Comment by nerdjon
2 years ago
Something about this doesn't really make sense. I mean how often do we hear that there is a housing shortage? Either we are being lied to that there is a shortage or these numbers are not what they seem?
It bothers me that in this article that in the same paragraph it mentions housing "deteriorating conditions" it gives percentages for housing in rent and being renovated, but ignores the percent for this important aspect? How much of this housing is actually in a livable state?
Maybe the original report actually gives these numbers so I will need to look at this closer.
But something about this really isn't adding up for me given what has been said time and time again over the last few years.
Edit: Ok so it seems like the reason this article doesn't mention this percent is because the lending tree one doesn't either. If I am reading this correctly it is only explaining about 52% (26.61 + 17.04 + 7.98) of this number. So what is the reason for the other roughly 50%? That is a huge percent to be seemingly ignoring but still taking into account for an attention grabbing headline.
I mean, we're being lied to that wages are causing inflation. We're being lied to that universal basic income will make people stop working. We were being lied to for decades that working from home was impossible. We were being lied to for decades that tax cuts for the rich will "trickle down" and help everyone else.
It's abundantly clear that the powers that be in the economic world are some combination of willfully lying and self-deluded about how various parts of the country's and the world's economy actually work. It would not surprise me at all if the statistics showing a "housing shortage" were either shortsightedly or deliberately ignoring particular categories of vacant housing.
I get where you are going with this, but everything you mentioned is harder to concretely say one way or another. It takes studies, looking at numbers, and tests.
But housing numbers are cut and dry. Worst case we have people who are trying to hide the numbers, but ultimately if the numbers can be found they are there. Gets a bit more complicated since you do need to account for wether or not there are people where those houses are and if the housing is in a livable state.
But it isn't like you can add an opinion disclaimer to housing numbers.
There are studies showing that all those things I said are lies are, in fact, untrue. (Well, the "working from home" one is a bit less clear-cut on an individual level—but it's still the case that we were being lied to that it was impossible, period, across the board.)
And as you've already noted, the article appears to be making bold claims while not showing all its work. Yes, this article is doing that while arguing for extra vacant homes—but what makes you think the opposite isn't also true? Beware of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.