Hacker News Reader

Comment by adam_arthur | Hacker News Reader

Housing units per household is 1.1:1.0, same as it was in year 2000.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ETOTALUSQ176N

The millenial "hump" you're referencing just recently passed the average age for a first-time homebuyer. Demographics move strongly against housing demand going forward (without change in immigration policy).

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj...

We are at an all time high in units under construction:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTNSA

The amount of overbuilding in 2000s compensates for underbuilding in 2010's. The housing shortage is a complete myth... the only thing there was a shortage of was active listings. There is no structural shortage that is provable by any hard number. There's a lot more to say regarding housing market fundamentals, but just answering your question directly

View on HN

> Demographics move strongly against housing demand going forward (without change in immigration policy)

The housing demand is greatly variable by location across the country. It is possible that there is increased demand in fewer places even though overall demand is lower.

Yes good hard numbers. The problem is many still consider it a shortage because they think that hoarding their starter home when they've moved on to home 2, and 3, and so on means a shortage still. The hoarding has in fact led to a shortage of homes available to buy. Why would they sell the accumulated properties when they are ramping up in value significantly each year, and only recently took a almost insignificant claw-back. If they all just continue the seller's strike, they can hold on to the value. We need to increase the holding cost of vacant properties significantly I believe to make a dent in actual affordability.

Most of those starter homes are rented, not vacant.

What percentage? Why should any be vacant?

Well, if no homes were vacant, it would be incredibly difficult to move into or within a city.

You’re reading both of those key statistics backwards. Household formation is the result of housing supply. The most noticeable outcome of the shortage is the suppression of new household formation. The fact that the homes per household ratio is similar to what it was in 2000, when the crisis was already well underway, doesn’t prove that we have enough homes.

The other stat should be read as an all-time low in construction completion. Houses under construction is a terrible thing to celebrate. They started more than they could finish with the labor and materials available. Not great.

Housing units/person is roughly the same as year 2000 too. Slightly lower, nothing that can possibly be asserted as a shortage. (which you had in your previous comment, but deleted for some reason)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=j9kB

Demographics matter a lot, yes, not just population. 5 year olds don't buy houses. Elderly dying sell their houses. But even using that number shows no shortage.

Back up your assertions with facts or don't participate at all please. This is how misinformation about a housing shortage has spread so virally. I've already engaged in the same circuitous conversation 100 times though, not worth engaging again. Check back in 5 years and we'll see what happened

For your first figure to work out, as there being more than enough housing, requires that any one unit of housing is equivalent to any other one and does not account for what an acceptable vacancy rate to facilitate moves would be in specific markets. An available unit in Kansas does not help the family in California.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com