Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Strongly agree with all points. To your point about 30 year fixed rate mortgages vs rent control, we can already see what happens when stakeholders have fixed housing costs via New England. They stay put, and not enough housing is built for new people to move there (Maine and Vermont especially). We seem to be okay with this though, because they are mortgages and properties owned by individuals, instead of rent control across an urban area constraining landlord profits. We simply accept that new workers cannot move to these areas, and that new affordable housing for new workers will not be built, but rent control is verboten.

Deaths already outnumber births in 21 US states, and this will increase over time due to rapid fertility rate declines. Immigration tolerance as an input is the sticking point imho, as there will always be demand to live in major urban areas, and we're really just arguing who gets to live there. Are we at peak housing demand as China and Japan once were? Probably not yet, but we're likely within spitting distance. The faster the fertility rate declines, the faster we get to peak housing demand.

https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-21-states-where-deaths-no...

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2024/12/nowhe...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45883901 (additional citations)



> there will always be demand to live in major urban areas

Isn't that the detail where the devil is? There's plenty of land in Maine and Vermont. Check out the house prices in Presque Isle. But Burlington has many amenities and a very pleasant quality of life so it's expensive. Price is the way we resolve who gets to live there. So far, no one has a better way.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: