U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:05 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,848 posts, read 57,874,473 times
Reputation: 29261

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Except it isn't.
We had the same population rate increases during the "golden years" Post WW2.
Tthe "golden years" with an expanding demand for no/low skilled workers in our antiquated industries?
Mostly union industries too btw which paid those no/low skilled enough to support families.
They're gone now. All of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:25 PM
 
Location: USA
7,456 posts, read 5,446,493 times
Reputation: 12249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Tthe "golden years" with an expanding demand for no/low skilled workers in our antiquated industries?
Mostly union industries too btw which paid those no/low skilled enough to support families.
They're gone now. All of it.
Yes, most of those jobs have been lost to automation, technological advances, and poorly paid (read "almost slave") workers in nations with far fewer restrictions on how they can treat their people.

Getting rid of immigrants to the US will change exactly none of that. It won't bring back the good jobs. It won't remove automation. It won't make the banks suddenly honest so they stop propping up housing prices. It won't fix the extreme disparity between the vast, jobless, cheap parts of the nation and the few, overcrowded ones that have jobs.

I've already made all this clear - harping on immigrants and population being the problem misses the bigger picture. Again, look around the world and you'll see no shortage of nations with far less immigration than the US, and they all have the same problems - high housing prices, not enough good jobs, and too many people crammed into the few places that still have decent work. It should be clear that reducing the population of the nation is not the solution. It would be nothing but a "feel good" move for nativists - and people with worse motivations - and achieve nothing in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 08:57 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
6,810 posts, read 9,374,338 times
Reputation: 6017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Immigration alone does not explain it, nor do simple population increase numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._United_States

1940 Population = 132,164,569
1960 Population = 179,323,175

That's an almost 50 million increase in 20 years - the same rate as in the last 40 years shown in the previous post against immigration. And yet, housing was very affordable throughout that period, one that's considered the "golden era" of the last century in America.

The bigger problem is a general reduction in the quality of jobs and people's incomes vs. housing prices, along with many financial games used to prop up housing prices. You have everything from flippers, foreign investors, banks still owning piles of foreclosures that either rot away or become rental properties - and that doesn't include the "funny money" nonsense of the Housing Bubble.

The problem isn't "too many immigrants" but too few places with good jobs - this is why the price disparity in housing in places with jobs vs. those without has increased so badly. Top that off with endless middle-men jacking up the price of homes - like "house scalpers" - aka, flippers - who buy up piles of homes using financial tricks and other people's money just to increase the price by $50,000 for putting $20,000 into the home, and it's no wonder affordability sucks.

Until jobs improve AND are more common around the nation, and until the damn flipper-mindset - "everyone can make big, easy money in real estate!" - dies, this problem will continue. Oh, and the big banks need to be kicked in the nether regions for their part in all this, since they are the ones who profit the most from unaffordable housing and locking everybody into a lifetime of renting their home at a high price from the bank.
Immigration alone does not explain it and of course no one is blaming individual immigrants. The problem is major population growth, whether it comes from large families like it did after WW2 or immigration like it is today.

The difference between today and the 1940s-1960s is that the land outside the major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Philadelphia was still largely undeveloped farmland back after WW2. The huge population increase you noted of - 50 million - was able to spread out into rural areas in a way that is no longer possible for many of our metro areas.

So increasingly the land around many of our major cities is already developed so today's heavy population growth is instead leading to a competition for housing and that is driving up rents and prices. And its no accident that some of the heaviest increases in the costs of housing are in areas with the heaviest population growth.

So while you have an interesting theory about not enough good jobs, the real problem is supply and demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 11:45 PM
 
5,970 posts, read 2,791,931 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
High cost for housing and rents a result of supply and demand due to population growth, a big part of which is due to excessive immigration.

United States population

1980 - 226,000,000
1990 - 248,000,000
2000 - 281,000,000
2017 - 324,000,000

That is a 100 million increase in less then 40 years.

But you won't hear about this by most of our politicians, big business or our corporate media. Screw future generations and the environment, there is to much money to be made by keeping things the way they are. No matter what the costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._United_States
Could you imagine how prosperous we would be if the idiot Kennedys never passed the 1965 immigration act and we only allowed the best and brightest to immigrate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 11:47 PM
 
5,970 posts, read 2,791,931 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Except it isn't. We had the same population rate increases during the "golden years" Post WW2. The problem is not the people, be it their numbers or their demographics, but the job market itself, and that's one of global wage arbitrage.

Keeping immigrants out and the population from increasing does not magically produce an affordable housing market or great jobs. Look at Japan - they fit that description wonderfully, and still have horribly unaffordable housing and terrible competition to get decent jobs.

No, the problem is as I outlined: too few good jobs in general, too few places with good jobs (huge swathes of the nation have affordable housing - and no jobs that pay enough to live there), and too many financial games being played with the housing market. Getting rid of the immigrants will fix nothing, and I've seen enough of that silly notion on the political forums: I don't see Americans lining up to become migrant farm workers at under minimum wage, and even if they did, they won't be able to afford a house on that salary anyway.
Too many people. That's the problem. And eventually many jobs will be replaced by machines and automation.


Too. Many. People.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 11:48 PM
 
2,684 posts, read 963,998 times
Reputation: 5126
I watched New York City go from difficult to completely unaffordable due to the fact that every single new unit of housing built was at the luxury high end. The rents were astronomical and half the buildings were empty and they kept building. The reason was some tax abatement that was expiring and so there was a rush to get your luxury building up as soon as possible and make it bigger or taller or more luxurious and more and more and more expensive. So much so that they extended the tax abatement and tied to it a demand that 20% of all luxury housing be "affordable." In some cases they would get 100,000 applications for a building with 12 "affordable" apartments - while half the remaining units stood empty because there was such a glut of new stock at only one end of the spectrum.

While the population did whatever it did, and luxury housing sprung up like toadstools, owners of the older regulated-rent buildings found every loophole in the book to be able to rent at "market" (read: un-affordable) rates, sometimes managing to bring the entire building out from under control, and out of the reach of the average renter. Also, there didn't seem to be any single home building going on, but instead high-rise, high-density buildings found the outer boroughs and little things like zoning didn't stand in their way. Zoning laws changed like magic overnight.

Now I live in a rural area in a town with a population of under 1,000 and what is the town hall meeting about? Derelict houses, mainly bank foreclosures. So could homeless or unemployed people come and live here? No. Because the majority of jobs here are all low-end, seasonal, minimum wage jobs that don't allow the houses the banks empty to be purchased by anyone else.

When the H and I became unemployed during the recession we took any work we could find - and had to train for it at our own expense. He managed to get a $9 an hour job and I bounced around from one temporary thing to another until it all became impossible. While unpacking after moving here, a house I inherited with a sibling, the H found an old pay stub from 1984 showing his salary as $8.25 an hour. I see jobs here listed as paying $8.50.

Empty apartments, empty houses, and poor working people. It doesn't matter what you did before, if you lose a job, you begin again at the low end. There is no medical insurance at the low end, either, and insufficient at any level because the main cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure is still medical debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 05:06 AM
 
Location: USA
7,456 posts, read 5,446,493 times
Reputation: 12249
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoastforme View Post
Too many people. That's the problem. And eventually many jobs will be replaced by machines and automation.

Too. Many. People.
Except - for the nth time - it is not strictly the number of people. Human population increased from tiny numbers to several billion after WW2. And yet, despite that, housing was still affordable. It is only in recent years, with the outsourcing and vanishing jobs, as well as the financial games going on to prop up housing prices, that housing has become unaffordable.

People keep focusing on "too many people." Getting rid of all the immigrants will not fix this, nor will freezing the nation's population. As I said before, there are various other nations out there - Japan being a good example - with little to no population growth, and housing is still horribly expensive and good jobs are uncommon.

Population growth is nothing new in human history, and yet housing was affordable up until the past few decades. What changed then? It's not "immigrants" or "suddenly too many people" - it's banks and house scalpers playing games with the housing market, and good jobs being automated out of existence or shipped off to 3rd world hell-holes to be done for pennies on the dollar. Cutting your nation's population in half will change none of those things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 06:10 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,848 posts, read 57,874,473 times
Reputation: 29261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Except - for the nth time - it is not strictly the number of people.
For the Nth time it's not strictly any one thing.

Everyone seems to need one singular answer or cause... but it ain't there.
Focus on the effects then work to avoid repeating them.

Still... the single largest common denominator in virtually every problem we have
is in having too many people around with too many forks poised over the pie.

Quote:
Population growth is nothing new in human history,
and yet housing was affordable up until the past few decades.

What changed then?
1) Saturation. The spaces that were easy to develop as housing tracts for the employed are filled.
1a) Municipal decay of housing and neighborhoods in the areas where the employed used to live.
2) Skill emphasis. Many of the jobs that the no/low skilled could get used to pay better.
Most of those jobs are gone leaving only the lowest of the low/no skill positions available.
3) Population Levels. Again.

The principle reason that Tom can't get paid more is the competition he faces from his generational siblings
(literal and metaphorical) any one of whom can do the job at least as well as Tom does it after about an hour or 'training'.

These aren't jobs... they're slots. The number of slots has declined annually while the number of Tom's has not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 06:20 AM
 
5,970 posts, read 2,791,931 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
For the Nth time it's not strictly any one thing.

Everyone seems to need one singular answer or cause... but it ain't there.
Focus on the effects then work to avoid repeating them.

Still... the single largest common denominator in virtually every problem we have
is in having too many people around with too many forks poised over the pie.

1) Saturation. The spaces that were easy to develop as housing tracts for the employed are filled.
1a) Municipal decay of housing and neighborhoods in the areas where the employed used to live.
2) Skill emphasis. Many of the jobs that the no/low skilled could get used to pay better.
Most of those jobs are gone leaving only the lowest of the low/no skill positions available.
3) Population Levels. Again.

The principle reason that Tom can't get paid more is the competition he faces from his generational siblings
(literal and metaphorical) any one of whom can do the job at least as well as Tom does it after about an hour or 'training'.

These aren't jobs... they're slots. The number of slots has declined annually while the number of Tom's has not.
This.


Too. Many. People.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 06:55 AM
 
365 posts, read 165,565 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
1940 Population = 132,164,569
1960 Population = 179,323,175

That's an almost 50 million increase in 20 years - the same rate as in the last 40 years shown in the previous post against immigration. And yet, housing was very affordable throughout that period, one that's considered the "golden era" of the last century in America.

I remember that time. My dad bought a little tiny 1000 square foot house, and as the family grew, so did the structure. He more than doubled the size of the house by building out rooms, he put in a room over the garage, and dug out a basement by hand.


I visited our old family home back in Maine. There was a funny long, narrow room. At one time, it had been the porch, and was not removed, just added on to, as the house was expanded when the sons would add a new room onto the house when they brought their wives home.



My point is that during that period of time, from 1940 to 1960, it was very common for people to build their own houses, or add on to them.


The craftsman house of the early 20th century were homes that people bought plans for, and build themselves.


Part of the housing shortage is that people can't do that anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top