Start with Praxeology (the methodology of Austrian economics).
"Start with a fringe ideology that explicitly rejects empirical evidence" is not exactly a good start.
The simple axiom that all preferences are subjective instantly eliminates a lot of the foundation of micro (and macro) economics as it is typically taught today.
No? If anything, econ 101 classes are basically Austrian economics classes due to how many idealized simplifying assumptions are made. And subjective preference curves are the entire basis of the supply/demand graphs that econ 101 students are bombarded with.
I half agree. While I respect Pope's artistic vision and the work that went into the aesthetic, I personally found it headache-inducing to actually look at. Especially with how much of the game is about gleaning clues from the environment, I simply could not enjoy it and dropped the game pretty quickly.
The government is using tax money to fund the creation of consumer products, while consumers vote with their wallets that they don't want those products. Doesn't sound very democratic to me.
That kind of "stability" is more accurately described as stagnation. It may protect workers in a narrow sense, but it also disincentivizes the kind of productive risk-taking that leads to business creation, innovation and overall societal increases in wealth. This type of worker protection scheme is what people tend to reach for because it's the first thing they think of and it sounds sensible, but it can really drag on society in the long-term.
A much more effective approach would be to make loss of employment not be a big deal, e.g. through stronger social safety nets. That way you ensure people's lives are financially stable but without introducing friction to efficient allocation of resources. Ideally, losing your job would be no more than a mild inconvenience - like having to buy a different brand of milk because your usual is out of stock. That ideal isn't realistically achievable, but we can at least try to get closer.
Minimum unit sizes necessarily increase the price of housing and lower supply - there's no free lunch. Small apartments suck, sure, but you have to ask yourself whether it's a good idea to ban them and thus force everyone to pay more. Personally, I don't think small apartments have enough negative externalities to justify such regulation.
You don't seem to have countered any aspect of my argument, so I'll rephrase it for enhanced clarity.
Current laws about minimum sizes (WRT size alone) already sufficiently allow small sizes (as far as interior size of the unit is concerned).
Commonly it is __other_laws__ such as access to two fire escapes which cause larger sizes than some might desire. An example addressed in my reply's following lines 'Fireproof Buildings' which some localities allow to relax such rules.
We don’t know where you’re based, so it’s difficult to respond to your precise argument.
But your argument sure sounds like we shouldn’t allow the permitting of SROs or boarding houses anymore, which is what parent is arguing for.
Forcing everyone to have a kitchenette and their own bathroom sounds like the sort of thing we want to “preserve everyone’s dignity”, but mostly it forces people on the edge out of housing altogether.
So I probably disagree with you that your current zoning is small enough.
I may have misunderstood your earlier comment as a claim that minimum size laws are beneficial and should be maintained.
If I understand correctly now, your argument is that minimum size laws are not currently a bottleneck for building denser apartments? If so that’s a valid point wrt what changes should be prioritized, but I think it’s fine to point out that minimum sizes also need to go.
Any smaller than present and the bottlenecks become dominated by other factors. Commonly things such as: access to at least two emergency egress stairwells, a requirement for at least one window, the physics of being able to reach the entry door at all.
As a counter example, hotel rooms are usually required to have a restroom but not a kitchen area. Yet they're often even larger than studio apartments. This is because the other safety, engineering, and other-units factors enforce requirements that make smaller units pointless. They might even create security management issues in the common space between units.
If what you're really seeking is cheaper ways of housing more people, then generalizing the question and changing the variables being optimized (other than size, which most places, particularly in other countries, already do great jobs on).
Offhand, the 'wave a magic wand and fix the rules' solution just limited to this problem space might include something similar to. Fireproof (no flammable materials in the building construction, build in furnishings etc) buildings only require 1 fire-shelter level egress path. 'better' elevators (less shafts / density; might go to a Wanka-vator / turbolift like loop system). Eliminate window requirements in favor of two independent paths to sources of fresh air / shelter in place points.
With the above, the sort of smaller unit hacks that others (but not I) desire might include commons facilities for coffin-hotel things like a gym/pool lockerroom and shower, a common kitchen, etc. However my experience with shared amenities (E.G. rooftop BBQ grills) is that they suffer the Tragedy of the Commons. There's always going to be at least one person in a group that uses things improperly, or leaves cleanup to others, etc. In the case of shared lockerrooms that aren't rigorously cleaned this will also lead to communicable disease transmission.
That strikes me as a fairly modern thing. I imagine that weevils and/or rocks in flour was a common issue just a few generations ago (or, in many countries, to this day).
It can also remove clumps that can form in wetter climates, or from flour of lower quality. During the pandemic I got a big ol bag of flour that was loaded with clumps, and I had to gradually sift all 50lb of it. So, I guess it can still be totally useful in modern times if you have bad purchasing and storage options.
In the very long term, yes a large plot of land in a densely-constructed city would be extremely valuable. In the short and medium-term though, the downward price pressure of increased supply outweighs the upward price pressure of amenity effects.[1][2][3]
Very few NIMBYs will openly admit to wanting to maintain their property values because it's a much less noble sounding cause than "preserving the character of the neighborhood" or whatever.
I looked at the cited papers and accept the presented economic dynamics. But I still do not accept that it is a predominant motivation for why people are nimby.
When I talk to my neighbors, I just do not get a sense of “oh yeah this dude is actually trying to maximize land value”. I see people just trying to have a decent life and raise a family.
All these comments that allude to “quiet part out loud” or whatever seriously sound like conspiracy theories to me. Call me naive, but the folks in my neighborhood are not a cabal of real estate moguls. Though, yes, some are nimby
> We have had local regulations and NIMBY groups forestall new construction/denser housing, but the state pushed through legislation to forcibly override those local blockers. Incentives should now be aligned for builders to build, but local homeowners will continue to fight against it because their incentives are not aligned.
California has only made a few tiny steps toward allowing construction. They are good steps, don't get me wrong, but there is still a very long way to go before California can even begin to catch up on its decades of under-building.
California's permission of converting single-family zoned land into multifamily housing is in name only. It can only be done by owner occupiers - not by developers who want to buy land and build on it. Which basically never happens.
