Ask HN: Shouldn't California Cut Its Housing Mandate in Light of Tech Layoffs? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Shouldn't California Cut Its Housing Mandate in Light of Tech Layoffs?

6 pointsshaburn21 comments

Why would less housing make anything better?

California is decades behind on housing stock and it will take decades to recover. Downturn in one cycle is not worth it.

Population was decreasing prior to mass layoffs. Now we're just forcing inorganic increased supply; dropping property values.

Imagine thinking that decreasing property values is a bad thing.

This is completely representative of the twisted incentives that exist in the US housing market -- people treat housing as a retirement account and not as, well, housing.

Most successful system on the planet.

Imagine owning property.

One cannot argue there is a supply problem in California housing.

Why?

> Population was decreasing prior to mass layoffs.

Only since the pandemic cut immigration, and only slowly (though there was more intrastate redistribution.)

But even so, that (and the net outmigration to other states that had been going on for decades even while international migration offset it) waa largely due to affordability concerns resulting fron inadequate housing supply.

> Now we're just forcing inorganic increased supply; dropping property values.

Since the mandates mostly favor multifamily homes, including by redevelopment, and undermine zoning restrictions, this probably raises value of existing properties (allowing more units on existing land increases land market value, reducing the proportion and absolute number of properties above a given size increases the improvement values of those larger properties.)

It decreases the average price of a “housing unit”, but that people own concrete properties, not generic housing units that morph over time to whatever the current average unit is.

If anything, layoffs mean more housing should be built, not less. Increase the supply and prices will fall.

So punish existing property holders?

They can keep holding their property? Homes are meant to be lived in by people.

In reality, many if not most have their retirements held in their. In an astronomical cost of living place, this means poverty in practice with wealth on paper; breaking the social contract of the American Dream.

Do we want a mass construction workers layoff in addition to tech layoff? Tech recession should be countered by encouraging developments in all economic sectors, especially pro-development policies that doesn't cost taxpayer money.

What fraction of the people and households in CA are that kind of tech? I bet not.

EDIT: I am referring to fraction in terms of people, not tax dollars. If they're long term unemployed now, their tax value is low anyway.

The majority of the tax base not employed by the massive public sector.

That's putting them in $$ terms, not requirements for housing. A few high-incomers don't need that many houses.

Most visas are granted for tech in CA as well. Net New. Hard to decouple.

10% of the population of the USA lives in California. This is why I have my doubts. Cheerleaders say that from 1.18MM to 1.88MM people work in tech in California, but there's high vs not-so-high tech and the tech of Lockheed and SpaceX is quite different than the tech of Meta and Twitter.

1.88MM means that 1 in 20 work in tech. In Massachusetts, similar cheerleaders say that 11% of the residents work in tech.

What does one have to do with the other? Do substantially less people need housing in general, or lower cost housing in particular, than before the layoffs?

Definitely not

Reply on news.ycombinator.com