I changed this from median to % who pay above 30%. This number should more accurately reflect market conditions.
For example, due to rent control, a boomer or well-connected person in Manhattan might be paying $1000/month to rent an apartment that would cost over $5000/month on the open market.
New York wasn't even in the top 10 by median rent anymore!
Colorado made no sense to me initially. Turns out that more than half the people (2.9 million out of 5.7 million) live in metro Denver which is booming. Add in a few resort towns and it makes perfect sense.
When making a similar quiz about home prices I discovered a pattern. Places with high population growth have higher prices. It's simple really. New construction is very expensive. That's why Colorado will be expensive until people stop moving there.
Yes. please stop moving here. I grew up here, but don't think I'll be able to afford to stay. Pretty rare to find an apt for under 1500 in the metro area.
Ive heard that, Texas is just as bad if not worse, have to chase snakes out of your house daily. Do not, I repeat, do not move here if you like living.
I've heard that, Florida is just as bad if not worse, have to chase crackheads out of your house daily. Do not, I repeat, do not move here if you like living.
I've heard that, Missouri is just as bad if not worse, have to chase robbers out of your house daily. Do not, I repeat, do not move here if you like living.
I've heard that, Ohio is just as bad if not worse, don't get to chase anything out of your house daily. Do not, I repeat, do not move here if you don't like boring.
I've heard that, Nevada is just as bad if not worse, have to chase Elvis impersonators out of your house daily. Do not, I repeat, do not move here if you like living.
Interesting! Here in UK if you looked at counties with highest rent, the southeast and West Country would feature mainly I think... maybe the odd exception for certain cities elsewhere 🤔 Anyone want to make that one?
btw, the best way to fix this is to increase the supply of housing. And the biggest barrier to accomplishing that is overzealous zoning and other regulations that make it illegal or impossible to build dense housing where it is most demanded. NIMBYism is mostly to blame.
I don't know. I live in a densely-populated part of Chicago. New condos are shooting up on every corner, but rents keep climbing. There are just so many people moving here. I don't think zoning has much to do with it.
One of the things I've noticed in Canada at least is that, while you see new builds popping up across many cities (Calgary, Vancouver, etc.) these builds skew towards higher end properties, properties which are more attractive for developers to build, but less accessible for your average Canadian to afford. Perhaps something similar is happening in other countries.
NIMBYism is not mostly to blame for the housing crush in many states. Massachusetts? Sure. But in California and New York the blame falls solely on the government. Building is almost impossible in those states because of absurd state red tape. I mean, just look at the vacant lots and shitty, rundown buildings in Los Angeles that are too expensive to turn a profit for a developer because inane policy restricts it.
Yeah, you can lower prices easily by building more. Look what's happened in the last couple years in Austin, for example.
The question is why governments prevent new housing. And the answer is actually quite simple: the people demand it!
How could this be, with rents at such crushing levels? It's actually quite simple. In New York and California, a majority of people are either homeowners, on rent control, or Section 8. Building new housing won't lower their rent one bit. New buildings only help the minority of people who are forced to pay market rent.
Only a small minority of Californians are on rent control. The issue is definitely with developer fees, environmental impact assessments, shady union dealings with city halls. I don't think anybody in Los Angeles is objecting to converting the parts of DTLA that look like a war zone into housing. If you look at any major metro area, aside from the rich coastal suburbs it's not the NIMBYs but the local governments deliberately dragging their feet on approval.
The rent control mostly impacts the big cities, you are correct.
But why is the government dragging its feet if its not what the people want? Karen Bass was elected by the people of Los Angeles. They could have easily elected Rick Caruso if they wanted housing. Revealed preference is that most people actually don't want more housing. But they might just not say that openly because it comes off as selfish.
easiest way to fix it is to move the jobs to less populated or declining areas where there is a ready supply of housing. Most office type jobs can be done anywhere with modern telecommunications...
It's a good idea when it comes to sinecures (i.e. jobs that are given as a reward for political connection rather than merit).
But Google can't tell its employees to move to Omaha because they'll just quit.
On the other hand, I'd suggest moving several government departments away from DC. Why not move the IRS to Omaha, for example? They don't have any need to be in a very-high cost of living area.
It's easier to outlocate new expansion than current personell though. There's no real reason not to establish, for example, a competing "East Coast Silicon Valley" in rural West Virginia or the Rust Belt using depleted mines for data centers. It would also offer greater proximity to the population centers and world-class universities there.
For example, due to rent control, a boomer or well-connected person in Manhattan might be paying $1000/month to rent an apartment that would cost over $5000/month on the open market.
New York wasn't even in the top 10 by median rent anymore!
NO ONE!! It's also very crowded. Scorpions crawl into your shoes at night. Rattlesnakes aren't too bad. Not many people die from their bite.
Oh, there's no water here either.
The question is why governments prevent new housing. And the answer is actually quite simple: the people demand it!
How could this be, with rents at such crushing levels? It's actually quite simple. In New York and California, a majority of people are either homeowners, on rent control, or Section 8. Building new housing won't lower their rent one bit. New buildings only help the minority of people who are forced to pay market rent.
Classic case of tyranny of the majority.
But why is the government dragging its feet if its not what the people want? Karen Bass was elected by the people of Los Angeles. They could have easily elected Rick Caruso if they wanted housing. Revealed preference is that most people actually don't want more housing. But they might just not say that openly because it comes off as selfish.
But Google can't tell its employees to move to Omaha because they'll just quit.
On the other hand, I'd suggest moving several government departments away from DC. Why not move the IRS to Omaha, for example? They don't have any need to be in a very-high cost of living area.