> Funnel $10B in housing to Los Angeles and you'll build less than 100 units of housing, because the inflationary push of that money would balloon the cost of per unit housing. I don't want to imagine the effect of that on middle class housing.
Doesn't make sense to me. An uptick in construction work will not be an inflation balloon. More disposable income doesn't mean 1:1 more spending.
If you build a lot of (social) housing, you put at worst a lot of people a roof above their head.
Families having less financial stress might lower crime rate and improve children school scores. They might save to start businesses or find their other talents.
For some, this might be a downside tough. It makes workers more educated, healthier, more stable, less desperate and less dependent on bosses, plus they might be less angry so politically less exploitable too.
"An uptick in construction work will not be an inflation balloon. "
There's a massive shortage in construction workers [1], so yes there will be? The few construction workers we do have can demand higher wages (yay!) but then will they be outbidding other mid-income folks for housing with those increased wages? Sounds like an inflation spiral to me.
My statement wasn't against social housing, I love social housing. We just haven't cracked the code in scaling housing (and subsequent maintenance) yet. And the problem is about 80% political will, billionaire cash is useless here.
On a macro scale, that has hardly any impact, and I think it would be even immeasurable.
It is rather the other way around. Higher rents / house prices will make sure only people with higher wages can afford to live there. That means your bagel or coffee will be more expensive there too.
Nope, LA is too much part of the macro economy to make such an impact. Wood and labor doesn't have to come from LA and even if that would double (it won't) there would be a round zero impact on inflation in LA.
The land to be build was going to be sold anyways, you just get one bidder more, or several bidders less if the council makes requirements like x% social housing.
Please, forget anything you are worrying about here, it does not apply.
Literally every problem I mentioned is at its worst state possible. People with millions and billions simply waiting to buy materials or get land approvals. It’s a well know intractable problem [1] and really the crux of the problem.
If just these problems could be solved the state has more than enough funds to house everyone. What billionaires do would be wholly irrelevant (like it is now)
Doesn't make sense to me. An uptick in construction work will not be an inflation balloon. More disposable income doesn't mean 1:1 more spending.
If you build a lot of (social) housing, you put at worst a lot of people a roof above their head.
Families having less financial stress might lower crime rate and improve children school scores. They might save to start businesses or find their other talents.
For some, this might be a downside tough. It makes workers more educated, healthier, more stable, less desperate and less dependent on bosses, plus they might be less angry so politically less exploitable too.