Great, perhaps overlooked (in pure, rigorous economics discussions) point about human flourishing.
I take issue with your suggestion that zoning is "progressive" or "intended to help the poor". Progressives support rent control (which is of course a strongly related issue) but are actually the most ardent opponents, historically and contemporarily, against common zoning policies! Because of how those policies tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of older, white suburbanites. Although it is fair to say that their _solutions_ are to apply different zoning policies, instead of abolishing them altogether.
“For unregulated cities, the IV estimate of the price elasticity of supply is approximately 0.36. For regulated cities, the estimate is zero.”
This is a great piece of data. Housing regulation destroys the signals and incentives of the price system.
“We find that the increased spatial misallocation of labor due to housing supply constraints in cities with high productivity growth rates lowered aggregate growth by almost 50% between 1964 and 2009.”
Barring people from moving to the highest productivity areas through immigration or housing regulation is such a self-own. The costs are all in the 'unseen' gains that could have been made so people fail to see the trillion dollar bills they are leaving on the sidewalk. The world is confusing and sad sometimes
I've heard this one before but it still astounds me. 50%
I think I saw that somehwere. It is absolutely bonkers. While this data is significant, I think people of a neoliberal economic persuasion need to do a better job of explaining how economic growth contributes to human flourishing and telling how it affects people's lives
Great, perhaps overlooked (in pure, rigorous economics discussions) point about human flourishing.
I take issue with your suggestion that zoning is "progressive" or "intended to help the poor". Progressives support rent control (which is of course a strongly related issue) but are actually the most ardent opponents, historically and contemporarily, against common zoning policies! Because of how those policies tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of older, white suburbanites. Although it is fair to say that their _solutions_ are to apply different zoning policies, instead of abolishing them altogether.
I should have said housing regulation generally
“For unregulated cities, the IV estimate of the price elasticity of supply is approximately 0.36. For regulated cities, the estimate is zero.”
This is a great piece of data. Housing regulation destroys the signals and incentives of the price system.
“We find that the increased spatial misallocation of labor due to housing supply constraints in cities with high productivity growth rates lowered aggregate growth by almost 50% between 1964 and 2009.”
This stat is mind-bogglingly large but it is infact an underestimate based on a mathematical error! https://www.econlib.org/a-correction-on-housing-regulation/
Here Bryan Caplan writes about his correspondence with the authors over the error.
https://www.econlib.org/immigration-and-housing-the-meaning-of-hsieh-moretti/
Barring people from moving to the highest productivity areas through immigration or housing regulation is such a self-own. The costs are all in the 'unseen' gains that could have been made so people fail to see the trillion dollar bills they are leaving on the sidewalk. The world is confusing and sad sometimes
I've heard this one before but it still astounds me. 50%
I think I saw that somehwere. It is absolutely bonkers. While this data is significant, I think people of a neoliberal economic persuasion need to do a better job of explaining how economic growth contributes to human flourishing and telling how it affects people's lives