Housing is I think the new edition of the age old rent problem, which vexed Ricardo and was the main point of study of early economists. Housing/land supply won’t increase with the rise in price, hence the market mechanism will not maximize the output and wellbeing of the society as a whole, but just the price and profits of the rentier. Hence various suggestions of how to deal with the problem, usually revolving around government ownership of land and/or rent expropriation
This is interesting. I agree that housing is at the crux of the problem in almost every English-speaking country. Given that the UK, like other Anglophone democracies still has strong traditions of the rule of law - expropriating the land banks of property developers I think is highly unlikely. Further the government balance sheet is too stretched to undertake major projects. Would a housebuilding boom benefit the listed developers instead - as they become inevitable partners in meeting government goals?
I would be surprised... government involvement in housing would suggest wages (and costs) rising faster than house prices, causing builder margins to fall....
That is true, although if planning is deregulated and the inventory cycle (land -> housing) shortens, it's a big boon to homebuilders even if margins do fall.
Although it ultimately depends on the magnitude of each change.
Government - the more they spend, the more interest rates tend to go up... so if the choose to spend on housing, you should get rising rates and more housing
I think this can only happen if government directly gets involved in housing construction like in Singapore. Even in mainland China, the residential construction sector is largely in private hands - SOEs till date have been the minority. Given the political and legal structures in the OECD it's nearly impossible to conceive of a govt owned homebuilder.
I must chuckle at the idea that policy changes will be able to impact the birth rate. That has failed in Japan, China and every other country that has attempted it. Add to that the ongoing climate hysteria and there is a large segment of the prime family demographic that is too frightened to even consider the concept of having a large family.
Clearly housing is a major problem, but it will take either a major shift in thinking, or the passage of time until the older generations simply die off and more housing becomes available to address this issue. I fear the latter is more likely than the former. we could well be in for a period of slow and inefficient growth with ongoing political ructions on a regular basis, both within nations and internationally.
My view is fertility rates have failed to rise because the underlying cause if falling real wages for the majority of workers. Emphasising wage growth is not a policy that has been tried to reverse the decline in fertility rates
perhaps, however an alternative concept would be that as economies grow over time, especially on a per capita basis, and the labor force becomes more educated and there is less manual activity, the natural result is a lower birth rate. no need for as many children in a family as the government support system helps the elderly so children don't have the same requirements to care for their parents, therefore parents don't feel the need to ensure they have enough children to do the job.
I just think that the long history of humanity is one of declining fertility going hand in hand with rising living standards. it is very difficult to see how a few more dollars of support each month is going to change what have become societal norms.
Maybe that is true... maybe society is happy with a shrinking population. It just strikes me as odd... Darwinian theory would suggest that we are naturally disposed to having more children (that is the a genetic tendency to have more children would naturally crowd out a tendency not to have children).
There is also a good body of evidence that women tend to have less children when they feel less economically secure - and I look at the baby boom after World War II as a period of strong pro-labour policies - which made average workers very secure in their jobs...
you may be correct. the bigger issue is that the statistics will not change in any meaningful way for many years, so we may never know ourselves. but perhaps our children will.
In the meantime, I strongly support your general labor thesis and the impact on GLD/TLT. I think it is very well articulated.
Housing is I think the new edition of the age old rent problem, which vexed Ricardo and was the main point of study of early economists. Housing/land supply won’t increase with the rise in price, hence the market mechanism will not maximize the output and wellbeing of the society as a whole, but just the price and profits of the rentier. Hence various suggestions of how to deal with the problem, usually revolving around government ownership of land and/or rent expropriation
I like the historical survey you made, Russell, and as one who reached adulthood in the UK during the 1960s, I feel it rings true.
This is interesting. I agree that housing is at the crux of the problem in almost every English-speaking country. Given that the UK, like other Anglophone democracies still has strong traditions of the rule of law - expropriating the land banks of property developers I think is highly unlikely. Further the government balance sheet is too stretched to undertake major projects. Would a housebuilding boom benefit the listed developers instead - as they become inevitable partners in meeting government goals?
I would be surprised... government involvement in housing would suggest wages (and costs) rising faster than house prices, causing builder margins to fall....
That is true, although if planning is deregulated and the inventory cycle (land -> housing) shortens, it's a big boon to homebuilders even if margins do fall.
Although it ultimately depends on the magnitude of each change.
How do you get housing costs down whilst interest rates go higher and produce more housing?
Government - the more they spend, the more interest rates tend to go up... so if the choose to spend on housing, you should get rising rates and more housing
I think this can only happen if government directly gets involved in housing construction like in Singapore. Even in mainland China, the residential construction sector is largely in private hands - SOEs till date have been the minority. Given the political and legal structures in the OECD it's nearly impossible to conceive of a govt owned homebuilder.
Don't disagree - which is why I think governments will get directly involved in housing construction again
I must chuckle at the idea that policy changes will be able to impact the birth rate. That has failed in Japan, China and every other country that has attempted it. Add to that the ongoing climate hysteria and there is a large segment of the prime family demographic that is too frightened to even consider the concept of having a large family.
Clearly housing is a major problem, but it will take either a major shift in thinking, or the passage of time until the older generations simply die off and more housing becomes available to address this issue. I fear the latter is more likely than the former. we could well be in for a period of slow and inefficient growth with ongoing political ructions on a regular basis, both within nations and internationally.
My view is fertility rates have failed to rise because the underlying cause if falling real wages for the majority of workers. Emphasising wage growth is not a policy that has been tried to reverse the decline in fertility rates
perhaps, however an alternative concept would be that as economies grow over time, especially on a per capita basis, and the labor force becomes more educated and there is less manual activity, the natural result is a lower birth rate. no need for as many children in a family as the government support system helps the elderly so children don't have the same requirements to care for their parents, therefore parents don't feel the need to ensure they have enough children to do the job.
I just think that the long history of humanity is one of declining fertility going hand in hand with rising living standards. it is very difficult to see how a few more dollars of support each month is going to change what have become societal norms.
Maybe that is true... maybe society is happy with a shrinking population. It just strikes me as odd... Darwinian theory would suggest that we are naturally disposed to having more children (that is the a genetic tendency to have more children would naturally crowd out a tendency not to have children).
There is also a good body of evidence that women tend to have less children when they feel less economically secure - and I look at the baby boom after World War II as a period of strong pro-labour policies - which made average workers very secure in their jobs...
you may be correct. the bigger issue is that the statistics will not change in any meaningful way for many years, so we may never know ourselves. but perhaps our children will.
In the meantime, I strongly support your general labor thesis and the impact on GLD/TLT. I think it is very well articulated.