Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 05-13-2022, 02:09 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,029 posts, read 14,250,053 times
Reputation: 16767

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
[1] The problem is now and always will be too many people; not enough housing.

Does building houses faster solve the problem?
[2] No, it does not because the Supply of Land in any one of the 120,000+ housing markets in the US is finite.
[1] On the contrary, government and banking are the problem, deliberately inflating the cost to build, own, and keep a home.
A typical mortgage involves paying many times the original cost of the home - which isn't improved by inflation debauching the value of those future payments.
Building codes are archaic and impose ridiculous rules and regulations.

(FWIW - Khrushchyovkas were built in one to two weeks in the "old" Soviet Union (1960s), so high density, fast and cheap housing isn't rocket science. I bet "Yankee ingenuity" could make luxury versions in three weeks.)

[2] Land IS finite . . . But that can be remedied by "thickening" the life bearing volume, as in building UP.
The population density in the United States is 36 per km2 (94 people per sq mi).
The population density of Atlanta is 1,490/km2 (3,858/sq mi).
The population density of New York City is 11,313.68/km2 (29,302.37/sq mi)
The population density of Shenzhen, China is 17,168/km2 (44,464/sq mi)

Consolidation of population can easily house millions and millions more.
USA POP. 330 million can be consolidated into
  • 85,537 sq mi (@ Atlanta density) (fit inside Oregon)
  • 11,262 sq mi (@ NYC density) (fit inside W. Virginia)
  • 7,422 sq mi (@ Shenzhen density) (fit inside Massachusetts)
POPULATION POTENTIAL
one tenth USA’s area = 379700 sq mi
developed to the density of:
  • Shenzhen, China : 16,882,980,800 (16.8 billion)
  • NYC : 11,125,969,400 (11.1 billion)
  • Atlanta : 1,464,882,600 (1.5 billion)
And that still leaves 90%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2022, 05:05 AM
 
30,255 posts, read 11,884,097 times
Reputation: 18719
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
None of those areas has enough water to support larger populations. And most of West Texas is owned by people who do not want to sell, and, quite frankly, the conditions are awful. Texas has no income tax.

What does the lack of income tax in Texas have to do with anything. I was talking federal income tax breaks and people could get a break on property taxes which are very high in Texas.



The area from just east of Tucson to Dallas has lots of potential areas to build housing and most is lightly populated. Or you look at Eastern Washington or parts of Idaho. The exact locations are not the most important thing to focus on. The focus should be on how can more houses be built perhaps in areas currently under developed. I named some states I have personally driven through and are sun belt type areas that people want to move to.



Sure water is an issue. But water could be transported from further east or north. Not a simple project but not impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 05:26 AM
 
956 posts, read 512,731 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonCoNJ View Post
Lol, imagine spending less on a mortgage than on groceries? Some of you are just delusional
Oh yeah because $110K to $140K starter homes means a mortgage is less than groceries?? LMAO. Dirt cheap interest rates make it closer. But mortgage rates should be 10% so responsible savers can save to pay cash for a house in 8-10 years while those who only care about the flippin monthly payment have same payment with high priced homes and low mortgage rates or reasonable priced homes with high mortgage rates. Either way, both win.

But low rates and high prices punish everyone. Though high rates and reasonable prices both sides win except for those who feel entitled to HELOCs and property flippers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 05:55 AM
 
15,569 posts, read 7,590,049 times
Reputation: 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
What does the lack of income tax in Texas have to do with anything. I was talking federal income tax breaks and people could get a break on property taxes which are very high in Texas.



The area from just east of Tucson to Dallas has lots of potential areas to build housing and most is lightly populated. Or you look at Eastern Washington or parts of Idaho. The exact locations are not the most important thing to focus on. The focus should be on how can more houses be built perhaps in areas currently under developed. I named some states I have personally driven through and are sun belt type areas that people want to move to.



Sure water is an issue. But water could be transported from further east or north. Not a simple project but not impossible.
Water cannot be economically transported from one side of the country to another. Nor is it feasible to pump water from, say, Chicago, at 600 feet elevation to Tucson at 2,400 feet elevation, with 3,000 feet or higher elevations in between. I did an analysis after the Harvey floods in Houston of transporting the 210,000 acre feet of water that was in one of the Houston area flood control reservoirs to another location. Using the Trans Alaska Pipeline as the basis, as it's the largest pipeline in the US, it would take something like 3 years to move that quantity of water. Which is not that much water.

The area from Tuscon to the Texas Panhandle is lightly populated because there's nothing to get people to live there. No water, no good soil, bad weather. If the Permian Basin didn't have oil, no one would voluntarily live in Midland and Odessa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 09:30 AM
 
30,255 posts, read 11,884,097 times
Reputation: 18719
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
Water cannot be economically transported from one side of the country to another. Nor is it feasible to pump water from, say, Chicago, at 600 feet elevation to Tucson at 2,400 feet elevation, with 3,000 feet or higher elevations in between. I did an analysis after the Harvey floods in Houston of transporting the 210,000 acre feet of water that was in one of the Houston area flood control reservoirs to another location. Using the Trans Alaska Pipeline as the basis, as it's the largest pipeline in the US, it would take something like 3 years to move that quantity of water. Which is not that much water.

The area from Tuscon to the Texas Panhandle is lightly populated because there's nothing to get people to live there. No water, no good soil, bad weather. If the Permian Basin didn't have oil, no one would voluntarily live in Midland and Odessa.
I believe you are incorrect on the above. The area between Tucson and say Abilene TX has quite nice weather overall. Mild winters, little snow and warm summers but nothing like the heat in Phoenix or Tucson, or Vegas. Lots of sunshine. The soil is bad in Tucson, Phoenix and Las Vegas. I don't see what that matters. A million people live in the El Paso area and it has a similar climate to the Permian Basin and the whole region. What El Paso has is the Rio Grande. And there are ideas out there on getting water from where its abundant to where its needed. The water problems in the west are not going to get better on their own. More people keep moving to those areas and the water supply is not going to increase. Its going to be a major expenditure for sure.

An “interstate water system” could fix the West’s water woes

We envision a major combined federal and private hallmark program for the nation — an Interstate Water System (IWS), which would rival in importance and transformative potential the Interstate Highway System, whose formation was championed by President Dwight Eisenhower. America already moves some water and stores it in man-made lakes, and the IWS would be designed to expand America’s water-related infrastructure by crossing state boundaries to transport water from where America has an abundance of it to where it is needed. With modifications and expansions over time, no part of America would find itself short of water.

The IWS is practicable. Assume that an initial goal might be doubling the water flow, averaging about 20,000 cubic feet per second, to Colorado River system reservoirs. Pumping Mississippi River water to an altitude of 4,000 to 5,000 feet likely would be needed to supply reservoirs Lake Mead (altitude 1,100 feet) and/or Lake Powell (altitude 3,600 feet). We estimate that it would require fewer than ten power plants of typical one-gigawatt size to provide the energy to move water halfway across the nation to double the flow of the Colorado River. (Gravity-driven flow turning turbines below its reservoir lakes would eventually regenerate much of the input energy required.)

Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 05-13-2022 at 09:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 10:39 AM
 
15,569 posts, read 7,590,049 times
Reputation: 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
I believe you are incorrect on the above. The area between Tucson and say Abilene TX has quite nice weather overall. Mild winters, little snow and warm summers but nothing like the heat in Phoenix or Tucson, or Vegas. Lots of sunshine. The soil is bad in Tucson, Phoenix and Las Vegas. I don't see what that matters. A million people live in the El Paso area and it has a similar climate to the Permian Basin and the whole region. What El Paso has is the Rio Grande. And there are ideas out there on getting water from where its abundant to where its needed. The water problems in the west are not going to get better on their own. More people keep moving to those areas and the water supply is not going to increase. Its going to be a major expenditure for sure.

An “interstate water system” could fix the West’s water woes

We envision a major combined federal and private hallmark program for the nation — an Interstate Water System (IWS), which would rival in importance and transformative potential the Interstate Highway System, whose formation was championed by President Dwight Eisenhower. America already moves some water and stores it in man-made lakes, and the IWS would be designed to expand America’s water-related infrastructure by crossing state boundaries to transport water from where America has an abundance of it to where it is needed. With modifications and expansions over time, no part of America would find itself short of water.

The IWS is practicable. Assume that an initial goal might be doubling the water flow, averaging about 20,000 cubic feet per second, to Colorado River system reservoirs. Pumping Mississippi River water to an altitude of 4,000 to 5,000 feet likely would be needed to supply reservoirs Lake Mead (altitude 1,100 feet) and/or Lake Powell (altitude 3,600 feet). We estimate that it would require fewer than ten power plants of typical one-gigawatt size to provide the energy to move water halfway across the nation to double the flow of the Colorado River. (Gravity-driven flow turning turbines below its reservoir lakes would eventually regenerate much of the input energy required.)
That article was written by idiots. Complete and utter idiots. Let's do some math, using their proposal to move 20,000 cfs from the Mississippi River to the Colorado River.

20,000cfs is 149,610 gallons per second. Call it 150,000 to make things simpler. Thinking in oilfield terms, as I tend to do, 150,000 gallons is 3570 barrels per second, which comes to 308,448,000 barrels of water per day. The Trans Alaska Pipeline, the largest in the US, can carry 2 million barrels per day. So we would need over 150 TAPS equivalents to carry that much water. Now, canals can carry much more water than pipelines, but there are evaporation losses to deal with, and you still have to move the water uphill, which requires a pipeline of some sort, as uncontained water can't be moved uphill.

To move water uphill 1000 feet, you have to overcome the 433psi of head from the weight of the water, so the water will likely have to be staged to reduce pump size to a reasonable value.

So, I don't see moving any large amount of water as reasonably achievable. It would be better to not move millions of people into areas that cannot support them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 10:51 AM
 
956 posts, read 512,731 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Wrong again. Savers who put down 20% will always be winners.

Which builds Wealth: Putting 0% down on a $250,000 McMansion and paying $250,000 for a McMansion, plus paying $318,000 in interest....

...or...

....Saving money to put 20% down on the $250,000 McMansion and paying only $79,956 in interest....

...and then use $238,044 saved to invest or save or both to build Wealth?


And then some people on this forum have the unmitigated gall to whine they don't have any wealth.
Of course those who put 20% down or more will be winners. The problem is, the ones who want to put at least that amount down or more or even save to pay outright cash are punished because as they save money prices rise too fast and they are chasing a moving target forever. If the 20% down rule was still in effect, home prices would not rise near as fast and people would be able to save for large down payments or outright cash with a much less likelihood of home prices running away from them. Now they could still run away from them because greedy corporate investors pluck up homes as cash buyers, but low money down mortgages plus absurdly low interest rates has contributed to the problem of runaway home price appreciation problem really since late 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 10:55 AM
 
Location: A coal patch in Pennsyltucky
10,379 posts, read 10,701,022 times
Reputation: 12712
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
making up? Are you serious dude? Mortgage rates are projected to be at 7% by end of year, what do you think that will do to housing?

And layoffs are starting in force, Carvana, Netflix, Meta etc. etc. list is growing...

Fed policy is flood the system with cheap money, inflate ridiculous bubbles, then pull the rug from under all the people on top... that is supposed to be acceptable?
Do you realize 7% is historically low? It is not the end of the world. I refinanced my mortgage for a rate higher than 7%. See:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 11:20 AM
 
51,011 posts, read 36,707,535 times
Reputation: 76779
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulburt1 View Post
Joe did this. He cut the oil for the green new deal. How do you think things move by horse? This is the government at it's best. If you have no job you have no money for a $60000 electric car.
No president really has that much influence over oil prices. They are set on a global market. Exxon is going to sell a barrel of oil for $200 if that’s the price for the global market sets, and it doesn’t make any difference whether it comes from North Dakota or Venezuela. The oil company shut down a lot of wells during Covid when prices plummeted. They promised their investors they would never allow that overproduction to happen again. They have still not reopened a lot of those wells. Our production is still down by one and a half billion barrels a day from where it was a few years ago. Furthermore, oil company stock piled drilling permits before Biden took office and they currently are sitting on them.

There are reasons why we should want to be more energy independent, but price is not one of them. I don’t know why people have this idea that if oil comes from the ground in the United States that we’re going to get it for some kind of discount, it is not going to happen. And if supply became so great that prices started going down too much again, they would simply shut down more of those operations. If we had a socialist or communist government, then government could compel oil companies to increase production, but we know. In a capitalist system, they are going to do what they have to to make the most profits and if that means curtailing supply then so be it. Oil companies could increase production today if they wanted to.

Add the Russian embargo, and vastly increased demand from China and Europe over the last year or so and we have what we have now. People seem to think that if we have more oil in this country, that is somehow going to result in us getting a discount or something for it it’s just ridiculous.

That big pipeline that was shut down wasn’t going to be for domestic use anyway. The crude in that area of the country is much too thick for our facilities to process. It was all going to go to Venezuela and other countries that have the means to process it.

But in any case, a barrel of oil costs us the same whether it comes from another country or from here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2022, 11:23 AM
 
19,908 posts, read 18,193,452 times
Reputation: 17351
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
That article was written by idiots. Complete and utter idiots. Let's do some math, using their proposal to move 20,000 cfs from the Mississippi River to the Colorado River.

20,000cfs is 149,610 gallons per second. Call it 150,000 to make things simpler. Thinking in oilfield terms, as I tend to do, 150,000 gallons is 3570 barrels per second, which comes to 308,448,000 barrels of water per day. The Trans Alaska Pipeline, the largest in the US, can carry 2 million barrels per day. So we would need over 150 TAPS equivalents to carry that much water. Now, canals can carry much more water than pipelines, but there are evaporation losses to deal with, and you still have to move the water uphill, which requires a pipeline of some sort, as uncontained water can't be moved uphill.

To move water uphill 1000 feet, you have to overcome the 433psi of head from the weight of the water, so the water will likely have to be staged to reduce pump size to a reasonable value.

So, I don't see moving any large amount of water as reasonably achievable. It would be better to not move millions of people into areas that cannot support them.
I don't agree with you very often. However, you've got this right. Are the authors of that bit above envisioning maybe a 300" pipe at 10 meters per second 24x7x365 type flow?

I think we'd be better off working on lower energy use desalination.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top