Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Ken]

In the end, regulations have consequences and real predictable effects. Take our previous comparison of the big cities of Houston and San Francisco.

Houston has much fewer restrictions on housing and development compared to San Francisco and as a consequence, housing is 4x cheaper in Houston than San Francisco. That isn't random coincidence, it is the consequence of policy choices.

Likewise, Houston (and Texas) have far less restrictive firearms regulations than San Francisco (and California). As a consequence Texas has 3x more guns per capita than California and Houston has double the murder rate and nearly double the violent crime rate as San Francisco.

None of this is random chance. It is the logical consequence of differing policy choices.

I wonder how this cause and effect applies to drug laws and use, and petty crime in these two cities. And the early days of sexual liberation laws of the past.

It works the same way of course. Oregon and California liberalized their drug laws and saw an increase in drug use. Texas hasn't and as a consequence, Texas sees about half the rate of overdose deaths as Oregon or California: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... soning.htm

The ENORMOUS policy mistake in Oregon was in thinking that if they decriminalize drugs they could divert people into rehab rather than prison. But it hasn't ended up working that way. Because the only leverage the authorities previously had to force people into rehab or getting help was the thread of prison time. Take that away and you take way every last bit of leverage to force addicts to get help. And yes, many do need to be FORCED to get help.

It sounds like there are various initiatives on the ballot to recriminalize hard drugs so it looks like Oregon is going to reverse course. Legislature is considering various recriminalization bills as well. Lessons learned.

Unfortunately we don't yet seem to be learning the same cause and effect lessons when it comes to housing and firearms.

[Josh]

It works the same way of course. Oregon and California liberalized their drug laws and saw an increase in drug use. Texas hasn't and as a consequence, Texas sees about half the rate of overdose deaths as Oregon or California: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... soning.htm

The ENORMOUS policy mistake in Oregon was in thinking that if they decriminalize drugs they could divert people into rehab rather than prison. But it hasn't ended up working that way. Because the only leverage the authorities previously had to force people into rehab or getting help was the thread of prison time. Take that away and you take way every last bit of leverage to force addicts to get help. And yes, many do need to be FORCED to get help.

It sounds like there are various initiatives on the ballot to recriminalize hard drugs so it looks like Oregon is going to reverse course. Legislature is considering various recriminalization bills as well. Lessons learned.

Unfortunately we don't yet seem to be learning the same cause and effect lessons when it comes to housing and firearms.

Could you point us to when firearms were "decriminalised"? From what I can tell, firearms used to be far more easily accessible, yet the amount of gun violence was less. (To give you an idea, you used to be able to buy a machinegun in a hardware store, no questions asked.)

Some states and cities have severely restricted firearms, yet their rate of firearm violence hasn't budged, such as Chicago, Illinois or the District of Columbia.

[ohio jones]

It sounds like there are various initiatives on the ballot to recriminalize hard drugs so it looks like Oregon is going to reverse course. Legislature is considering various recriminalization bills as well. Lessons learned.

Unfortunately we don't yet seem to be learning the same cause and effect lessons when it comes to housing and firearms.

I can only imagine the societal chaos if we would decriminalize housing.

[Ken]

It sounds like there are various initiatives on the ballot to recriminalize hard drugs so it looks like Oregon is going to reverse course. Legislature is considering various recriminalization bills as well. Lessons learned.

Unfortunately we don't yet seem to be learning the same cause and effect lessons when it comes to housing and firearms.

I can only imagine the societal chaos if we would decriminalize housing.

Maybe we would get more of it? Just like we got more drugs and firearms when those regulations were relaxed?

It is currently against the law to put up an apartment building in large parts of many cities. And if you do so in defiance of the law you will face consequential fines and likely be required to tear it back down.

That is certainly the criminalization of certain types of housing. Namely the most affordable type.

[Josh]

It is currently against the law to put up an apartment building in large parts of many cities. And if you do so in defiance of the law you will face consequential fines and likely be required to tear it back down.

In some cities, yes. Except in the entire state of California, you can put up a quadplex. Yet it is still rarely happening.

That is certainly the criminalization of certain types of housing. Namely the most affordable type.

Ken, I think you've assumed facts not entered into evidence... since when are apartments the "most affordable type"? I live in a single family home and my mortgage is $592/mo on a 15yr mortgage (it was $555 when I bought it, but property taxes inched slightly up and it changed my escrow). I can't find an apartment that cheap for rent.

A single family house in town is for sale where a 0% down pmt. 30 yr. mortgage would run around $475/mo incl. taxes. Definitely can't find even a 1br apartment for that price right now.

[Ken]

It is currently against the law to put up an apartment building in large parts of many cities. And if you do so in defiance of the law you will face consequential fines and likely be required to tear it back down.

In some cities, yes. Except in the entire state of California, you can put up a quadplex. Yet it is still rarely happening.

That is certainly the criminalization of certain types of housing. Namely the most affordable type.

Ken, I think you've assumed facts not entered into evidence... since when are apartments the "most affordable type"? I live in a single family home and my mortgage is $592/mo on a 15yr mortgage (it was $555 when I bought it, but property taxes inched slightly up and it changed my escrow). I can't find an apartment that cheap for rent.

A single family house in town is for sale where a 0% down pmt. 30 yr. mortgage would run around $475/mo incl. taxes. Definitely can't find even a 1br apartment for that price right now.

In pretty much every city in the country it will be cheaper to rent an apartment rather than buy a house (or rent a house) The issue of housing shortages is really an issue of cities and urban areas (and a few resort areas like Jackson WY, Aspen CO, Key West FL, etc.). Take a look at any of top 50 largest metro areas in the country and I suspect that will be true, especially if we are talking about the median apartment versus the median house. Can you find a cheap house in a run-down area that is more affordable than an expensive luxury apartment in a prime location? Of course. But those aren't medians.

Take Houston, for example since we used it as an example of a cheaper housing market. The median home price is $290,000 and the median 2-br apartment rent is $1,348/mo. To buy that median home at 10% down would require a down payment of $29,000 and financing a mortgage of $261,000. At the current 30 year fixed rate of 7.5% that would generate a monthly mortgage payment of $1,830/mo. to which you will need to ad AT LEAST $1000/mo. for taxes, PMI, insurance, and so forth making the cost of home ownership closer to $3,000/mo. Given that Houston is in a flood and hurricane zone. And that doesn't include home maintenance. So roughly $30k down payment and monthly carrying cost of $3,000+ to buy a home in Houston compared to $1348/mo. to rent the average apartment. And buying might be more than $3k depending on the location as flood insurance is going through the roof in coastal Texas and Texas has high property tax rates due to the absence of sales tax.

But guess what? There are condos for sale all over Houston in the $75,000 range which would be cheaper than the median house obviously. But they are all in big complexes that would be illegal to build in the areas we are talking about. So maybe we can clarify that apartments/condos are the cheapest form of housing. It is the same PHYSICAL FORM of housing just the difference between renting versus buying. Either way, condos are as illegal to build as apartments, even with the changes that California has implemented.

In any event, what goes on in rural Ohio, Nebraska or West Virginia isn't really relevant to any discussion of housing shortages, zoning, and housing policy. This is a big and diverse country and one can't apply generalities about one area to a completely different one.

[Josh]

NYC has high rise apartments and condos everywhere yet has some of the worst rents and prices for those condos in the nation.

Most Americans look at NYC and say “no thanks”. For those who think families need to live in a cramped apartment, NYC is great. They can move there.

Canton, Ohio built condos in a high rise tower. They cost more than the price of buying a house. Most of them remain unsold. Canton has no roadblocks to building denser - it is just not desirable and doesn’t sell.

[Ken]

NYC has high rise apartments and condos everywhere yet has some of the worst rents and prices for those condos in the nation.

Most Americans look at NYC and say “no thanks”. For those who think families need to live in a cramped apartment, NYC is great. They can move there.

Canton, Ohio built condos in a high rise tower. They cost more than the price of buying a house. Most of them remain unsold. Canton has no roadblocks to building denser - it is just not desirable and doesn’t sell.

Poor people are not stupid. In fact they are forced to be more astute to expenses than wealthy people.

And the fact of the matter is that in EVERY city in the country if you are poor, the most economical form of housing you are going to find is apartment living. I defy you to show us any of the top 50 or top 100 housing markets in the country where poor people are buying houses instead of renting apartments because that is the cheaper option. Even in NYC it is vastly cheaper to rent an apartment than buy any kind of house.

And if you wanted to increase the amount of housing in NYC you would build more apartments and increase density. Rather than tear them down and replace them with single family homes. To argue otherwise is utterly absurd.

In fact there are plenty of tables out there showing the minimum income required to buy the median home in every housing market in the country. https://www.hsh.com/finance/mortgage/sa ... ities.html

The national average is $111,176.20. That minimum level of household income puts one in the 68th percentile nationally. Meaning that 68% of American households cannot afford to buy the median home in their community in 2023. The median household income in the US is 74,000 which is 50% short of what is required to buy the median single family home.

What do all those people do? They rent. It is also a generational thing. Lots of older people own homes because they bought them decades ago when homes were much cheaper. The majority of families under the age of 35 are renters. Because they can't afford to buy. Meaning that if your objective it to urban areas more affordable for young families you need to increase the supply of apartments not single family homes.

And by the way, the median home price in NYC is $665,000 compared to $1,300,000 in San Francisco because a vastly higher percentage of those homes are condos and co-ops in big buildings rather than single family homes like much of San Francisco. Look it up on the link above. So while NYC is still an expensive city it is half the cost of San Francisco because there are vastly more units available and far less restriction on new construction.

[Josh]

A home in the nearest village to me starts at $80k (for a 2 br place) and would rent for $700-$800. An apartment that’s also 2br would be $600-$700. The SFH is simply a cheaper option. The cost of a mortgage for $80k with taxes is around $550.

I realise this doesn’t fit your worldview of “it’s best if everyone is crammed into apartments”, but crowded apartments that have to be rented are not actually the most efficient arrangement. In particular, the long term maintenance and depreciation on them is pretty bad. (Ask anyone who’s had a condo or a co-op about that.) And once you go multi story it gets a lot more expensive thanks to all the extra infrastructure to maintain.

In addition, a situation that forces people into renting generally means a lot more exploitation and difficulty saving wealth, because all the wealth accrues to a handful of landlords. This long term leads to blight and less upward mobility and people don’t feel invested in their neighbourhood, which also eventually leads to more crime and other social problems.

P.S. I don’t know what parallel universe you live in where NYC is cheaper than California… I’ve lived in both and there isn’t even a comparison. When I lived in an NJ suburb I paid $1,000 a month to rent a room. Manhattan would have cost more. When I lived in San Diego (5 years later) I rented a decent apartment for $700 a month. NYC is high cost and nobody’s buying a home for $600k there unless it’s an absolutely tiny studio.