Look at the price of gold. Asset inflation is happening because we’ve 20 years of inflationary policies that hid in equities because of 0%-3% rates.
Now that the rates have gone up, that money is chasing lower downside risk investments. Assets and commodities are the safest place to park cash when you can’t trust monetary policy to protect savings.
I still have no idea how that would work. Imagine launching an entire data center building into space, and then imagine also launching a solar array to power it, and then also launching a gigantic radiator to cool it... and the radiator is full of some kind of liquid that can never leak even though it's in a vacuum.
Like, sure, but also, that seems like a lot of work, a lot of extra cost, and a lot of risk, all just to avoid building it in Kansas.
It was also hard for many people to imagine a reusable booster, a belly flopping Starship, catching the largest booster ever built with “chopsticks”, a 10,000 satellite constellation, etc.
Orbital compute is technically very feasible. We’re not talking about a datacenter-sized structure, but a lot of rack-sized satellites connected by laser links. SpaceX has gotten pretty good at building, launching, and managing large constellations.
Economically it obviously it has challenges, but there are some advantages (6x solar production, free real estate, less regulation, arguably simpler cooling) to balance the extra costs (launch, radiators, lack of access for maintenance, limited lifespan, etc).
>It was also hard for many people to imagine a reusable booster, a belly flopping Starship, catching the largest booster ever built with “chopsticks”, a 10,000 satellite constellation, etc.
I don't actually think this would be hard to imagine. I've been a huge fan of Space X since it's launch exactly because these types of things do seem feasible because they save so much of money if they are achievable.
A moon base with a secondary launch site, yes. Mining asteroids for precious metals, definitely. I'm not some Luddite.
My only point here is that you can build a data center on the ground trivially easily. Any data center that can exist in space could much more easily exist on the ground... where you can update it and fix things that go wrong. The only issue is politics. I'm entirely happy to be wrong here. If someone can explain the thesis, I'd be happy to get on board.
Solar power is already one of the cheaper (and cleaner!) forms of power generation. In dawn dusk sun synchronous orbits where satellites are always fully illuminated the panels will produce around 6 times as much electricity as those on the ground. And you don't need batteries to operate 24/7 (and as a bonus, the satellites will follow the work day demand curve through the day, reducing latency, at least for some people).
A fully reusable Starship will drastically change the economics of both initial launch as well as maintenance. I expect it will become more feasible to send vehicles to refuel/repair/replace components and keep satellites flying longer. Especially for orbital compute where there will be relatively few dense orbital planes. SpaceX showed modular servers in their video https://youtu.be/k3Un1TizSNg?si=14-bjxXkiyM6cxpg&t=36
First off, let’s not pretend rocket launch dependent solar is “cleaner.” Be reasonable. Solar + saline batteries is pretty damn clean.
Yes, I watched the video. It’s talking about solar and radiators. I agree, if we can solve solar and radiators, it’s feasible tech.
I’m still not entirely sure it’ll be competitive with solar data centers on the ground. I realize I’m no expert, but it just seems like a bizarre way to do computing.
Everything I like about Space X is about doing things that you can't do on earth, because you can't do them on earth feasibly.
> Everything I like about Space X is about doing things that you can't do on earth, because you can't do them on earth feasibly.
I agree those kinds of things are more exciting, but the other angle is SpaceX needs an excuse to do lots of Starship launches, just like Starlink has done for Falcon 9. If orbital compute can at a minimum be profitable enough to pay for the launches it will help bring the cost of Starship down and the reliability up, allowing SpaceX to do more with Starship.
(Of course if orbital compute merely breaks even then maybe the current valuation isn’t justified)
> catching the largest booster ever built with “chopsticks”
I've heard this often. It's not what happens. More correct to say that engineers (not Musk) got a booster to land in a pre-specified spot. The "chopsticks" aren't waving around to catch anything flying by. The booster comes to them.
LMAO, ok, how about “precisely landing the largest flying structure ever built such that it could be grabbed by two mechanical arms attached to the launch pad”?
That will make it clear it’s not actually a giant Mechazilla robot reaching out to grab the booster using literal chopsticks where ever it happens to come down.
You should actually stop and try to imagine it, or failing that, read some of the proposals from companies who want to do it.
None involve launching buildings.
You can look at their models for comparisons with Kansas. There is literature and papers you can read about this. Some go back decades if you include space power transmission, which are related.
That's the cool part, scoofy. You don't need to understand how it will work, you don't need to take any physics classes, round up enough investors, seek out and explain the basic ideas with the people who will make it happen, or invent anything new. Nor do you need to understand political sciences, taxation, jurisdictions, supply chains, or anything else needed to understand the question behind the Data Centers in Space solution.
You aren't even being roped into it with taxes, nor do you have to buy a single share. Other than willingly reading about it on whichever news sources you choose, your observed life will not change a single bit.
You can choose to seek out that info, or you can remain blissfully ignorant. But please don't join the online cacophony of people polluting the threads thinking everyone wants to understand just how ignorant they are.
I get it, I really do. It's a hard task and you don't understand it. But WHY do you feel the need to share that you don't understand? Do you think it makes you look smarter? Do you feel like you fit in more now? If you seek to understand, why aren't you asking questions??
>You aren't even being roped into it with taxes, nor do you have to buy a single share.
Because of the eventual index inclusions, and insane market cap, this affects nearly everyone with a retirement account. Unless you aren't tracking big indexes for some reason.
And some of our compute will run in space, the point is that it's all happening in the background. Most people have no idea how their retirement accounts work beyond knowing it's a bunch of companies pooled together. You don't need to understand how stocks get traded through Alternative Trading Systems, how the companies can decide to take profits vs paying out dividends, etc. A lot of the information is freely available, but you don't need to understand it or take any action.
People who "refuse to move" to Texas honestly have no idea what they're talking about. Yes, you probably wouldn't like it, but it's certainly not what you think it is. I grew up in Texas (mostly Austin), and later in life moved to California, and genuinely can't stand the navel-gazey "I've never been there but I know I'd hate it" type of attitude that prevails here.
Texas is a gerrymandered purple state, not a red state. It's just that the state is the California's bogey-man, because Californians don't actually want to face the fact that we have major problems with long-term affordability and the ability to build a life for middle-class folks (perhaps less appreciated by the disproportionately high-income folks on this forum). Every single urban area in Texas is now heavily aligned with the Democratic party, and the vast majority of those areas are affordable places to build a life and build wealth.
When I was growing up in Austin, it had the second highest per-capita gay population in America after San Francisco. Houston had a lesbian mayor. In many cities Spanish is the dominant language spoken. Texas cities are not some place where minorities have to fear for their safety.
The reason not to move to Texas is that it's a suburban hellscape, and you'll be stuck in traffic for more hours a day than you'd like to admit. I left after pushing for transportation alternatives at Austin City Hall, and the result of that traffic mitigation was an express lane down the highway. Texas is, in large part, following the development pattern of Southern California.
Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso are all lovely towns, full of vibrancy, amazing culture, friendly people, reasonable weather most of the year, wonderful food, and reasonable cost of living. Politics are an issue, but again, that all hangs on a 2%-5% swing in a census year, and the entire state could end up redrawn as 50-50 split. I just want folks on the American coasts to remember that a big part of why Texas is branded as "that really bad place" is exactly because folks on the coast refuse to look in the mirror and fix the problems of affordability, wealth inequality, and clean energy that Texas has addressed. Instead, they've made Texas a bogey man that is "very bad" so that you can't point to things like rapid development of housing and renewables as actually the way to fix affordability.
> Texas is a gerrymandered purple state, not a red state
Man, I just don't get this at all. Sure, there may be some democratic areas in the large cities, but they pretty much have zero say in the local state governance. Look at the recent walk outs and leaving the state only to return to have the legislation they were protesting pass with nothing they could do. There is no democratic power. Even those large cities that lean left have attempted to buck the system by passing local regulations that the state then sues them to prevent those liberal policies from taking place. As an example, Dallas passed decriminalization for marijuana, but the governor said no via law suits. This idea of Texas being purple just comes across as farcical and out of touch. I say this as someone that grew up in Dallas, lived in LA, and now lives back in Dallas. You sound just like someone from Austin.
I know plenty of women that are very unhappy with the state for not dissimilar reasons as the GP with friends that have moved out of state specifically for the government's apparent disdain for women.
The effect of gerrymandering is why Texas is a very red state and nothing approaching the purple you claim. That claim is what makes you sound as if you were from Austin even if you didn't state it. Austin has a reality distortion field around it where they think everyone is a liberal hippie while being the heart of the right wing operation center. Try visiting Collin or Tarrant County or pretty much any small Texas town. It'll be quite a bursting of your purple bubble
My point is that OP was worried about lifestyle and safety. That fair. Don’t live in Ft Worth.
A “Red State” is a state where pretty much wherever you go, it’s Republican voters. Their election results statewide are R+15 or more. Oklahoma is R+34. Texas’s statewide elections are surprisingly close. Often R+5 or less, and occasionally R+2. That’s purple. That means that half the state are allies.
I lived in Austin for a decade, and I think this is off base.
Yes, Austin is not like rural Texas. But also, the state legislature is in Austin and loves nothing more than voting down or making illegal any progressive measure Austin tries to take. While I was there, we voted pretty overwhelmingly for a solid plan to add some trains, but the state leg then made the method of funding illegal. Same on the plastic bag ban. Same on regulating uber and lyft.
And, much more critically, same on abortion and other issues that directly impact people’s fundamental rights. Not sure if Garza is still DA, but his power to selectively enforce state law is limited, and people can still be denied lifesaving care because of regressive state laws, or prosecuted for having a suspicious miscarriage. Any kind of care for trans people is similarly handicapped.
The state politics also mean that public nature access is not great. The few nice places in the vicinity of Austin are usually overcrowded, and there are far fewer state or national parks compared to other large states.
I am glad to have moved out, and I would never move back while the state politics remain what they are.
Also “reasonable weather most of the year” is a stretch. Reasonable if you love summer, I guess, but six months of brutal heat is not fun.
I only lived in Austin for a couple of years, but I grew up in the Amarillo and Lubbock and am a direct descendant of the racist, slave-holding white settlers who signed on the Texas Declaration of Independence.
I can concede that there are plenty of nice folks and pretty places in the state.
That's the line the person you're responding to is fishing for: somehow the people in the state aren't responsible for the oligarchy that runs it. Somehow folks aren't responsible for not knowing how oppressive that political situation is for everyone who isn't shaped like them.
I've left Texas; your points here agree with my understanding.
Texas is nothing special- I can get the same cedar fever out on my 40 acres in rural Colorado, but the view is better. I'd rather live out here where I have an outhouse than try and find parking in the green belt and go climb on a few chipped and shitty 40-foot rock climbs in a 104* sauna.
I did go down for 18 days of the Kerrville Folk Festival this year- that and my kiddo who lives in Dallas are the only things that can pull me that far south any more.
It's a just-fine place if you're okay with the highly authoritarian politics.
A lot of folks clearly are okay with those restrictions on their behavior. They see the state as only repressing other people; if the state is murdering black and brown folks (say, folks like Sandra Bland for instance), it's clearly because that's the natural, normal thing for a state to do. And it's somehow never going to affect them.
Maybe their sister has never wanted reproductive healthcare and needed a drive from Lubbock to San Antonio and back to get 2 pills. Of course, now that's not even possible, so maybe that kind of state repression is no longer relevant?
But I feel that kind of stuff in my day to day life, and I can't really ignore it.
It's not much better west of the Pecos, but at least there are fewer people here.
Texas policy is actively hostile to women and the poor (healthcare, labor protections, etc). You’re probably fine if of means, and not a woman of reproductive age. Everyone else is existing in Texas as an economic human factory farm.
California is hostile to the poor. When median income in SF is $140K per household. A two-bedroom apartment costs $5000 per month. It's literally illegal to build housing for actual poor people who have jobs there. I know plenty of working class folks in the 40s and 50s here in SF with multiple roommates, because CA has effectively become a rent-seeking paradise. There is no future for these people. They will eventually lose their housing and either move to a state like Texas or become homeless.
I’d rather be poor and/or homeless in California, anywhere in the state, versus Texas. Especially as it relates to climate. Texas is running out of water and will only keep getting hotter.
Wait... you're talking about a Water crisis in terms of Texas compared to California? You really should give Cadillac Desert a read.
Texas is draining their portion of the Ogallala, and are putting strain on Texas rivers, but California is literally a desert that moves water to its cities from hundreds of miles away... devastating communities and national parks in the process.
California is the world’s fourth largest economy and the number #1 state by population, they have the resources and the political will to ensure continuity of basic human living needs like water. I argue Texas has neither. I’m not here to change your mind, those who want to remain in the sacrifice zone Texas is are free to make that choice.
Data centers, solar panels, and battery storage belong in Texas, not humans, roughly speaking.
> California is the world’s fourth largest economy and the number #1 state by population
Texas is the world’s ninth largest economy if we include CA, and is projected to pass CA in population by 2050. Not really sure what your point is.
I obviously don’t love Texas. I moved away. I just think it’s a very reasonable place to live and we could do a lot to improve California by addressing our problems in way that Texas has successfully combatted them, especially housing and solar development.
I argue California has more resources and is better positioned to manage their future water scarcity needs than Texas.
Citations:
John C. Morris, Jonathan M. Fisk, Megan Heim-LaFrombois, Franziska R. Baack; A comparative study of water allocation and drought in two US states. Water Policy 1 January 2026; 28 (1): 1–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2025.350
> Every single urban area in Texas is now heavily aligned with the Democratic party, and the vast majority of those areas are affordable places to build a life and build wealth.
How much does that matter with the state legislature firmly in Republican control? The legislature isn't shy about making state laws to stop cities when the cities try to do Democrat things locally.
Well off tech folks in this forum will like California more. I’m well off and left Texas, so I obviously agree with that.
My point is that it’s easy to clutch pearls in a zero-sum economy like CA’s when you’re on top. The reason I still have a fondness for Texas is that despite some of the political change that I find frightening, it’s still a better place for most folks to go to build a life.
It’s not perfect, but when every single blue city in a blue state has an affordability crisis, I have to commend Austin for actually building the housing people need to actually own something, instead of just talking about it and doing mostly nothing like SF, LA, Seattle, Portland, NYC, and Boston have all done.
Good on Texas for not letting cities try to preserve themselves in amber. That just enriches incumbents by allowing them to engage in rent-seeking.
Austin's affordability is still incredibly bad, especially when you consider how stratified the incomes tend to be. When I was working there my apartment cost around $1300 a month and the year I left my rent rose by 30% to around 1700 a month. This was in an area far away from the core of Austin, next to absolutely nothing. It's recovered a bit recently but because all of the people (you included) are encouraging folks (see: tech) to move to Austin the rents spike based on how much perceived demand there is. The minimum wage has not (and by state law cannot change) kept up with modern standards and while many companies offer starting pay above minimum wage it's still well below other cities. If you honestly think Austin is a place where people can go to own something then I think you've been so long away from the city as to be out of touch.
In comparison I'm paying around $2000/month for an apartment in Seattle but this is in an area that's right next to the light rail and well taken care of. With the light rail expanding I could easily find apartments even cheaper that still keep me within walking distance and without needing a car.
Gay Texan here leaving the country next year. Maybe culturally in the cities you have a point, but the gerrymandered state government still very much affects you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate_Bill_12
Thanks to SB12, it would be illegal for a teacher to answer when a student in my kids’ class asks why they have 2 dads. They would also be unable to join a support club like the Gay Straight Alliance which was (barely) tolerated when I grew up here in the 00s. This isn’t even mentioning performative BS like teachers having to hang the 10 commandments in schools, or the rabid anti-trans laws affecting adult treatment and identity documents. Discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity is also banned in higher education, as well.
This isn’t even covering the abortion ban or other issues. A friend’s sister almost died of an ectopic pregnancy because she couldn’t find a doctor to help terminate. She wanted the child, but nature had other plans.
I love Texas and agree with a lot of the positive points you raised. I wish I didn’t have to abandon my family and friends having lived here for over a decade as an adult and having grown up here, but I can’t raise my kids here.
All this is true, but the abortion restrictions are state-wide and a real issue while also remaining a symbolic turn-off for women from blue states. The bigger issue is the influence of Christianity on the legal system, which approaches third world levels for such a rich state.
I don't disagree that the abortion issue is egregious.
My point is more subtle. California is currently sacrificing the futures of entire generations. Why? To protect the property wealth the previous generations. To protect ocean views. To protect vibes.
My point is that I'm a consequentialist. I honestly don't know which state is doing more harm. Texas' is open and obvious and mean spirited. At the same time I see what California is doing to it's young people. It has become normal for people in their 40s and 50s to be forced to live with roommates because housing attainability literally doesn't exist. A major problem is now schools lacking teacher because the they can't afford to live anywhere. Cities are now building company town-style dorms for teachers. It's crazy.
I have no idea why it gets a pass from the pearl clutchers on my side of the political spectrum.
I just wish we would have the same reaction when looking in the mirror, and say: "as a egalitarian dude I will never take a job in California. Homeowners may enjoy favorable tax laws, but there are many bright people who - for one of a NUMBER of reasons - will never move there. It is destroying young people's futures."
I know that if I lived somewhere urban it would feel welcoming. I know there's a large LGBT community there already. I know that there's gay clubs and stuff like Texas Furry Fiesta.
But the urban areas aren't passing the state laws. The state of Texas has laws that ban teachers from talking about LGBT topics or about LGBT folks in school. If I were to find a partner and I wanted to adopt, in Texas I have no protections against discrimination. A child placing agency can exclude me on religious grounds.
Trans folks face all that and more. They ban transgender folks from using school facilities. They ban trans folks from using public restrooms. They do that thing where they define gender as being exactly equal to biological sex. The "panic" defense is allowed in murder cases. I'm not trans personally, but they're part of my community and they're slowly having their existence criminalized.
Again: there are many parts of Texas that are great. The legal landscape is hostile to LGBT folks.
I've lived in Texas. It is exactly as bad as people say, and I will never move back. Regardless of how nice Austin is, there is only so much I can tolerate an actively hostile state government to my existence.
Just to add to your Texas comment: there are a few larger states that have distinct hubs where people think so differently, that they might as well be living in different states. People who haven't lived in these states don't really have a good feel for how different the internal cultures can be.
California: we know how SoCal is culturally worlds apart from Norcal, and both are worlds apart from inland California.
North Carolina: culturally Charlotte ≠ Research Triangle ≠ Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point. There is no single NC culture.
Florida: the stereotypes exist, but I've visited different metros in Florida and they couldn't be more different. South Florida (Miami) is very Latin while the panhandle (Tallahassee, Pensacola) couldn't be less Latin -- it's mostly southern culture. Orlando, Tampa are also way different.
Florida in fact shouldn't be governable -- every part of the state has different interests. Yet it somehow works.
The real reason companies are moving to Texas (the casual racism is just a bonus)? Court shopping for their arbitration clauses. If you sue/have an arbitration dispute with a Texas based company they have strategically located their headquarters in the areas with the most 'court shopped' judges that will rule for the corps.
Refuse to do business with Texas corporations. They are un-American and take away so many of your rights when you do business with companies based there.
Why would you refer to historic racist policies that are no longer enforceable? We might as well talk about Japanese internment. It's not relevant to modern life.
No, the reason not to live there is that I don't have the save civil rights as in other states. My life is, on a fundamental level, worth measurably less in Texas than that of a brainless fetus. I can't get lifesaving healthcare if I accidentally get pregnant. If you're totally cool living where around 50% of the population aren't legally your equal, you may not have done your homework on how this always turns out.
Honestly it may be 50-50 purple in population, but the policies are what affect people the most. I’m not even worried about Democrat vs Republican, as I’m not associated to either party, and both have their share of crazy.
There are a number of laws in Texas that make it a non-option for many of us.
I don't even know how to respond to statements like this. Yes, if you care about issues de jour, yes, Texas is going to look terrible. And Texas has terrible stances on issues like abortion.
At the same time, you can't ignore the facts. Texas has high property taxes, which are de facto wealth taxes, so it shouldn't surprise anyone on that Texas has significantly lower wealth inequality than California does.
Again, unless you literally inherit a house with an inherited property tax assessment in CA or vest equity in a unicorn, you're probably going to be poorer in CA than in Texas.
We have to stop pretending the landed aristocracy that exist in California somehow "doesn't count" as inequality and injustice.
Oh California has its problems too, I moved away from California after living there for a few years due to the impossibility of affording a home. It’s a beautiful state but the affordability was oppressive, even for high earners. On top of a bunch of other social issues of their own.
Absolutely not here pretending that California is some promised land. Hell, even the state I ended up moving to has its own problems.
It’s just that the problems that Texas does have are untenable for my family.
I don't know why you're being junked, you said nothing that any Texas resident wouldn't agree with. Shit, we have two of the largest airlines in the world that as an industry have always been incredibly welcoming to the LGBT community.
The only thing that sucks about Texas is the property taxes, other than that it is a very welcoming state with great infra and comfortable standard of living.
>The only thing that sucks about Texas is the property taxes, other than that it is a very welcoming state with great infra and comfortable standard of living.
Great infrastructure is fucking insane thing to say. I was living there during the big freeze in 2021 The state is incredibly unprepared for any sort of major weather event and refuses to actively harden infrastructure against these sort of events. That was one of the many reasons why I chose to leave, because I don't want a repeat.
You're referring to the rather backwards (and isolated) power grid in Texas. Its just another example of how Texas is managed by Good-Ol-Boy network instead of opting for a more consensus-oriented structure as California would do. The ruling party centralizes power at the state level, from where it will burn books, monitor menstrual cycles, issue school curriculum plans and limit power of localities. I don't see how this management model survives to the point where its population grows to pass California. I'd think that TX growth slows some as smaller states like Tennessee, N. Carolina, & Colorado siphon away some of its success owing to better management.
Seriously. It's a bunch of people who've never lived there telling me what it's like.
The property taxes are what keep Texas affordable. Texas's infrastructure is going the way of Southern California, when the politics on property taxes follow what Southern California did, the affordability will disappear too.
Lots of people who have lived in Texas have commented here.
And why do you keep talking about California? You know that two places can both suck, right? Or suck for different reasons, such that different people can find one of them appealing, but not the other one?
That's funny because I lived in California for years and nobody even mentioned Texas, while Texans can't seem to do anything but tell everyone they think of California.
I live in Texas (Austin). The biggest downside day-to-day is the weather in summer. The politics are also a valid concern.
That said, it’s not some dystopian hellscape. Day-to-day it’s not that different than any other place.
Also the cost of living is a lot less than the big tech centers (Bay Area and Seattle). A similar house to mine with a similar commute in a similar quality school district is 4x the price in the Bay Area. I can give my family a better life here.
If you’re wondering what a “K-shaped economy” looks like, this is exactly it. A moderately expensive subscription service that simply provides priority access to something you’re otherwise already paying good money for.
“I mean’s it’s one banana, Michael. How much could it cost, ten dollars?”
They are public works, often in states that simply can’t afford to build or maintain their own infrastructure. But the point remains.
I’m not saying there is any wrong with the service, but I think it’s a worthwhile indicator of what life will be like as wealth inequality continues to accelerate.
The vast majority of modern American toll roads are. I grew up in Austin. We have the Mopac and 183 expansions, route 130 was mostly privately constructed, but is under TxDOT.
Perhaps other parts of the world have privately operated roads, but I’m not aware of them.
The part of route 130 you are referring to is technically owned by texas, but under a long term lease/manage situation, I believe the lease is 50 years. It's private in practice. There are many more such situations in the US than folks realize. Chicago Skyway, Indiana toll road and others. Cities/states will contort structures to be able to say "we still own it!" while economically not owning it.
So, the ones in states that can't afford to build or maintain them are often private roads or PPP.
Australia is one of the top toll roading countries. Sydney had most tolled roads world record for awhile not sure who holds it now. I don’t know whether it is the state or private companies who operate them.
Since you live in the area, and are talking about toll roads, I assume you also probably know of the name Cintra, who are Spainiards. And Cintra is, in fact, a private toll road operator who has owned roads around Austin previously
My point here is that a privately operated toll road that exists purely as a toll road, does not parallel the concept of a moderately expensive subscription for what is effectively an existing product. A more apt comparison would be a toll lane in an existing road, first class compartments, etc.
It's not "captialism." Sweden is capitalist. Norway is capitalist. It's about America going from a high-trust wealthy society, to a low-trust, mostly lower class society with increasing wealth inequality.
If you look around the world, this is effectively the natural state of affairs: India, South Africa, Nigeria, Russia... they all have the same pattern. The US and the West was the outlier in the '50-'90 because we had a lot of wealth redistribution AND free markets. Then the boomers were like, fuck that, we want to all be rich... and they mostly are, but everyone else is fucked.
Government is hard, you need people to give a shit. We decided we don't care somewhere along the way.
If you want people to have kids, you need to make sure they are economically secure by the time they are of childbearing age... which means before they are 30. To do that, you cannot have supply constrained zero-sum shortage anywhere in society. It means that the cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment so people can just save up and buy one early on in their career.
We need to not just allowing housing to get built, but actually we need to go as far as subsiding housing that nobody needs so that it's built before that need ever arises.
This is effectively impossible in a democratic society, and we are going to learn just how impossible it is as western society slowly collapses under the weight of its own social programs. It's honestly horrifying to watch.
I agree that affordable housing is crucial, but the idea that this is 'impossible in a democratic society' ignores global realities. Several democracies heavily subsidize housing—look at Vienna's social housing model or Singapore's HDB system. Yet, this has not solved the birthrate problem; Singapore’s fertility rate recently hit a record low of 0.87.
Ironically, the highest birth rates globally occur where economic security is non-existent, a state of living none of us want to return to.
What is truly worrisome about a country like India is that it is facing sub-replacement fertility before fully industrializing. In states with highly unique identities like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the native population has already fallen well below the 2.1 replacement mark. While internal migration from higher-fertility northern states fills the gap, it creates significant political and cultural friction.
In developed countries, the state can at least leverage accumulated wealth to bankroll healthcare and social services required by a rapidly aging population. In a developing nation like India, they risk growing old before they grow rich, leaving an aging population without the robust safety nets or fiscal runway of the West- we might even see the country slide backwards into sub-saharan African levels of poverty
"Effectively impossible" does not mean "impossible."
Yes, Vienna's housing policy is effective... It's also the only place in the world that manages it. I would argue that it is ideal, but nearly impossible to implement. We can't escape the fact that Vienna operates what is effectively a sovereign wealth fund to create all that housing, which works with the subsidiaries of Austria's actual sovereign wealth fund in development. It's a nice system to be born into, it's nearly impossible to bootstrap.
>the highest birth rates globally occur...
Nobody is suggesting returning above replacement rate births. Falling below replacement rate is only a problem long term because it happens slowly, but exponentially. It will cause a displacement crisis that will rival climate change. Lowering world population would probably be a good idea, theoretically, but again, there's a difference between a linear decline and an exponential decline.
>In developed countries, the state can at least leverage accumulated wealth to bankroll healthcare and social services required by a rapidly aging population.
I don't see how this is relevant. One can be both for "abundance" and taxes on wealth.
Not to repeat myself too much here, but Japan also handling housing very well for two reasons: (1) NIMBYism does not exist by law (and practice) and (2) there is almost zero protected homes for historical/architectural reasons. As a result, you can build and build and build in Japan. There are few limitations except a uniform national building code. Tear down and rebuild (bigger) is constant in big cities in Japan.
Exponential decay isn't impossible to manage if the exponent is reasonable (i.e. closer to 1, i.e. if the average number of children per woman was closer to 2.1). It's just going down too fast.
My understanding of Singapore work culture though is it's intense and competitive. Yes the housing is cheaper and more accessible but it's the same age to get there (maybe a bit earlier). You aren't "economically secure" earlier in life than in Western countries. I don't know enough Vienna's system to speak for it.
Everyone is now dopamine maxxing on smartphones and internet. There's no desire to have kids because kids were a pre-internet and pre-modernity phenomena.
Now that we're fully entertained, there's little need for having children. The FYP has enough entertainment to overcome the biological itch.
Evolution did not anticipate social media and hyper addictive algorithms.
We're microdosing on pleasure and that's desensitized every biological urge to raise children.
Evolution did not anticipate social media and hyper addictive algorithms.
People have been having children later since about the 1930s. The change has been gradual, so it's only really hitting hard now because they've not had any children during the years when it's relatively easy, and now some can't. That could still be due to technology but not social media exclusively.
Coincidently though, this aligns pretty much perfectly to people's stability also shifting to happen later in life. Specifically the economic stability to raise a family on a single income. That's not really possible any more, so it shouldn't be a surprise that people don't do it.
Just to add a little factual data to this point, the fertility rate in England and Wales has been below two children per woman since the 1970s.
The impact of the new TV programming in rural India has been profound—and very positive, say Jensen and Oster. Their interviews revealed that when the new TV services arrived, women’s autonomy increased while fertility and the acceptability of domestic violence toward women significantly decreased."
How can you tell that tech is the cause of people not having children, and not just what they're doing because they don't have children to fill their time?
I don't think you can point to the rise of tech as a casual just because it's popular. If people aren't having children they'll do something else instead. To say what that is you need more evidence that what people are doing.
I was thinking more along the lines of "I'm not in a position to have children because I can't afford them, so I won't. Now I have more time to fill, what's on TV?"
How can you tell that isn't what's happened from looking at the rise of tech?
The wealthy demographics aren't having kids either, and the decline correlates with each inflection point in the rise of pleasure and mental stimulation technology.
Sub-Saharan birthrates are starting to decline just as they're gaining access to smartphones.
All of the countries where women have fewer rights are also experiencing decline in birthrates. They have ~10-30% smartphone penetration.
"Having a child seems fun" is dopamine opportunity cost as much as a financial one. People have always been poorer, but they've never been so endlessly stimulated.
> I'm not in a position to have children because I can't afford them, so I won't. Now I have more time to fill, what's on TV?
Replace this with, "I'm bored. What's on TV / YouTube?" Everything else is unnecessary complication.
People from the 70s are in their 50s today. Approaching retirement age, but most still able and employed. Things will get interesting in those countries as they hit old age and quit the workforce in a large wave.
>Everyone is now dopamine maxxing on smartphones and internet
Childbirth has been collapsing for decades before Mark had launched "thefacebook.com". Japan's TFR cratered in 1960 and never recovered. Did Japan have smartphones in 1960?
Vienna massively depopulated in the mid-20th century, so it had a large excess of underused real estate. Vienna is only now starting to come back to its former population. It is like making the observation that housing is cheap in Detroit.
We need to make cheap housing work in places that have not experienced large-scale depopulation.
> We need to make cheap housing work in places that have not experienced large-scale depopulation.
This will require incredible subsidies both to build and maintain, which I fully support, but I think is politically untenable due to everyone’s unwillingness for taxes to go up while the developed world already carries enormous sovereign debt loads (>100% GDP).
We ate the seed corn, broadly speaking, to maximize the gains for some at the expense of the young and the future. Hopefully I’m wrong, and both taxes go up and the bond market will support more borrowing in the near term for spending that actually delivers value.
large parts of vienna have also been destroyed in the wars, for example 80000 apartments were destroyed or unusable. so it's not underused real estate but more like empty space in the city to develop from scratch. any other city that is not densely packed can have that. new development currently happens on empty space that was never developed before.
Lol "unique identity" just for 2 states is left political propaganda. Don't fall for it. Every state (for that matter, most districts) in India is unique and none are unique because there's so much in common. Depending on how you look at it.
Coming to main topic, much of West doesn't have fiscal runway. But your point about getting old before getting rich is valid. But it is not all bad news.
IMHO one of main challenges for a democracy like India is, planning just about anything that involves land, capital takes just as long as in, say, US or UK due to lots of consensus building, "activism" delays, lawsuits etc. And by the time the thing is built - be it airports, roads, sewage pipes or water treatment etc., the population is far far higher. And it turns out inadequate almost like back to square 1.
Now THAT problem will reduce or go away. You take 20 years to debate a new garbage disposal facility and overcome NIMBY brigades? no issues! The population stays same when you stop arguing and get it done.
> Lol "unique identity" just for 2 states is left political propaganda. Don't fall for it. Every state (for that matter, most districts) in India is unique and none are unique because there's so much in common. Depending on how you look at it.
Err...My point being that it's not like Biharis who move to West Bengal and Tamil Nadu are welcomed with open arms. West Bengal itself is a masterclass in what happens when you dont industrialise and implement birth control policies.
> Coming to main topic, much of West doesn't have fiscal runway. But your point about getting old before getting rich is valid. But it is not all bad news.
If USA's quality of life reduces people can still expect to live better lives than they do in India.
>IMHO one of main challenges for a democracy like India is, planning just about anything that involves land, capital takes just as long as in, say, US or UK due to lots of consensus building, "activism" delays, lawsuits etc. And by the time the thing is built - be it airports, roads, sewage pipes or water treatment etc., the population is far far higher. And it turns out inadequate almost like back to square 1.
Do you think China and Singapore just build like that? If you do you're kinda wrong. A LOT of time is put into planning and gaining consensus. Yes, the means aren't the same as India or USA, but Singapore for instance regularly holds ground level consultation with many people from different walks of life. Strong manning things leads to worse outcomes and both China and Singapore know this and only exercise it when absolutely necessary. The real issue is competent leadership. In most parts of the world only the most undesirable enter politics. It seems like the take away Indians and Americans have at looking at Singapore and China is StrongMan=Good without realising that it was a democracy that placed man on the moon, invented computing and more. The success of China and Singapore is predicated on their leadership and excellent civil service.
You probably have not lived in China (or singapore) and are hence making the comment. What usually happens is some authorities float a project idea on the news. At this point the idea would be toyed with. Depending on feedback gathered via academic studies and social media responses, if the project is seen as controversial the projects scope will be adjusted to some common ground that works well enough for most of the identified stakeholders involved - this is what the civil servants are paid to do. In china this usually is an ongoing dialog between local and central government. In Singapore this usually means focus groups and discussion. Neither countries really want to deal with angry citizens (but will do so extremely harshly when the need arises).
This is in stark contrast to a place like India where pulling up bulldozers to solve problems is becoming increasingly common. Politicians will command building of infrastructure just to satisfy voters without thinking through long term consequences. Often you get projects which exist just to check of the fact that they have built something even if that thing is utterly useless once complete.
> You probably have not lived in China (or singapore) and are hence making the comment.
Followed by:
> This is in stark contrast to a place like India
First: Do I need to have lived in China to have an opinion about anything in China?
Second: Apply your same silly "lived in" rule to your comment about India. The hard part about building in India: It is a democracy with a (somewhat) functional court system and (somewhat) free media, so you cannot steal/take people's property without just compensation. In China? Forget it. The govt does whatever it wants.
: Apply your same silly "lived in" rule to your comment about India. The hard part about building in India: It is a democracy with a (somewhat) functional court system and (somewhat) free media, so you cannot steal/take people's property without just compensation. In China? Forget it. The govt does whatever it wants.
Im of Indian origin, I have lived in India. I also have lived in both China and now call SG home.
Re your point about "somewhat functional court system" and government land acquisition.
In Singapore when the government wants to acquire private estates a vote is held locally against an offer. The offers are extremely generous and hence it is rare for votes not to fall through. The government is also able to actually pay its citizens.
In India we had local political goons threaten to come in and takeover my relative's home since it was not occupied. We could open a court case, but when will it be heard? 50 years from now? Yes the home was in a tier 3 city but still, which is more fair/democratic?
I think he's mixing up bureaucratic competence (and lack of corruption within bureaucracy and political class) with democratic consensus.
Yes, Singapore will never have a boondoggle like California or UK HSR. But the two are not comparable precisely because of all the problems that come with democracy. You just can't see them building a "bat tunnel" for $200m.
India is just a poorer version of UK/USA. China is a bigger version of Singapore. Not just that some things are worse. You can file a lawsuit and keep things on hold for 20 years. The "bulldozing" that happens is mostly local, low level stuff like some mafia or criminal thug getting punished outside of the court system often because that is exactly what the voters demand.
That problem won't go away because India is not at 80 - 95% urbanized like the west. There are still ~50% in villages, who will continue to migrate to cities.
The problem is India only has a few metros. India should be building 100+ new cities and rapidly urbanize. Cities are engines of growth. The slow migration from villages to legacy metros amplifies the infrastructure problems.
Yes. Actually it'll make sense to build new cities instead of pumping billions paying inflated land cost to build roads, rail etc. and metro systems that only pull even more crowds. Let the main cities rot, be replaced over time by new ones. Most empires did that, globally.
The economics almost certainly play a role, but I think the better way to think about it is how we economize time too.
if you are chasing a career, putting in 40,50,60 hours a week - how can you take time off to have a kid? who is going to take care of the kid?
Increasingly having kids has gotten more expensive - housing, childcare costs, and general expected investment/supervision of children. In agricultural societies, kids often helped out with the farming; send them to school and they are around less to help. Say that kids can't roam around outdoors unsupervised, and caregivers have to spend even more time watching (older) children. Etc. And as people increasingly move further from where they grew up to chase good jobs, that means they are on average further from their families who would have helped with childcare in previous generations.
The economic realities factor in too - people are waiting longer to get married because they want to date financially stable people, and financial stability is on average taking longer to achieve. But if you had to move to a more expensive city, further from family... that's a recipe for couples where both work and perhaps have to work to make their finances work. Babies have become a luxury item in these higher cost of living places.
if we want more children, we need to make it easier to be a parent. Cheaper / free childcare, better parental leave policies, and cheaper cost of living so that people who want to be stay at home parents can have that option.
> Cheaper / free childcare, better parental leave policies, and cheaper cost of living so that people who want to be stay at home parents can have that option.
As GP states, heavily pushing subsidies has not been shown to work.
The one thing we know works is restricting access to birth control - I'd bet good money that ups the birth rate in no time. Leave as an exercise for the reader whether it is a good idea xD
> heavily pushing subsidies has not been shown to work
Subsidies only come into affect after you have children. They can not work alone society has a much greater affect. They work wonders at making parenting possible while being part of the work force. You only get the subsidies when you have children, the question is how you are supposed to feel secure enough to have children.
One thing to remember is that “heavily pushing subsidies” needs to be more comprehensive than it tends to be when you look at the details: people decide to delay kids for many reasons and societies often fail to address all of them – e.g. if you subsidize childcare but still have a work culture which expects long hours or sidelines mothers, the existence of the subsidy lessens the impact but probably doesn’t get too many people to change their answer. It’s fairly common to find reports of gaps in the supports for even the more generous societies which lead to people stopping at 1-2 kids when they might otherwise have wanted more.
These days, the big factors include not having dealt with climate change: parents are being asked to make a big gamble that the future will be better, and having all of the evidence suggest otherwise is a widely-cited deterrent.
In the US at least, we've gotten to the point that kids under 10 are rarely trusted to be alone and parents risk neglect charges by leaving them. Even the 10-13 range could be a risk. The problem is if someone calls the cops or social services, enough of those departments will take it seriously that as a parent, you really don't want to risk it.
It's a problem, because it's raised the bar for expected supervision effort, likely far beyond what is really needed.
Then pass Karen's Law and start fining the people making those calls if made without good reason to believe of imminent or reasonable danger to the child. It not only screws up society, but is a complete waste of resources.
Cost of a great apartment by 1920 standards is affordable to anyone before they are 30, the problem is that they want to add lots of nice but non-essential things to that house driving the price up.
If you subsidize building houses, you merely will drive up standard of living without moving childbearing age.
The problem is about priorities not resource constraints.
And solution will be either enough people/countries dying childless and miserable to force the remaining to assign higher priority to children, or technological development of artificial womb and lifespan enhancing drugs to make it possible to have children at 40 when their brain starts to work.
This is definitely not true. As recently as the 50s the cost of a 2/2 house was about 14% of a single median personal income per month. [1] In contemporary times median personal income is about $45k, so that'd be about $525 per month. And they paid lower taxes as well. In contemporary times people pay dramatically more for housing without getting much of anything more in return. People often claim overall housing size has increased which is true, but lot sizes have slightly decreased. So all that means is in the 1950s you also had a much bigger yard instead of walk-in closets or whatever.
> Cost of a great apartment by 1920 standards is affordable to anyone before they are 30, the problem is that they want to add lots of nice but non-essential things to that house driving the price up.
This statement is not true in locations where you can make decent money.
>Cost of a great apartment by 1920 standards is affordable to anyone before they are 30, the problem is that they want to add lots of nice but non-essential things to that house driving the price up.
Absolute bullshit drivel because there's no GrEAt ApARmenTs by 1920 STanDArDs available in any major cities like there were in the 20s. Everyone has to rent a GreaT ApARtMENt bY 1920 StAnDaRDs instead because they just LOVE renting GrREAT ApaRTmeNTs BY 1920 StanDARds instead of buying them for the equivalent of a car payment today.
Yeah, exactly that. Most friends I have in Canada only started to have families once they were able to secure appropriate-sized dwelling. Which didn’t happen until late 30s. And current generations possibly cannot afford it at all in many jurisdictions. And stories I read from back in the day were “a factory worker and a teacher bought and paid off a house in downtown Ottawa in 3 years” are just insane. If I had that kind of purchasing power today I’d have more kids for sure.
No disrespect, but historical evidence does not support this argument. I've seen similar claims made in other threads.
Fertility rates have been decreasing (multiple factors) since 1850, even while general prosperity has been increasing. There is a connection between economic uncertainty and marriage/families over the short run. But the most likely causes of declining birth rates are cultural: modernization, freedom, female economic participation, contraception, later marriage or no marriage, etc.
The world has advanced, and the requirement to procreate has diminished. There is lower want/need from eligible individuals.
My parents had no money at all when they married and they were able to scrape together enough to raise three children.
You are missing a major driver of this. The main reason fertility rates have been decreasing is because of decreasing infant mortality. The number of children surviving to adulthood has been relatively stable until recently.
And more specifically there is a delay between when technology lowers the infant mortality rate and it becomes culturally normal to have the smaller number of children leading to the same number of adult descendants, so you typically get 1-2 generations with way higher populations than preceding generations and then the rest after that is just this large initial population having a normal number of kids. This means you get massive populations and intense crowding decades after the fact.
It's 2026 now and we know for sure that applying purely economic stimuli did nothing substantial to birthrate anywhere. FWIW kids of rich parents do not procreate somehow better even if they are not constrained by housing market.
I don't think this shows that people who can afford housing have more kids. And it shows that even households earning over $700k/year are now below replacement (replacement fertility rate is about 2.1).
In the graph, fertility rates decline with income until around $275k. Those aren't families who can't afford housing. Those are well-off families with low birth rates. The birth rates start to climb in that chart only for the ~4% wealthiest families.
Also, you might reasonably conclude from that chart that rich women (in the $400k+ brackets) have more children, but that's not what the chart is actually showing. It's a synthetic total fertility rate, and not the actual TFR. They look at how many children women in that income bracket had this year, and estimate how many children they would have had if kept that reproductive rate for their whole reproductive period. That's going to misestimate the true rate due to selection effects. So, for example, a women who only wants one child is more likely to choose to have that child at 30, when her family income is higher, than at 18. But that doesn't imply she would have had more children if she had more money.
To put it another way, even if giving people more money had no effect whatsoever on their total fertility rate, you'd still expect the graph to curve up like that due to how people time their pregnancies.
Evolution doesn't work like that. What we have here is a dead end. For whatever reason, this system isn't advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, so we don't reproduce. That's natural selection.
Will we discover life extension technology before we stop having children and humanity simply dies off? Between Altered Carbon and Children of Men, I feel like that's a book and a blockbuster movie waiting to be written.
If conscious machines are even 80% as smart as us and 1) never die and 2) can replicate memories, why would anyone have children again? I'd imagine we'd desperately try to build brain uploads or be intolerably jealous of our eternal life robot kin.
We're going to be so jealous of the robots. They'll have everything and never die.
If this chart showed what you seem to believe it shows, there would be glaring difference between brackets, similar to secular Jews vs Orthodox. What it probably shows is that pro-procreation minority partners has more leverage in pushing their wives/husbands towards having kids when they can appeal to already high economic/social status. Not making a significant change overall though.
Economic stimulus does nothing about affordability of goods in a shortage. Quite the opposite, economic stimulus just causes inflation for goods in a shortage. Which is exactly what we’ve seen for 15 years.
It's a bit of evasion. If you support the claim that it's housing which keeps Western societies birthrate low, you building your theory on the same sand of "economy prevents youth from having kids".
I have a large extended family and we're fairly tight-knit. Lots of family gatherings each year. When questions like this pop up we can just ask the "kids" what they think (kind of a neat idea). Here's the top three replies from last Thanksgiving:
1) We can't afford it.
2) There isn't really a "dating scene" anymore.
3) I'm not starting a family in this country.
and that's the end of things because we either can't or won't address their concerns.
The problem with "just" asking people is that people aren't always aware of the reasons for their own behavior, and even if they are, they are prone to giving socially desirable answers, _especially_ in a social setting like a family Thanksgiving dinner.
Point 1 about affordability is directly contradicted by the fact that low income households are having the most children (except for a tiny minority of ultra rich), and those kids are rarely starving to death.
Point 2 is true, and probably a factor, but even married couples and partners sharing a household are having less children than before.
Point 3 is another excuse: fertility rates are low in _all_ industrialized nations in the world, from Canada, Italy, to Australia, to Japan, with perhaps Israel as the only exception. Meanwhile the countries with high fertility rates are absolutely terrible places to live like Afghanistan or Somalia.
Right. Kids cost time and money. So the lifestyle you can afford _with_ kids is slightly lesser than _without_ kids. But this is true at all income levels below the richest 1% or so.
Every person who chose to have kids had to make some lifestyle adjustments. If "we cannot afford kids" just means "if we had kids we'd have to make some lifestyle adjustments" then practically nobody could afford kids in this sense, including the overwhelming majority of people who _did_ have kids and are doing fine.
That shows that "we cannot afford kids" is not really the reason you're not having kids. More honestly it's "we prefer having more time and money over having children" which is not even an objectively bad preference, but people don't like phrasing it that way because it sounds selfish.
So they say "we cannot afford it", suggesting "we _would_ have kids if we had more money", except in reality they still wouldn't, because at a higher income level they'd be making exactly the same argument, too. Which is why we see fertility rates _decreasing_ with income levels, up to a household income of approximately $500K/year in the US.
Income is not wealth. The crisis is caused by the inability for the median income here to build wealth. That people can’t separate the two is a large part of the problem.
As long as your saving is being eaten by asset inflation, no matter how fast you’re running, you’re still on a treadmill.
Babies are also free labor. They are just like the AI agents of today, parents had their children do a variety of things around the farm, instead of paying for tokens, they had to feed them, thats all.
Early childhood public spending as a percentage of GDP has a strong positive correlation with fertility. That is, among nations that have already experienced the fertility drop associated with women's employment.
I strongly recommend that report to anyone interested, there is a lot of interesting work in it, even just to skim the pictures like I did. That said, I have to say I really don't think "Early childhood public spending as a percentage of GDP has a strong positive correlation with fertility" is a useful takeaway from it. True, yes. Useful no.
Firstly, assuming we're looking at pg 50, seems to be correlation not causation - causation could be reversed (no children -> no need to spend). Secondly, there are so many correlations in that report that picking out any specific one is a bit random.
Also it isn't immediately clear if they're population weighting since the graph makes the US look like an equal to LUX instead of a 300 million person behemoth. To me that seems to make the correlation a minor curio.
"cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment"
That's not true, its that the cost to build the apartment is far too high and the cost is totally passed on to a the public, thereby hovering up any disposable income that might go towards having a child.
There can be a profit margin, but the cost needs to be low.
My point is only that we can see the value capture of the housing shortage by looking at the delta of housing development COGS and housing prices. I generally agree with you that there is plenty of room for profit margin, but when we see housing prices diverging significantly from lowest-cost construction prices, then we can measure our shortage.
My main point is that, because housing takes a very long time to build en masse, you'd want the housing to start being built before people need it.
It's like any other strategic reserve we have. Since demand can spike, and we can rarely see the spikes coming, but we know they will come, just be prepared by subsidizing the development of that thing. We do it for food, oil, weapons, vaccines, you name it. If we know we will need it in the future anyway, and it take a long time to produce, we create strategic reserves. We should do that for housing.
> We do it for food, oil, weapons, vaccines, you name it.
Much easier to have a reserve of X, if X can be put in a warehouse and transported later.
After reading comments here, I think that US has plenty of cheap housing… but… cheap housing is in places where people don’t want to live. (Demand is low, price is low)
If you actually plan to use your own money to build a reserve of housing, better double-tripple check if anybodyz will want to live there.
I both liked Abundance and think there’s truth to what you’re saying.
But it wasn’t what I took away from the book (perhaps it was in there - but what I really got was ‘for a better future we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot, and be prepared to enthusiastically think of and promote the greater good rather than protecting every single valuable individual thing’)
I mean, I agree with what you're saying, but it misses that abundance means abundance. Consumer staples should cost near the price of production, and where margins are out of control, the government should step in and end the rent-seeking... that is what abundance is. If we live in a society where there is no price appreciation in owning an apartment to rent because another apartment can be build next door, then we live in a society where your dollar goes further, and cannot be captured by the wealthy cornering the market.
What we have now is the opposite. We know that housing demand will rise in the future, simply because there will be more people. Instead of the rich investing in housing production to meet this need, we have the rich investing in existing housing because we have effectively stopped production, thus the rich can capture all that value in price appreciation from rent-seeking alone (technically more of it), instead of wasting their time operating a business that builds things.
> we have the rich investing in existing housing because we have effectively stopped production
In my quite affluent city, the most affluent neighborhood has yard signs up every fifty feet expressing that they are furious that the city might develop city-owned parking lots (which are nowhere near their neighborhood) to be high density housing.
One-bedroom apartments in the city center are going for over $3,000 per month.
The rich aren't simply locking up existing housing, their principal concern is preventing any housing from being created, even if it has no effect on them.
I think there should be a relatively simple solution. Tax the homeowners proportional to their homes' market value. Either you get enough tax revenue to build more houses, or the tax burden is too high for those NIMBY to remain at their beautiful suburban homes, and their houses will be back on the market.
But no, when we propose that, all those affluent bourgeois feeding on the young are suddenly poor grandmas just wanting to live the rest of their lives in peace.
Make up your mind, people. Are we going to fix the problem, or are we going to blame Jeff Bezos because some suburban schmucks oppose building apartments. Frankly I don't think Jeff Bezos even cares about apartments. (He has enough money to buy a city block, why would he care.) But it sure feels more righteous to hate Jeff Bezos than argue about real estate tax.
Most states (and other countries) do tax the homeowners proportional to their homes’ market value. California with its tax proportional to value at purchase is the outlier.
I think it’s largely just that people just don’t want to live near poor people, because they think they have bad culture/values/behavior, and will be risky to live near.
Based on comments I’ve seen at city council meetings about this stuff, there’s also some aspect of feeling like infrastructure is already overstressed, traffic is already bad, etc, which is largely an artifact of car-centric development patterns being incredibly wasteful/inefficient, and capping out at relatively low densities. But the existing development pattern is usually not a good fit for mass transit - the utilization is usually too low.
I think the California approach of aggressively upzoning near public transit is pretty good, except that it might cause resistance to public transit expansion.
This kind of thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when all the poor people get crammed into one place.
Singapore does it right by having high quality housing which happens to have a certain amount subsidized for lower income people. You get a mix of incomes and not a slum.
A lot of California's housing development also incentivizes this type of arrangement: permitting can be fast-tracked and local NIMBYs can be steamrolled if a development allocates some, but not all, of the development to be designated as affordable.
Yeah, no argument. I think many in the US want the bar to be higher, though - many want expensive single family housing to be the minimum in their area, apartments would be too affordable, even unsubsidized.
Be prepared to enthusiastically think of and promote the greater good (abundant, cheaper housing in this case) rather than protecting every single valuable individual thing (existing house value, amongst many other things, in this case).
I’m in my fourties’ unable to afford a three bedroom apartment in my city with an income in the top two or three percentile. I’ve had boomers tell me with a straight face that “they did it” so it can’t be that hard despite a 5x increase in housing costs relative to income.
I’d have to spend every single post tax dollar for two decades to afford an actual house. Not counting interest and other taxes and council rates. I’d have to work for 70+ years to afford a nice house in a nice suburb!
“Have more children!”
“Make housing affordable!”
“My retirement fund is all in property and banks!”
There's your problem. Everyone wants to live in the same set of well established well resourced neighbourhoods. But there's too many of us. Go out in the 'burbs and accept that owning a house implies a commute you will dislike (among a host of other compromises).
I’d have to move a thousand kilometres to some shit hole country town to afford a house on a salary I earn by working as a principal consultant in the central business district!
Now imagine the same scenario but with a school teacher, nanny, gardener, or inset job title here that is tied to a specific location.
When “existence here with the rest of us who have pulled the ladder up after us” becomes untenable for entire generations then you don’t get to complain when nobody is around to clean your gutters or wiper your arse when you’re too old to it for yourself.
Our children our are our future and they’re being told to jump through flaming hoops… that aren’t even in the same city as their parents!
> I’d have to move a thousand kilometres to some shit hole country town to afford a house on a salary I earn by working as a principal consultant in the central business district!
I didn't suggest anyone should quit their job. What I said was consider making tradeoffs. Space and affordability in exchange for a longer commute and other distance-related headaches.
>Our children our are our future and they’re being told to jump through flaming hoops… that aren’t even in the same city as their parents!
Nobody is owed the same opportunity as their parents. If the children of the well off have the right to live where they grew up then entire suburbs become enclaves of generational rights-holders.
Many of these problems would go away if cities de-centralised; from one central hub business district to many business districts. The problem, as I see it anyway, is unwillingness to invest in resources and infrastructure, to make satellite developments attractive for business and residents.
Why should it have to? Other countries build vertically in the urban cores. Many places in Europe even build small towns this way. One of the only good things about Europe is that I get to live really close to where I work, and not even have a commute.
Where in Europe should that be? I live in Germany and for example Stuttgart has a shortage of nurses because they can't afford living in a 1 hour commuting range (one way).
A different perspective from Poland: house affordability is equally as bad, so the argument could have been "young people don't have babies because they can't afford three bedroom apartments".
But the country had a major baby boom in the 80s, during a (relatively mild) civil war and in the middle of a major economic crisis, when getting anything other than vinegar was a huge problem.
And I clearly remember ppl living with 3 kids in studio apartments, playing with a lot of kids while waiting in mile long-lines for totally mundane rationed foodstuffs, school classes starting at 2 pm and ending at 8pm (too many kids), and my parents reaching out via their network to a director of orthopedic shoe factory because even money couldn't get you that kind of stuff.
And in the 40 years since we had sustained growth rates comparable only to China or South Korea, and similar problems with childbirths.
I don't buy any economic arguments.
That baby boom was an echo of the first post-war baby boom and fueled by a record 274k newly built apartments in 1979 - a culmination of a decade of ramping up construction when Edward Gierek took over and started borrowing money on a massive scale[0].
As a father of two I can tell you right now why demographics in Poland are in the gutter: most families need two incomes to survive, but:
-Companies insist every employee works full time.
-Women often have nothing to come back to after maternity leave.
-Daycares, kindergartens etc. are open for 9h at most, so pray your commute isn't too long if you have two or more kids.
-Commutes to these institutions have become longer as on one hand more people live in the suburbs while on the other urban planners kinda sorta forgot you need to carve out some land for a school/kindergarten when you're planning a new residential area, so if you live in a recent-ish building forget about leaving the car at home.
Most people seeing all these obstacles just settle on one child, whom they can leave and pick up in shifts.
My family copes by living on a single income, which is still possible today if you're a software engineer, but most likely won't be long term.
[0] In hindsight it wasn't a terrible plan - there was enormaous demographic potential
> If you want people to have kids, you need to make sure they are economically secure by the time they are of childbearing age... which means before they are 30.
I’m 24 and have enough money.
I want kids. I think I won’t be able to have any. Most of my friends are in the same boat.
Pairing seems to be the primary issue. The old social technology we had to increase the amounts of intersexual cooperation have for various reasons been discarded, but they have not been replaced with anything.
At no point in history did we have economic security at child bearing age and the assumption that it has a correlation with number of children seems to go against the data.
Every indication points in the opposite direction. The more abundance the less kids. Read the data.
Your intuition is just flat out wrong. People don't want kids because they don't want kids. Pretty simple. Society changes with abundance. That abundance leads to more leisure activities more education which leads to a more diverse set of options for life and so more people choose some option that does not include having children.
No, that is you are reading into what abundance is. Abundance is mostly neoliberal economic ideas repackaged for the current iteration of consultants where workers are entirely excluded from the processes, unions are the enemy, and regulation is actually evil this time (pinky swear this time!).
Thank fuck voters aren't buying this garbage.
I also find your retort equally misleading. Social housing is a solved issue. The problem is that we are letting greedy developers dictate the type of housing to be built. Kinda what the book abundance never mentions, who actually are the ones with power and how they are wielding it to thwart progress.
Blaming democratic societies is even more frankly bizarre too. America has always been deeply antidemocratic and has thwarted the will of the people at every opportunity of progress (every delegate voted against the bill of rights when first mentioned (took a threat of violence to add it), labor rights, ending slavery, universal suffrage); the problem has always been authoritarians against the people.
You clearly did not read the book or understand the message. I say this as someone who thinks we need a wealth tax (or at least a tax on unrealized semi-liquid capital gains).
>America has always been deeply antidemocratic
Okay, buddy. No need to open a history book to understand what an undemocratic state actually looks like. There are plenty of actual, totalitarian monarchies that still exist.
We are letting developers dictate what housing gets built?
Are you a parody account?
Do you understand the thousands of housing regulations in every single parcel of land in the country? Please do 2 minutes of research into FAR, inclusionary zoning, height limits, setbacks, zoning, etc.
I seriously can't tell if you are some left-wing parody account or actually serious. Either way, oooof!
Some mathematicians ran some numbers and diferent societies have different lowlying fruit. None of his improvements get societies to 2.1, but will theoretically move them to ~1.8. I'll find the source if people ask. 1. End toxic masculinity (machismo) in middle east and LatAM. No woman who knows how to read want to beaten or enslaved. 2. Jobs and Housing: Europe and America respectively. More three bed-room houses would add kids in California for example. Jobs for young people would children in Spain. 3. End afterschool tutoring and add spaces at universities. In Japan, Korea, China having more than one child means less money for tutors for the first kid (boy or girl). This is the easy stuff. For the extreme right, male literacy is inversely proportional with fertility too. lol! For my lefty friends, women are currently having as many kids as they would like, that's a oppression or tragedy or unfair.
incidentally a few years ago china banned tutoring, but to my understanding it was mainly because most tutoring places were scams, and maybe also because mostly rich parents would spend the money, thus giving them an advantage.
And middle east and latin America have much higher birthrates than Europe, East Asia and the US. I guess most women there must be really unsophisticated (I know you don't mean straight up illiterate).
The reason these data centers are getting built in place people don’t want them is because the towns are broke.
The city councils know it, but the residents don’t.
The entire point of the last 10 years of Strong Towns was talking about municipal finance, infrastructure costs, and the insolvency of the American suburban town.
Bullshit. The proposed data center in Utah is projected to use more electricity that what the entire state already uses, on an area larger than Manhattan.
The entire state of Utah is not broke. Box Elder County is largely a rural community but it is also not broke.
I'm not here to fight about one mega-data center where they are circumventing local control. I'm talking about the dozens and dozens of data centers being proposed and accepted by city councils all over the United States: https://www.datacentermap.com/
There will be some obvious bad deals. I think you're wrong to assume that the county is not broke from a municipal finance perspective. Nibley, Utah residents had their town evaluate by Strong Towns, they were in a fairly tough financial position until about 2015. The idea that you have residents that are even doing these reports mean that you have an electorate that actually cares at all.
The proposed Box Elder County data center would double the county's tax revenue, even with the tax breaks. There's a clear incentive for the county to approve it.
I was a relatively early investor (2008), but I was very hesitant early on because Microsoft was building an integrated search function, which became Windows Live Search, which became Bing. I definitely remember it took me to the beginning of the financial crisis to finally decide that it was going nowhere. I suspect it was the development of Google Maps that changed my mind.
"Google" of today is really AdSense ($102M, 2003) -> Android ($50M+?, 2005) -> YouTube ($1.6B, 2006) -> Google Docs ($50M+?, 2006)
Without those prescient and lucky acquisitions, we'd be talking about a "Google" that looked much more like Yahoo.
It wasn't search proficiency that built the empire, it was leveraging a transient search quality advantage into cash flow, then plowing that cash into acquisitions to construct a durable moat.
Was on a team that was trying to sell AltaVista a social media presence (before facebook/myspace/etc). Our people were mostly using Google, but we still wanted the client. One of the "moderation experts" on our side (i.e. - not tech or busniess) who evidently didn't understand what AltaVista was about asked them "Why don't you just use Google? It's better".
There were many search engines around during that time. Yahoo, Excite, Microsoft Live Search, Lycos... I don't recall any of them improving enough to rival early 2000's Google.
AdSense wasn't a thing until 2003. Google didn't have much revenue before that. However, they still surpassed their competition in quality of search results long before...
Yes. My point is that Google had a temporary search quality advantage… then AdSense-fueled revenue allowed them to convert that to a durable moat by outspending their competitors.
That didn't happen because they were magically amazing at search forever.
It happened because Google had a good business plan and could afford to throw gobs of money at engineers and infrastructure, in quantities that even Microsoft was unwilling to match.
Erm 2008 isn't early, I had been using it for almost a decade by then. They had won by 2001. No-one who knew Microsoft thought that they had a chance with Bing. This was post-Gates and Microsoft were already a laughing stock in 2008 with respect to the web.
Now that the rates have gone up, that money is chasing lower downside risk investments. Assets and commodities are the safest place to park cash when you can’t trust monetary policy to protect savings.
reply