undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJumpCrisscross7d ago0 comments

> what they didn't mention is that supply didn't impact rents until the large remigration back out of Austin

This has been studied to death. But just like soybean farmers in Idaho voting for tariffs on China it seems a category of urban renter is more wedded to ideology than self interest.

The Austin metro area's population is up [1][2]. Austin's GDP is up [3]. Migration per se doesn't explain a phenomenon that is robust across cities, countries and centuries.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22926/aust...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas#Demographics

[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL48453

0 comments

tonymet7d ago

2-3% is a margin of error compared to 20-40+% y/o/y growth. That means the influx ceased, some left, some had babies. Meanwhile housing was built.

Of course rents will crash if everyone anticipates 20-40% growth and it’s suddenly 0 . Let’s see in a few years if the pricing trend continues downward or upward.

If it’s downward, yes we’ve solved the rent problem by “building”. If it’s upward, as it has been, it’s not just about supply .

JumpCrisscrossOP7d ago

> Let’s see in a few years if the pricing trend continues downward or upward

This was the argument of the tobacco companies in the 1980s. This experiment has been run many, many times and only had one outcome. Overwhelming housing markets with a supply influx absolutely works. It cuts against ideology, however, so you’ll always have folks who want to wait for more data while properties appreciate.

tonymet6d ago

You may not have noticed that nothing factual was said here

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse