Comment by nerdjon
2 years ago
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.