2021 - Is inflation finally back in the conversation?

[52-80 19,377]

2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Statistics say "not so fast"

 

https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-income-ratio/

 

Minus the bubble and the last 2 years of "Covid economy", we are below the 50's ratio with much better interest rates.

How dare you disprove these emotionally-driven assertions with facts

[Cheeseweasel 26,439]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

How dare you disprove these emotionally-driven assertions with facts

Facts are transitory. 

[Captainant 28,533]

20 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

How dare you disprove these emotionally-driven assertions with facts

What fact does that prove? Its showing an indicator is relatively favorable (if we ignore the last two years lulz), so therefore we shouldn't believe what we're seeing with our own eyes, and there are no problems with housing?

You'll note - I'm providing data to back my assertions as well. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Eh, not really - three big factors caused the increase in prices - two decades of low rates combined with income inequality is a big part of it, but an enormous issue in the most desirable cities is local land codes preventing the development of more housing in central locations. In cities like Austin rising rates rates may slow down the rate that prices increase and build inventories to a more normal level, but prices won't likely fall much because there are still so very many people who are competing for relatively few places to live. 

Only sort of - our zoning codes create scarcity by design, creating an imbalance between the housing supply and job population growth, which in turn puts pressure on transportation and creates a huge premium for reduced distance between housing and employment/recreation/etc. All that is to say that what makes the housing a good investment for corporate and non-resident buyers is precisely the thing that prices out millennials - the combination of cheap leverage and manufactured scarcity. If you make it possible to build a hell of a lot more housing in central locations, the problem gets solved. 

 

 

Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/why-we-cant-build-our-way-out-of-this-hot-housing-market/
 

Builders won’t save us 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/why-we-cant-build-our-way-out-of-this-hot-housing-market/
 

Builders won’t save us 

That analysis really isn't responsive. It's preoccupied with new single family homes, which are almost exclusively the demand outlet available for what current codes don't allow. We need land use code that makes it possible to build a lot more missing middle housing  i.e. 4-6 unit apt buildings, stacked triplexes, garden courts, ADUs etc in central cities near transit and workplaces. If his (and your) point is that Lennar and David Weekley can't solve that problem in LIberty Hill 3000SF at a time, I agree. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

What fact does that prove? Its showing an indicator is relatively favorable (if we ignore the last two years lulz), so therefore we shouldn't believe what we're seeing with our own eyes, and there are no problems with housing?

You'll note - I'm providing data to back my assertions as well. 

Yeah but if you don't count the facts that don't support his point he's right. 

[Wulaw Horn 19,595]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That analysis really isn't responsive. It's preoccupied with new single family homes, which are almost exclusively the demand outlet available for what current codes don't allow. We need land use code that makes it possible to build a lot more missing middle housing  i.e. 4-6 unit apt buildings, stacked triplexes, garden courts, ADUs etc in central cities near transit and workplaces. If his (and your) point is that Lennar and David Weekley can't solve that problem in LIberty Hill 3000SF at a time, I agree. 

 Back of the envelope math I think we could use another 1,000,000 or so units on the I-35 corridor from SA to the state line. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,958]

Burnet from North Loop to 183 is exploding like S Lamar with huge complexes. None of which look to be in the “affordable” housing category. Up zoning to affordable housing is a fairy tale. Sprawl where the land is cheap is the way, we have plenty.  Especially with the push to work remote. 
 

Forced density often simply creates forced scarcity. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by ChickenSandwich

[Upgrayedd 5,889]

11 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Burnet from North Loop to 183 is exploding like S Lamar with huge complexes. None of which look to be in the “affordable” housing category. Up zoning to affordable housing is a fairy tale. Sprawl where the land is cheap is the way, we have plenty.  Especially with the push to work remote. 
 

Forced density often simply creates forced scarcity. 

The demographic for affordable housing is totally the work remote demographic.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

34 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Forced density

By “ forced density” you mean, merely removing restrained on trade to allow  the market to respond to the demand signal? So you essentially have decided that people can only buy/rent what you want them to have?

I love these self-described free market capitalists who don’t actually want to allow free market capitalism. We call these people “Republicans.”

Edited July 29, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[tbone_ 14,442]

Building “affordable” housing is a joke.

Housing of all types is expensive as shit to build. There is no way around it. It only becomes “affordable” over time. That’s why we need to build more.

The biggest piece of cost that no one ever talks about is land. Try telling your voters that want “affordable” house ok we’ll get you some but you have to sell your land to the builder for 25% of value. See how that goes over.

[tbone_ 14,442]

The other way to reduce housing costs? Fix the construction labor shortage by allowing the endless supply of construction labor to our south to come solve the problem.

Good luck telling that to voters too.

[Humble Beast 258]

50 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

The other way to reduce housing costs? Fix the construction labor shortage by allowing the endless supply of construction labor to our south to come solve the problem.

Good luck telling that to voters too.

The labor shortage is a recent phenomenon. The 12 or so years before Covid with big home appreciation had almost nothing to do with that. 
 

It’s the elephant in the room, Occam’s Razor. Whatever you want to call it. Easy money is the root of it all. Pretty simple really. 

[jimmyjazz 47,157]

NBER has used their current (perhaps conveniently vague) definition of "recession" for at least the last 13 years, so y'all can shelve the "definition changed a few days ago" bullshit:

NBER

[Gravy Train 975]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I love these self-described free market capitalists who don’t actually want to allow free market capitalism. We call these people “Republicans.”

They're also "Democrats" when they adopt the NIMBY and, "I got mine, go fuck yourself," mannerisms.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

8 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

They're also "Democrats" when they adopt the NIMBY and, "I got mine, go fuck yourself," mannerisms.

At least the democrats have the decency not to pretend they believe in market solutions. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[Humble Beast 258]

44 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

At least the democrats have the decency not to pretend they believe in market solutions. 

You keep bringing up political parties and we might have to start talking about a cynically named piece of legislation coming up for vote relevant to this thread. Not on this forum. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,958]

4 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

The demographic for affordable housing is totally the work remote demographic.

The demographic for affordable housing is what?  Service industry?  That will follow the people and create new opportunity in a lower cost area. 
 

Build more housing where land is cheap, not where a studio for the homeless cost $750k a unit. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by ChickenSandwich

[StassneyHorn 6,767]

When do we get special “remote worker” housing in west Texas for business development?

[CooterBrown 18,288]

Sprawl where the land is cheap is the way, we have plenty.  Especially with the push to work remote. 

Increasingly, few people want to live in sprawl surrounded by sprawl just for the sake of owning a house. They want the options of what a central city gives them, especially during the day when they’re pretending to work from home.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

8 hours ago, Humble Beast said:

You keep bringing up political parties and we might have to start talking about a cynically named piece of legislation coming up for vote relevant to this thread. Not on this forum. 

For what it’s worth, the Travis County Democratic Party has been one of the major organizing vehicles to obstruct zoning reform in Austin. This truly is a #bothsides problem locally in most big blue cities.
That said, at the national level the Democrats have identified exclusionary zoning and overregulation of development as a major barriers to housing access and solving transportation issues in big cities and campaigned on it, while recently Republicans (especially the Trump admin) have made efforts to nationalize zoning reform efforts as a socialist attempt to force you to live in government housing projects. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

8 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The demographic for affordable housing is what?

The demographic for programmatically Affordable Housing is households that make under 80% of MFI. but that’s not really the big problem.

The problem is housing shortage across all income levels, but especially between 80-150% of MFI, where in big cities you have 3+ households that would like to be close-in competing for every unit of centrally located housing in their price range. This is the primary reason why AISD is in crisis- young families can’t afford to live in Austin anymore, which in turn defunds the district making it less desirable. Some of the most popular areas in central Austin with good schools are losing population even while the metro grows.
So the demographic for affordable housing is the whole population.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[Humble Beast 258]

Fwiw first Atlanta Fed GDP estimate for Q3 is +2.1%

[Parliament 14,594]

Riiiiiiight

[Armybrat 41,399]

On 7/29/2022 at 6:06 PM, ChickenSandwich said:

Burnet from North Loop to 183 is exploding like S Lamar with huge complexes. None of which look to be in the “affordable” housing category. Up zoning to affordable housing is a fairy tale. Sprawl where the land is cheap is the way, we have plenty.  Especially with the push to work remote. 
 

Forced density often simply creates forced scarcity. 

A lot of potential for that growth in the 6,000 acre Robinson Ranch.

[DalTxHornFan 3,130]

24 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

A lot of potential for that growth in the 6,000 acre Robinson Ranch.

It will be amazing to see them roll out their specially designated Planned Unit Development over the next several decades.  I think that this will cement The Domain area as a second Downtown Austin.

[Humble Beast 258]

Lolol

[Guest]

Has this turned from the bitch about inflation to the bitch about recession and housing density thread?

[Incredulity 11,876]

It’s the pack a sack lunch, double couponing thread of dominance.

[statsman 5,693]

On 7/29/2022 at 7:11 AM, Captainant said:

Nearly one in three homes sold in Texas last year were pure investment vehicles bought by investors

Of course. It was noted in 2009 that it was possible to purchase homes in Texas on 15 year notes, 20% down, and get rents that would pay the mortgage. 15 years later, voila! Very low risk long term investment. All you needed was good credit and 20% down. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,454]

On 7/29/2022 at 9:44 AM, 52-80 said:

How dare you disprove these emotionally-driven assertions with facts

Cool, now figure in household debt into the calculus.

[bernorange 8,385]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

It’s the pack a sack lunch, double couponing thread of dominance.

Dat Best Buy dough...

[StassneyHorn 6,767]

4 hours ago, Incredulity said:

It’s the pack a sack lunch twice a week thread of dominance.

Fixed

[52-80 19,377]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Cool, now figure in household debt into the calculus.

I posted household debt trends in previous pages. Try to keep up. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,454]

20 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I posted household debt trends in previous pages. Try to keep up. 

Was that one of the 100 graphs you posted where you chopped off the axes labels and didn’t include the title?

[52-80 19,377]

4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Was that one of the 100 graphs you posted where you chopped off the axes labels and didn’t include the title?

Every graph i post on this site comes with the link in the screenshot and/or body, sourced primarily from authoritative bodies (fed, bls, etc), not a tweet or forbes article. 
 

If you need further handholding, ask yer mum. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,454]

Well since I'm not going back through 54 pages looking for your graph, I found this one on the googletrons...

So from the 1950's to present HH debt as a percentage of GDP has roughly doubled.  Housing prices / Median Income ratio may be in line with past eras but that's skewed by a shit ton of debt.  Anyone that's been paying just the smallest bit of attention already knew that; but not surprising that you and cheese decided to leave it out.

 

[bernorange 8,385]

17 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So from the 1950's to present HH debt as a percentage of GDP has roughly doubled. 

I don't know what you and 52-80 are arguing about and I don't really care but 20 going to 80 isn't just "roughly doubled". 

[Humble Beast 258]

29 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I don't know what you and 52-80 are arguing about and I don't really care but 20 going to 80 isn't just "roughly doubled". 

Lulz. He forgot to delete the Y axis. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,439]

On 7/29/2022 at 9:42 PM, jimmyjazz said:

NBER has used their current (perhaps conveniently vague) definition of "recession" for at least the last 13 years, so y'all can shelve the "definition changed a few days ago" bullshit:

NBER

[Guest]

Oil down to $92 this morning.

[Guest]

I'll throw my hat in the ring of "not really a recession" or at least recession as most people know it. If you want to use a two consecutive quarter of read GDP drop, then yes, it meets that definition. Realistically, however, I'm just not seeing it day to day.

Tons of jobs, higher wages, balance sheets are pretty good, profit margins high. And if inflation were 8% instead of 9%, then *poof* magically we wouldn't have met the definition of recession that everyone is throwing around. 

Meanwhile, the slowdown is largely based on the Fed raising rates to reign in inflation. Literally tomorrow they could reverse track on it if they wanted to. It's not like Covid or the housing crash. 

So either complain about 9% inflation or a slight slowdown in real GDP. I know I heard a lot of voices (including mine) saying the Fed was late. Well, they are here now and this is the medicine. At this point, it ain't that bad.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26,439]

6 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I'll throw my hat in the ring of "not really a recession" or at least recession as most people know it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

Slowing inflation:Recession::Going to heaven:Dying

[Fudge Nuggets 19,454]

4 hours ago, bernorange said:

I don't know what you and 52-80 are arguing about and I don't really care but 20 going to 80 isn't just "roughly doubled". 

 

4 hours ago, Humble Beast said:

Lulz. He forgot to delete the Y axis. 

Was based on the high point at the very end of the 50's aka worst-case comparison.  Worst-case being the one that is most closely aligned with their wrong view on things.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Fudge Nuggets

[Brisketexan 106,889]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Slowing inflation:Recession::Going to heaven:Dying

How does "but you're not going to heaven because you touch yourself" figure in to this metaphor?

Asking for a friend.

[52-80 19,377]

10 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Well since I'm not going back through 54 pages looking for your graph, I found this one on the googletrons...

So from the 1950's to present HH debt as a percentage of GDP has roughly doubled.  Housing prices / Median Income ratio may be in line with past eras but that's skewed by a shit ton of debt.  Anyone that's been paying just the smallest bit of attention already knew that; but not surprising that you and cheese decided to leave it out.

You either don't have a point, or you're not very good at making it.  We're talking affordability of houses, which is in relation to one's earning power.  How is net debt "responsible" for the affordability of the houses, if not corrected for ex-housing spending?

e.g. tomorrow, food prices stay the same.  tomorrow, you choose to spend all of your earnings on yer mum's OnlyFans subscriptions, thus have no money left for food.  did food just become unaffordable per se?

other things to pay the smallest bit of attention to:

-if houses were less affordable over time, wouldn't home ownership rates drop?  (they dont)

-if people were living in larger and larger houses (they do), shouldnt debt naturally rise due to larger mortgages?

 

[52-80 19,377]

8 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I'll throw my hat in the ring of "not really a recession" or at least recession as most people know it. If you want to use a two consecutive quarter of read GDP drop, then yes, it meets that definition. Realistically, however, I'm just not seeing it day to day.

Tons of jobs, higher wages, balance sheets are pretty good, profit margins high. And if inflation were 8% instead of 9%, then *poof* magically we wouldn't have met the definition of recession that everyone is throwing around.

Fully agreed.  When the GDP print came out, and the questions asked "is this a recession, based on the definition?", the answers shouldnt have been "well thats not the real definition". 

It should've been "unemployment is low; wage number are robust; productivity output was temporarily constrained due to inputs; and the drop was mild in absolute terms.  we see a good path going forward based on economic forecasts, with reduced inflation when normal supply chains are restored.  The technical definition doesn't matter".  

But of course the game is about Optics so the focus is on pinning or dodging the R-word rather than the internals of the economy.

[Trey3216 15,452]

14 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Fully agreed.  When the GDP print came out, and the questions asked "is this a recession, based on the definition?", the answers shouldnt have been "well thats not the real definition". 

It should've been "unemployment is low; wage number are robust; productivity output was temporarily constrained due to inputs; and the drop was mild in absolute terms.  we see a good path going forward based on economic forecasts, with reduced inflation when normal supply chains are restored.  The technical definition doesn't matter".  

But of course the game is about Optics so the focus is on pinning or dodging the R-word rather than the internals of the economy.

JOLTS job opening #'s came in about 300k lower than expected, and 600k lower than last month.  While that can be a good thing (hiring) it can also be a bad thing (companies eliminating jobs or taking offers offline).  We'll see with Friday's jobless claims #'s and some other data coming out over the next few weeks.  

[Humble Beast 258]

23 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Slowing inflation:Recession::Going to heaven:Dying

Correct. That’s why the hand wringing about the definition is stupid, especially by supposedly neutral financial reporters/tweeters. It’s the goal.