In the 1950s, average size of new homes was about 1200 square feet. In 2000, it was more than 2400 square feet and held one less person (iirc: 4.5 VS 3.5 people).

We are building 1950s suburban homes on steroids in a post-baby-boom world where average household size has shrunk.

There are a lot of problems with this.

All other things being equal, an expansion of housing stock which tracked population growth would keep prices steady.

The big shift is immigration expanding the pool of working-age people, and longer lifespans increasing the time it takes for family homes to be released back onto the market. People having fewer kids now self-evidently does not affect housing demand (except perhaps to reduce square footage needed per working person)

I don't buy it. One thing that stands out to me: he has a ton of charts, but this crucial bit:

>But, since 2008, vacancies have been declining steeply.

is missing one. It looks like this statement is based on his estimates. So... original research. I'll leave it to an actual statistician to analyze his methodology, but that statement doesn't jive with my experience.

I continue to suspect that the "housing shortage" (similar to the "labor shortage") is due to a mismatch between the value that industry expects and what are actually the rates necessary to support the population. Powerful institutions representing wealthy individuals and groups, and large swathes of people, like the status quo; it is, in fact, fundamental to their lifestyle, their finances, the overall economy, and they will (and have) done everything they can to keep prices and the perception of scarcity high. The situation doesn't seem rational from an inventory/demand standpoint because it isn't; there are enough house, and they should be worth less and more affordable. But we won't return to reality until the privileging of incumbents ends.

The cause of the problem is that real estate is a good investment asset.

The way to solve the problem is making it a bad investment asset.

The best way to do it is to tax real estate progressively. The more you own, the higher percentage of its value you must pay every year.

That taxation scheme would make investors drop millions of houses on the market like a hot potato.

Prices would tank. This might cause issues with real estate as mortgage collateral. So that needs to be reformed first. Bank would need to be forced by law to accept swapping collateral for another of the same value. Regardless of the current price of the collateral and its replacement. They should also be forced to consider mortgage fully paid once they decide to end the loan and take posession of the collateral.

Also no bailouts. Banks are companies. Superpower of companies is that they can die. Let them.

It's always struck me that housing regulation (well, a lot of regulation really) is written by rich people for rich people.

When I moved out of home I'd have been perfectly willing to live in a minimally insulated log cabin, shipping container, etc of sorts with basic running water and wiring that consisted of me running conduit up the walls. I could then upgrade it slowly over time with insulation, stud walls, etc etc time permitting.

There's tons of land in the UK that'd be cheap enough to do this.

You just can't, though. It has to be done "to code" and with planning permission and a billion other legal things, which basically means forcing everyone into a level of luxury/"modernity" that most actually can't afford.

So you end up with basically nonsense like van life, people sleeping in their cars, homelessness etc, because as soon as you build a permanent structure it becomes a huge nonsense.

This discussions on house size and housing shortage in a country so big is indicative of a bad labour market and declining quality of life.

The economy is in shambles if homes can’t be built for different income groups. The villain here is the govt that eats up the taxes and imposes more and doesn’t provide basic quality of life. Wealth redistribution is not the solution. Wealth management is the answer. America fails miserably.

Basically..if a country as large as America is wanting dense housing and smaller homes, it means it’s becoming poorer.

For the rest of world..who are resource constrained or resource poor or economically weak…America is laughing stock.

It’s like the world’s richest person has a poverty fetish to fit in.

The only true wealth in this world is land. And the govt has made if so none can truly own it. And there you have it.

The gaslighting is real. Land owning farmers are the richest people in the world. By offering them subsidies, they have become debtors. Land rich and cash poor. The ultimate goal is land grab by institutional investors until very few elite will own all the land…and its resources.

> and adults generally live on their own or with a spouse

This has not been historically true.