Skip to main content

Housing Markets 101

Stephen Smith has a post about housing and gentrification that I think hits on some good points, but it only tells one piece of a bigger story about how housing markets works. He opens with this:
When libertarians (and liberals) argue that increasing the supply of urban housing will lower the price of urban housing, they’re drawing on some pretty basic and well-established economic concepts. And yet, the coexistence of gentrification and housing supply growth seem to put a lie to that theory – in cities across America, we see neighborhoods adding housing while still seeing rapid increases in the price of housing. From the point of view of the poor and often non-white residents who are being pushed out, the market remedy of increasing supply just doesn’t seem to be working.
Count the number of times the word "supply" appears. Now count the number of times "demand" is in the above paragraph. Herein lies a major problem with this discussion: it focuses way too heavily on the supply side of the equation. After all, the price of housing is measured as the equilibrium of supply and demand. If you ignore the demand-side, of course you're going to be perplexed when you see a boost in supply accompanied by a rise in price levels. It doesn't put a lie to the theory. In fact, it proves the theory.

(from M.V. Jantzen on Flickr)

I tackled this issue recently, arguing that we can't really talk about the "housing market" because housing isn't homogeneous. People are willing to pay more for high-quality housing than they are for low-quality housing. So if you change the type and quality of housing in a neighborhood, you alter the underlying structure of the market itself, and the price at which people are willing to pay to live there, all else equal.

But let's set that aside for a moment and assume, for argument's sake, that housing is a commodity. From a theoretical perspective, we can draw the housing market as a series of simple charts, similar to what you might remember from an intro to microeconomics course.

In a neighborhood housing market, the demand curve is downward sloping. There's nothing notable about this; and in the short-run, the supply curve is a vertical line. This is consistent with the reality that in most neighborhoods you can't start construction whenever you want to. In fact, it's often a huge hassle to construct new units, for a variety of reasons, NIMBYism being one of them. So in the short-run, the supply is fixed.


The theory continues that in order to meet the high or pent-up demand, as well as make housing more affordable, we ought to increase the supply of housing. Graphically, this is shown as a shift of the supply curve to the right. If all goes well, the resulting equilibrium will be a lower price and higher quantity of housing.


But it doesn't end there, because we haven't accounted for the demand curve, which very well may shift. This could be because new amenities have popped up in the neighborhood; but also because the neighborhood is getting safer, cleaner and generally becoming a more desirable place to live. It could even be for a completely exogenous reason. Whatever the case, let's imagine that the end result is a rightward shift in the demand curve.


If the shift in the demand curve is great enough, it can completely overwhelm the shift in the supply curve, leading to an equilibrium with higher prices.

Now, I'm not using this as an argument to say we shouldn't work to increase density in cities or metro areas. But I do want to show that the simplistic "increase supply to make housing affordable" argument doesn't always hold, for theoretical reasons, especially at the neighborhood-level, and in urban areas that are already relatively dense and desirable.

So if you want to bring down prices in a housing market, you need to boost supply, while keeping the demand curve from simultaneously shifting too far to the right. How do you accomplish this? It's a tough question to answer. Stephen Smith says build more in rich, already-developed areas. Ryan Avent says build more in low-density suburbs. The consensus seems to be that we need to build. The disagreement is about exactly where we need to do it.

I also want to note that we can't actually expect to witness falling rents, because rents, like the price of many things in the economy, are sticky. Imagine getting a call from your landlord at the end of your lease, during which she says, "hi, I know you're been paying a thousand dollars, but it looks like the market rent in the neighborhood has dropped, so how would you like to pay $900 for the next year?" It's not going to happen.

Landlords will almost never lower a rent, as we think of it. They might do so subtly, by offering "first month free" or "move-in incentives" that effectively lower the average price you pay per month, over the length of the lease; but the "contract price" won't actually go down over time.

For that reason, the best we can hope for is a sort of rent stabilization, where rents stop climbing in nominal dollars. A $1,000 lease five years from now is going to be a better deal than a $1,000 lease today. People hate thinking in terms of "real dollars," because we're bad at it - but it's what we've got to do to see how rents are changing.

Comments

DK said…
Landlords might genuinely lower rent if there's such an abundance of urban housing that supply actually surpasses demand. They'll lower rents if that's what they have to do to keep tenants from leaving for other apartments that offer more bang for the buck.

But I think one of the reasons for rental prices remaining high is that a lot of this urban housing being built is basically luxury apartments/condos. Often over 1,000 sq ft and in high rises, which are inherently more expensive to construct (and which minimum parking requirements certainly don't help).

What cities need to do is fill their empty blocks with low-to-mid rises containing lots of small, studio size apartments. Lots of people are willing to live with less personal space if in return they get access to so much great public space.

Popular posts from this blog

In Praise of Southwest's 'C' Boarding Group

A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from someone complaining that their Southwest Airlines boarding pass had been assigned A20 (meaning they would be at least one of the first twenty passengers to board the plane). Apparently this person though they should have been assigned a higher number, less their flight experience be considerably spoiled.

Despite the complaints, Southwest has resisted demands to assign seats on its flights, a decision which I personally applaud. I'll admit that I was skeptical when they rolled out the newest boarding procedure, assigning both boarding groups and a line number; but in hindsight it seems like one of the best operational decisions they've ever made. If nothing else, it effectively eliminated the infamous "cattle call" whereby fliers were getting to airports hours in advance and sitting in line on the floor as if they were waiting for the midnight showing of the new Star Wars movie.

When I was an intern at Southwest Airlines last winter, I…

So You Want to be a Southwest Airlines Intern?

My personal website must have pretty decent SEO - because in the past year, I've received about two dozen emails from aspiring Southwest Airlines interns looking to draw on my experience in search of their own dream internship. In the past two weeks alone a few new emails have already started rolling in...

(from flickr user San Diego Shooter)

If you've found your way here, you might be hoping for the silver bullet; a secret tip that will propel you above the competition. Unfortunately, I do not know any inside secrets. I can only share my experience as an internship candidate about two years ago and, rather than responding individually to future emails I anticipate to receive, I hope that potential interns will find the information posted here valuable.

Understand: Southwest Airlines is a very unique company. The corporate culture at Southwest is truly unlike that of nearly every other company. But you probably already knew that, since it now seems mandatory for every management,…

Mixing Sports and Business

In the last two days I've devoured every article in the Washington Post about the Nationals painful and epic defeat on Friday night in the NLDS. It was a tough way to see the season end, there's no doubt about that.

(from wallyg on Flickr)
These articles make it clear that there are a lot of people emotionally invested in professional sports. I think they sometimes they forget that, ultimately, Major League Baseball is big business. Each team is a major corporation and the league itself is an organization governed by a bunch of executives. The television networks that show the games are under contract with the team owners and the games aren't usually available to those without cable.

This is why it can be so hard to be a fan in this game. It's the multi-millionaire and billionaire owners that call most of the shots. They get to decide how much they're willing to spend on players. They get to decide who to hire as the CEO of the company. They get to decide how much t…