[shuckles]

The vacancy rate suggests most vacant units are in-between occupants, something you'd require for a healthy market. The vacancy rate should probably be double what it is -- it's probably at historic lows.

Edit: Yep, vacant units per capita are at historic lows. We have a construction problem not a vacancy problem: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=131FW#0.

[dv_dt]

That definition of vacant does not seem include empty units with owners elsewhere.

[Ajedi32]

You're reading it wrong. Those would count as vacant.

> In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere.

[dv_dt]

The sentence says “may”. And the previous sentence says “ A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent.”

I guess we would have to read further on how they determine temporary. But given the sampling method, I would guess people doing a door to door survey and noting it as temporary absent if it’s well kept?

[shuckles]

The FED graph uses census vacancy data, which is what I’m assuming the original article does as well. So the metric is apples to apples.

[ethanbond]

We have both problems, but the issue with low construction is not developers simply deciding not to build and/or building but deciding not to sell.

The headwinds on construction are labor shortages, material shortages, zoning, and land prices. Zoning and land prices are both also alleviated by LVT.