What’s so weird about this article is that in the middle he basically admits that the YIMBY argument is correct.
Here he says that if a new development lures new rich people to the city it puts upwards pressure on all housing! This is the YIMBY argument! If you build more luxury housing and it increases the per capita stock it puts downwards pressure on all housing!
Even in this concocted argument where inwards migration causes prices to rise, it must by the same argument be putting downwards pressure on the city they left.
And the argument is largely concocted because rich people can always move to a new city, it’s the people they push down the ladder that get forced out. If you can afford a luxury flat you don’t have to wait for a new one to be build, you can just buy and renovate a townhouse.
A nicer framing about new housing is ‘when I build new housing, do I want to increase the average quality of housing or decrease it?’. In reality, the total rent/housing costs is largely fixed by the total pay of workers in a region, who all pay ~30% in rent.
So it’s right to always build the nicest housing you can because if housing quality and quantity relentlessly rises eventually everyone has nicer housing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Iron Economist

Iron Economist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @IronEconomist

22 Dec 20
This is a terrible idea. The reason it’s a terrible idea is that it’s virtually impossible. People who have worked with real data for years are often still abjectly terrible at it. As evidenced by the number of well credentialed experts who were revealed as charlatans by Covid.
See also the number of people who think that supply and demand do not apply to housing.
The number of criminologists who refuse to accept that almost all of the two massive crime waves in America were driven by lead poisoning. And probably also teen pregnancy rates.
Read 11 tweets
22 Nov 20
They also attend properly to the effects of reporting lags in death:
This leaves them with the following sample:
And they find the following:
Read 17 tweets
3 Sep 20
So there seems to be a myth taking hold among the twitter commentariat that a lot of housing economists think that the rise in house prices in the UK is well explained by interest rates alone. This.... is not the expert consensus. Here is a thread of papers (in no partic order).
Nice recent paper using a planning dataset from the uk:
Starts with a nice little literature review:
Read 18 tweets
12 May 20
ONS now recorded 46380 excess deaths by May first. Deaths are coming off but there are still going to have been many thousands since May first, we are certainly over 50k already, and it seems doubtful death rates will fully normalise before we reach 60k.
60000 deaths is 0.1% of the population. This means a sero-prevalence at 10% would lead to an IFR of 1%. In the last ten days we have had three pieces of information that make it likely the total attack rate closer to 5% than 10% in the UK, and consequently an IFR near 2%.
Firstly Patrick Vallence gave a preview of the UK ongoing serology study (due May 14th I believe): parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/78… look around 10:20-10:20. 10% in London 3-4% UK wide.
Read 7 tweets
24 Apr 20
So I was reading this excellent analysis of how GRR Martin's books differ from the medieval world, and it brought together a few thoughts I have been having for a while: acoup.blog/2019/06/12/new…
One of the reasons I find history so fascinating, is that it somehow reveals how our modern world is anomalous, and I think one way in which our world is particularly unusual, is the lack of real constraints on elite behaviour.
And by elite here I do not just mean billionaires, I mean university professors, and small bushiness owners and journalists. The top 10% on some ranking of financial power and prestige.
Read 21 tweets
25 Mar 20
Absolutely mad to me how many people are credulously reporting the FT headline that ‘up to half of U.K. may have been infected’ when the paper plots a variety of results and to get that one you have to assume an IFR 100x smaller than consensus.
No wonder the researchers ‘weren’t keen to criticise the government’. They probably know perfectly well the IFR is likely around 1%.
Their paper points out the path of deaths can be consistent with higher prevalence/lower severity. But people have been estimating those numbers and despite uncertainty exactly no one thinks it’s a tenth as deadly as the common flu. Which is what is needed for 50% exposure.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!