I'll keep pushing my idea that it's all explained by over-urbanisation and the ongoing density-misery spiral.
Why? Because it heavily distorts the perception. And perception ultimately _becomes_ the economy.
For example, the US and Canada are doing AWESOME with housing. The number of units per household is near the historical highs, and it dwarfs the numbers seen in the 80-s and 90-s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv
But ask anybody in the urbanist community, and they'll keep harping about how there's a "housing crisis". Probably due to NIMBYs, evil governments, and "corporations". Reptiloids from Mars are also a distinct possibility.
People are now forced to move into larger cities, and they don't make any new land. So rents in the desirable places are growing, while smaller towns fall into decay.
This in turn affects the overall economy. E.g. young people understand that they can't just hope to work as a car mechanic and live a comfortable life. They now have to get a university degree (number of enrolled college students is almost 2x than that in 1970-s) to qualify for an office job in a large city. So now they face college loan repayments.
This all keeps adding more and more factors that are simply ignored by the models. If your perception is that you'll be living in a shoebox, giving 50% of your salary for rent and college loans, you're far less likely to spend money on a new car. Or conversely, you might take a huge loan and buy a car that you can't really afford just to feel good about _something_.
And the old models are just failing to capture this kind of complexity. But I think that over time, the economists will recalibrate them, and they'll be more representative again.
Small towns have an opportunity to up their game by offering remote work hubs for the 'big city employers'. I'd return to office if I could just walk a few blocks instead of putting my life on the line commuting ten times a week.
Absolutely. But smaller cities can't really do that much to attract people. They typically already have very low regulatory burdens for new construction, and very cheap land.
What is needed is pressure on _companies_ to force them to consider offices in small cities. And this can be done only via economic forces. For example, with a tax on dense office space and/or tax breaks for remote employment.
> The number of units per household is near the historical highs, and it dwarfs the numbers seen in the 80-s and 90-s
Your link appears to only goes back to 2001.
Looking at Census data, it appears the reverse is true. Every year from 1984 to 1999 had a higher units/household than today, for the bulk of the 90s, dramatically higher, with it peaking in 1998 at 1.61 units/household compared to 1.11 today.
And that doesn't really change anything in my argument, the correction is in the third digit. The housing ratio right now is close to the record-high level, and surpassing that in 70-s and 80-s. And it certainly was not 1.6 in 1998.
Indeed, I did copy that out wrong, but I don't think your argument that housing is substantially higher today than the 80s or 90s stands.
Nor does today surpass all of the 80s. As I stated before, the ratio of units to households was a higher from 1984 to 1999 than today.
It is higher than the 1970s, but there was a housing crisis in the 70s to early 80s, so that doesn't mean much, especially given it's a relatively recent change. 2012 to 2022 was worse than the 70s.
Why? Because it heavily distorts the perception. And perception ultimately _becomes_ the economy.
For example, the US and Canada are doing AWESOME with housing. The number of units per household is near the historical highs, and it dwarfs the numbers seen in the 80-s and 90-s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv
But ask anybody in the urbanist community, and they'll keep harping about how there's a "housing crisis". Probably due to NIMBYs, evil governments, and "corporations". Reptiloids from Mars are also a distinct possibility.
People are now forced to move into larger cities, and they don't make any new land. So rents in the desirable places are growing, while smaller towns fall into decay.
This in turn affects the overall economy. E.g. young people understand that they can't just hope to work as a car mechanic and live a comfortable life. They now have to get a university degree (number of enrolled college students is almost 2x than that in 1970-s) to qualify for an office job in a large city. So now they face college loan repayments.
This all keeps adding more and more factors that are simply ignored by the models. If your perception is that you'll be living in a shoebox, giving 50% of your salary for rent and college loans, you're far less likely to spend money on a new car. Or conversely, you might take a huge loan and buy a car that you can't really afford just to feel good about _something_.
And the old models are just failing to capture this kind of complexity. But I think that over time, the economists will recalibrate them, and they'll be more representative again.