Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IdlyCurious t1_ixusgsi wrote

Reply to comment by Sentsuizan in For most Americans, housing was a key component in personal wealth accumulation. However, racist housing policies eroded black wealth in pre-WWII American cities. Black families paid a 28% premium to buy a home on a majority white block, after which their homes lost 10% of their value. by smurfyjenkins

> At the a macro level land is a finite resource no matter what. It's a complex subject and our statements are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Eventually, yes. Now, no. There's plenty of housing available in places no one wants to live (Detroit a few years ago being a great example) and lots and lots of land available in rural areas (with few jobs), if people wanted to build there. The high prices are in desirable areas, and that's because of more people in those areas, not more people on earth. And more density would absolutely bring down the housing prices there (at least in the short term - the issue would be if lower prices increased demand/caused more people moved there).

It's very much an area of population and available housing in localized areas, not global landmass v global population at this point.

1

Sentsuizan t1_ixut0nw wrote

Even if you qualify it to say only the desirable land for housing, that land is still a finite resource.

−2

lawstudent2 t1_ixv3bt9 wrote

Zoning makes it finite. Not landmass. NYC and SF could build enormous amounts of high density housing. But they aren’t, because of zoning laws.

So you are just not right.

3