Now imagine what would happen if we built 50% more houses.
... or paid to relocate individuals to places with houses. People dont like to talk about all the empty houses in less than desirable places. Rather, state governments and large businesses talk about needing to build housing everywhere cuz money.
Plenty of house are available in places with shrinking economies. Most folks would rather live where jobs are available. How does shipping people to tiny towns with no job prospects help anybody?
Where are those houses? Where are the jobs that go with those houses?
If there are more people in a place, there will be more demand for workers in the place to support the people, no?

If this is not sufficient we need to look at making places less dependent on centralized specialist geographic areas, because that approach does not scale well.

We would soon breed 50% more people. Building more houses reduces housing costs like building more highways reduces traffic.
> We would soon breed 50% more people

Not really, fertility rate is going down worldwide regardless of housing costs. Turns out rich families don't need or want as many children as those working the farm.

Hmm, reminds me of a certain movie…
Sure. But more people is good. More traffic is bad.
I'm not on enough drugs right now to be able to imagine that happening.
Old billionaires are a net good for society.
Only if we tax the absolute daylights out of them.
unaffordable housing isnt a supply and demand issue. its an investor issue