Comment by tptacek
2 days ago
So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed.
We're often so down on journalism on HN, and I believe a big part of that is we tend to read so much opinion and analysis and so little basic reporting.
I've been loving Thompson's substack (which is mostly not about housing policy so far).
Reporters used to start at something like the City News Bureau.[1] For a century, the City News Bureau covered local news for Chicago and sent it in to the local newspapers. Lasted until 2005. Young reporters started there, covering every police station, every major crime, every major fire, every major trial, and getting the facts right, or else. The bureau`s unsentimental motto: ”If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
We need that again. As I point out occasionally, read news, and ask yourself which stories started out as a press release. For the City News Bureau, nothing started as a press release. They had people pounding the streets of Chicago for a century. Today, the pundit to reporter ratio is far too high.
There's a great book about the Bureau, called "Hello, Sweetheart, Get Me Rewrite". (by Dornfield, not the one by Sears, which is something else entirely.)[1]
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/1990/06/20/if-city-news-burea...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Hello-Sweetheart-Get-Me-Rewrite/dp/08...
Legacy journalism has changed from a low-barrier-to-entry working man's occupation, with entry level reporting leading to high-paying punditry, into a high-barrier-to-entry ivy league occupation with new entrants to the field expecting prestigious positions from the start.
It’s also what’s called a high prestige low pay career which is by definition exclusionary of poor and middle income people, so the news makers are further and further detached from regular people.
https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2022/02/07/the-dangers-...
There are still hundreds of thousands of journalists around the country who don't have ivy league educations and are getting paid a pittance to work in their fields. I once worked for a publisher which hired reporters making $12 an hour who easily worked over 60 hours a week. Big city reporters might push out a few stories a week. The small town people are cranking them out by the dozen, with about 3/4ths of their bylines being "<newpaper>" Staff so that people remain unaware of how understaffed these papers are.
Sorry to derail this thread on journalistic merit..
I just thought that this other thread on housing microeconomics is worth pointing out, to anyone who might be excited about the prospects of enlightened tax policy
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44750961
>This is most clear in insurance data where replacement cost is isolated from land value.
The Rust evangelists don't want you know this, but a land value tax would fix data races
1 reply →
Yes the deeply depressing thing is that these sort of city news articles are now very much taken verbatim from press releases, and those press releases are from professional police communications departments, and so this gives enormous new powers to the police in able to shape the broader narrative as their politics and agenda see fit.
For example we can see here that this news article is lifting directly from the police press release. https://bsky.app/profile/kwardvancouver.bsky.social/post/3lu...
Maybe it wasn't even an overworked city reporter that did this but simply an automated AI creating news articles straight from the police press releases.
The problem is that nobody would pay for it. People expect news to be free, and click bait and lazy copy paste or LLM journalism is cheaper and works just as well to get clicks for ad dollars.
Would people pay for real journalism?
Depending on the specifics of the publication, we can broadly say that print media used to get more revenue from advertising than people actually buying the physical media.
You could Google it and read about the decline but Wikipedia is a place to start:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_newspapers?wprov=sf...
Newspapers used to give copies of their daily paper away in bulk to distribution hubs so as to boost circulation. In fact, they still do.
You can often pick up a paper for free when boarding a flight.
4 replies →
Lets be real here, in the past advertisers did pay for it, but all advertising spend has moved on to the clickbait-youtube/google/Facebook garbage heap.
Don't people already pay for things like the NYT?
I guess local papers might be harder, they may have to demonstrate they can reveal the journalistic failures of other papers in local affairs.
29 replies →
Surprised that no one has mentioned 404 media, a dedicated news sub I pay for annually. Good reporting is worth it to me, especially to get past all the b.s. marketing hype and influencer shilling. Maybe they’re unpopular here on HN but I stand by the sentiment: legit, good journalism is worth supporting financially.
>Would people pay for real journalism?
See the comments every time a pay-walled article is posted here.
4 replies →
I think about this from time to time. Personally I would pay per article if it's convenient. I don't want to shell out $20/mo for, say, the Economist right now but if there was a particular article I wanted to read I'd probably pay a few bucks.
The papers wouldn't go for it, but these days I can subscribe to individual writers I like on Substack rather than paying for a newspaper subscription and subsidizing content I don't care about. More bang for buck. People have to be met halfway.
6 replies →
The underlying assumption is that of capitalism, that is, that things should be profitable or at least self-sustaining. But if you do that, things like the USPS donkey train [0] would be stripped, the US military would / should be reduced to a fraction of its current size or down to nothing, etc.
Independent news should be completely free from capitalist interests.
[0] https://facts.usps.com/8-mile-mule-train-delivery/
1 reply →
[flagged]
2 replies →
> We're often so down on journalism on HN, and I believe a big part of that is we tend to read so much opinion and analysis and so little basic reporting.
I think a large part of it is that major news organizations too often don't do this kind of reporting, and often just seem to chase the same hot button topics as the rest of the crowd over and over again. And even then, few really dive into the details.
You're larger point is entirely correct, that there's a ton to be learned from old school journalism, and there are people out there doing it. But it's unsettling how much of it only gets covered by citizen journalists doing this in their free time, not by professionals who are supposed to be doing this for a living.
For example, the D.C. Attorney's Office had been simply dropping 2/3's of the criminal cases that came to them. No one noticed this until a anonymous internet account, DCCrimeFacts, went through the records and realized that this had been happening for years. Once that account wrote about it and it gained traction, major papers like the Washington Post started reporting on the story, it eventually ended up being an issue in Congressional hearings, and lead to changes in the way the U.S. Attorney's Office operates.
The account spent a lot of time digging through records and reporting on issues with the criminal justice system you wouldn't find elsewhere. But it was someone's side project, and there haven't been posts in a year.
Another example is the FAA scandal, when the best information has come from a single blog post by a law student who happened to go through the legal paperwork and was surprised that this hadn't been reported on.
The professional news media outlets do have some good reporters, and sometimes there are important deep dives there as well. But they feel few and far between, usually opting to chase infotainment (or sometimes the pet projects of a particular journalist).
It's amazing how many big stories we only get if some random citizen happens to spend their free time doing a personal journalism project, and if that project happens to get enough traction that people actually read it.
Links for the curious - DCCrimeFacts [0] and I assume the FAA case is Tracing Woodgrains [1], though I could be wrong
[0] https://dccrimefacts.substack.com/
[1] https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...
> I think a large part of it is that major news organizations too often don't do this kind of reporting, and often just seem to chase the same hot button topics as the rest of the crowd over and over again. And even then, few really dive into the details.
The point of most media is to drive agendas, not uncover the truth. Doing proper reporting would create a problem and get in the way of what you want people to do.
or to sell ads
Journalism has all the problems of being a shrinking high status low income industry. Living in NYC I know a few journalists, and if you scratch below the surface on many of their bios they are quite often from wealth of one form or another. At least enough wealth to subsidize them living in an expensive NYC zipcode on awful starting pay with low growth and ceiling.
So it really is quite a monoculture. 20 years ago they all lived in UWS, now it's somewhere between Park Slope and North Brooklyn. Ever noticed how many local color stories used to be UWS focussed and are now Brooklyn? A lot of trends pieces are "stuff I noticed in my friends group" type of depth, and they all have the same friends groups. They literally don't know what they don't know.
> how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed.
Matthew Stoller called the people Derek Thompson called, and some said Derek had misrepresented their opinions. So shoe leather caused the narrative of this so-called reputation to collapse as well.
> and some said Derek had misrepresented their opinions
Because he did? Or because once the entire cumulative picture got painted they looked bad and needed to walk their opinions back?
Link? I'd love to read countervailing reporting.
I want to say something about Stoller bringing a knife to a gunfight but really this fight only required Thompson to have a telephone.
https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1951083395146231957
What did Stoller think was going to happen? Calling people up on the phone is Thompson's entire schtick at this point.
9 replies →
That didn’t age well. Based on the response it sounded like he made it up whole cloth or just completely ignored big portions of what the people he called said?
I've been involved in a lot of discussions about "what is journalism? what do real journalists do?", and the best response I've heard was from Ian Betteridge (of Betteridge's Law fame), who told me "Journalists pick up the phone." It may have already dated as a pithy description, but the idea of literally calling[1] people to fact-check or dig deeper is a low bar that a surprising amount of current journalism doesn't clear. And I say this as someone who has definitely done the non-journalism: just writing an opinion, or a column, or blog post, or whatever. Or, perhaps most insidiously, when you have a thesis for an article and you just collect the (partial) facts you need to flesh out that thesis.
I know why people blame the internet, the drop in rewards for journalism, the pressures to churn out text, that has led to. But I'd also emphasise that it's a vocational skill that not everyone is built for, or trained to do. But it's as Thomas says, that scarcity means that it's still as valuable (and recognisable) as it always was.
[1] Or emailing -- but emailing, and emailing, and emailing, then calling, and emailing again until you get an answer.
> I know why people blame the internet, the drop in rewards for journalism, the pressures to churn out text, that has led to. But I'd also emphasise that it's a vocational skill that not everyone is built for, or trained to do.
As someone both built for and trained to do it, I can tell you I'd be making at least US$150k/year less if I was still doing it. I wager I'd be short about $1.25M in career earnings through just salary in the time since I moved from the copy desk to tech.
That's factoring in how, through the first third of my tech career I was still making just $35-60k/year. And I was ecstatic, because $35k was a five-figure raise over running the front section of a daily newspaper.
Every person in the first two newsrooms I worked in is either dead or has left the journalism field completely, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and the entire team of editors, artists, and photographers who worked on the winning story. Most are now in PR, consulting, or (as a symptom of being near the Gulf Coast) in some arm of the fossil-fuels industry. One of the last whose career I keep track of just took up mail-order baking.
It's a financially unsustainable field in any market. At 5 years' experience at the head of the editing wheel, I was living paycheck-to-paycheck paying just $400/month in rent, living with two roommates in a single-wide trailer in the middle of a sugar cane field.
The vast majority of those City Desk-style journalism jobs made primary-school teaching salaries look attractive _25 years ago_, much less now. By the time I left, all of those jobs that I knew of had either moved to contract gigs or stringers (freelancers paid by column inches of text) unless you were in a big-city market or working for a regional/national paper.
The myth of building up a journalism career at an institution from the bottom of the org through shoe-leather reporting alone, without already knowing or being related to someone who could move you ahead of the rest, was already far past dead in most of the US.
If I could find a journalism job that paid half what I make now, made me travel constantly, had shit benefits, got me put on watchlists, made me deal with some of the slimiest people on the planet in the forms of career local politicians and court lawyers on the daily, and put me in precarious situations... I'd still probably take it, because I miss it every day. But that job flat-out does not exist in any form that I'd get a callback for unless I married into a publisher's extended family, and hasn't for decades.
Urban primary school teachers get a pretty attractive comp package these days!
4 replies →
Appreciate the inside perspective.
I'm curious what's your take on news agencies like Reuters and AP? Do they pay better? Do they have resources to do real journalism?
> But I'd also emphasise that it's a vocational skill that not everyone is built for, or trained to do.
Somewhat-related to another front-page item today about, how lots of jobs sound kind of crazy if you really detail them out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44710651
> all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed
Did it collapse, or he simply created another dubious narrative to replace the previous one?
It collapsed.
I assume I'm somewhat impartial, I don't know this author, it's the first time I hear of the "antitrust left" or of the argument that big monopoly builder purposely keep the market scarce to increase prices. And it's not an issue that I hold a strong opinion about.
The way the piece reads to me is a "He said, She Said". And I have to choose whose word I trust.
Two articles, both claim to have spoken to expert sources, both claim the expert have told them X and Y. One says the expert told them things that corroborates the idea of the "antitrust left", and the other claims the sources actually disagreed with it.
So my personal take is that both appear untrustworthy and biased, pushing their own distorted narrative.
10 replies →
This article is good, but the phrase "antitrust left" really turned me off. I am probably some kind of a leftist (I want higher taxes on rich people and a society much more welfare oriented with a substantial degree of labor and resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets) but I don't know a single leftist who actually cares about this housing shit except to think that houses should be cheaper by any means necessary. Like the idea that there is an active contingent of leftists trying to construct some kind of defense of the current housing system or critique of reforms (in general) aimed at making it easier to build houses strikes me as truly bizarre.
There may be some environmentalists who have housing as a pet peeve or something, and there are lots of yuppies who want to defend their housing prices who might be liberal but I don't associate this position with leftism in any way.
I live in a very wealthy, extraordinarily progressive muni (almost certainly in the top 5 nationally), and my primary political project is zoning reform, and I assure you that left-NIMBYism is a thing, and that the "we should make blue state governments perform better and increase supply of things people want" thesis of "Abundance" (Thompson and Klein's book) is a bête noire among those leftists.
The argument isn't that the left broadly construed opposes housing legalization! Just that there's a prominent faction of them that do. Right-NIMBYs are a much bigger problem across the US.
Thompson recently recorded a podcast episode with Zephyr Teachout, taking the "we shouldn't do anything before we address antitrust" side of the argument; you can listen to it if you think "the antitrust left" isn't a real thing. Understand: the issue isn't antitrust; it's a totalizing worldview based purely on antitrust. Antitrust is probably super important! But where I live, zoning reform is much more important.
Keep in mind: Klein and Thompson's political project is a plan to organize the Democrats. They're not talking to the Republicans. Not in the sense they're talking to Democrats, at least. I don't think they could make that much clearer than they have.
Here in extremely liberal Portland, there are a huge number of people who genuinely believe that 'greedy developers' are the cause of the nationwide housing shortage, having talked themselves into the nonsense belief that building fewer homes makes people more money.
19 replies →
> Klein and Thompson's political project is a plan to organize the Democrats.
“Abundance” appeals to the financial backers of the Democratic Party because deregulation doesn’t threaten them. But our problems are much graver that what YIMBYism can address: authoritarianism, climate change, austerity, warmongering toward China.
It’s because the wealthy block left-wing populism that so many people have turned to right-wing populism. Which is only making our problems worse.
At this rate, it’s only a matter of time before society cracks. There’s a good chance it doesn’t end well for the financial backers of “abundance.”
1 reply →
Politics is local and there's nothing more local than your housing values
> Keep in mind: Klein and Thompson's political project is a plan to organize the Democrats.
This is the crux of the opposition. It's not that leftists necessarily have a problem with zoning reform, I don't at least, its fine. It's that the "abundance" project is a play for control of the party by the same losers who gave us Biden and Kamala.
People on the left feel that we need to be speaking to economic problems that regular people face. "Think of the millionaire land developers" is a losing message even if it does indirectly help regular people 10 years later. It's not even actionable at the federal level.
29 replies →
I guess this is a bit definitional, but I do not think of "very wealthy, extraordinarily progressive" people as typically leftist. I think of them as liberal and only in the American brain is that associated with leftism, so much so that we usually distinguish between "leftists" and "liberals" rhetorically. With, say, Hillary Clinton, being a classic American liberal and Bernie Sanders being more like a leftist. If you visit the DSA contingent I doubt you'd find anyone per se against zoning revisions to build more housing. Eg, Mamdani had literally building more housing as a part of his platform.
Leftists tend to feel very little solidarity with wealthy progressives and don't really vibe with their political interests, in general. It seems really weird that the specific label of "leftist" is being thrown around in this context. Especially in the context of organizing the Democrats where there is a meaningful and material difference between liberal and leftist.
2 replies →
Mamdani - rent control. Dean Preston - NIMBY. UK Greens Party - NIMBY. Australian Greens Party - NIMBY.
Explain?
UK Greens aren't NIMBYs. They're against doing more of what's being done across UK cities already - which is building generic boxy blocks of cheap housing that look like they fell out of Minecraft, and selling them for unreasonable prices.
Many of the flats end up in the hands of landlords, who charge even more unreasonable rents.
There is no sense in which that's a workable long-term solution to the housing problem.
The Green pitch is "That's clearly not working, let's not do more of it." Which has nothing in common with "We don't want anyone to build anything anywhere."
3 replies →
> Mamdani - rent control
Mamdani wants to freeze rents of housing that is already under rent stabilization. He is also an advocate for reform and deregulation, and working backwards from outcomes. He has been talking to people from the construction industry and one of their main concerns is predictable time scales. He seems very pragmatic.
In the last election, Australia's Green Party was the only party whose housing plan involves actually building homes.
The major parties went with throwing more money at the problem.
2 replies →
My guess is that the "leftist critique" isn't one of not wanting new houses built, but of not wanting extensive government subsidies and political energy to go to builders and other groups who will not solve the problem, a la our storied history with broadband subsidies.
This pitched debate may very well simply represent an attempt to forestall action by bogging efforts down in debate over what's effective or correct, of course. It's worked for any number of groups looking to forestall what seems like an obvious and inevitable solution: reducing lead exposure by banning its use in consumer products, reducing tobacco-related illness by making it difficult and more uncomfortable to partake, and, in our case, making housing affordable by letting prices fall.
"there are lots of yuppies who want to defend their housing prices who might be liberal but I don't associate this position with leftism in any way"
People tend to call the Democrats the left, as they're at least somewhat leftward of the Republicans. It's at least easier for discussion purposes than speaking of the right and the other right.
Yeah, I get it. But we also use liberal and I think in this particular case its worth drawing the distinction between these two "camps" of the democratic party.
8 replies →
It's a disturbing trend that extremely complex issues are framed as a 'symptom' of broad political leanings. At the very least, it's a distraction and disservice to their own good argument, when an otherwise-intelligent narrative constantly reverts back to the polarisation "it's mostly those Others, from the Other Side".
Just let arguments stand on their own merits. The minute an article includes the term "lefties" or "righties", it's gone wrong imo.
This is one of those extremely important points that we say every once in a while and then forget to emphasize. Opposing good ideas or supporting bad ideas because they somehow get tagged into weird ideological buckets along with completely unrelated issues is a big reason why our political system is so dysfunctional.
Excellent comment. I agree that not many leftists support the current housing system. Probably only some existing home owners are excited about how it works today - they may want home prices to stay high. I'm lucky to be a home owner but I also see that the current system is incredibly destructive, having not enough homes and very high home purchase prices is really hard on people. We should not have to spend so much of our income pursing a home.
> houses should be cheaper by any means necessary.
That's basically the position Klein has in the book Abundance, but everywhere I go online the left automatically comes out hostile to it or anything that embraces market solutions. Your anecdote might be true but beyond your small sample size it doesn't seem representative. Broadly, they want populist solutions. This is why Sanders and Warren gave a lukewarm criticism of tariffs, and why they like price controls for grocery stores despite their having small margins, and risk of food shortages it could bring.
If the problem is in our midst, we must acknowledge it.
Local boards in blue cities (California in particular) have blocked new housing for decades using every tool at their disposal. Places that lean left have anomalous rent growth. Places that lean left approve fewer new houses. Places that lean left have anomalously high building costs. This is a matter of written record. Embarrassingly, the only US city to buck this trend is Austin, a city in red-Texas known for a recent influx of radicalized right wingers.
> yuppies who want to defend their housing prices
Yuppies, but definition, are young professionals. They don't own houses, they rent. They are the ones paying the high rental costs as neighborhoods gentrify. They want more housing. The 35+ home owning population is the one that blocks new housing.
> I don't associate this position with leftism in any way
The leftist - YIMBY conflict shows up on 3 fronts.
First, Leftists have issues with the free-market. They reject market-housing solutions as a way to create new housing.
Second, Leftists like Govts and regulation. YIMBY wants less regulation, so they can maximize for space and price. Regulated Govt built housing is both more expensive and worse than what free markets already provide.
Third, and the most important, is a subtle accusation: "Leftists act just as selfish as everyone else, once they are the ones in power". Having come from an ex-socialist country, I have a deeply rooted belief in this accusation. Not that leftists are worse people, but that people are people, and systems should work around their imperfections rather than having expectations of ideological virtue.
The anti-trust left is a nice way to point a sub-section of the left which uses regulation, social outrage and critiques of free-market as a way to get personally beneficial outcomes, at the expense of the wider population. I understand - #NotAllLeftists. YIMBY & abundance advocates themselves have left-sympathies. But the anti-trust left is a non-trivial number and the conversation must start from acknowledging that they exist.
You can just look at the empirical evidence. Where are homes being built? Primarily Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona. Where are they not being built? New York, California, Illinois.
Do with that information what you please.
> resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets
The economy is too complex to be planned in details and such attempts at control have failed again and again.
I think some people also miss that, crucially, the market is not an external force, it is just the aggregate of each individual's need, decision, and desires. SO in a way a working market is as free and democratic as can be.
I like to say the market is undefeated thoughout history.
You can add regulations or limitations that incentivize the market one way or another to achieve social goals, but these distortions add up. And when there are too many distortions in the market, it stops acting how you want it to act, and starts acting how it will. And usually, that means negative unintended consequences.
What is it like living a life completely ignorant of reality?
If you'd like to learn, feel free to ask chatgpt on the leftish pushback against abundance. Or historical examples of leftists blocking housing projects. Or environmentalists prioritizing niche interests over those of the general community. There are many, many examples.
Abundance YIMBYism has many shortcomings. It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement, the slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing, or the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities. Journalistic ideologues deserve little praise for dismantling the weakest counterarguments of their opponents while ignoring core criticisms.
Abundance YIMBYism in housing decreases gentrification. Gentrification happens when the only housing that is affordable is in low-income neighborhoods. If there is plenty of housing supply throughout a city, the demand for those low-income neighborhoods is lower.
Nothing in the Abundance agenda states that direct public housing is bad, per se. The argument is that what we need is more housing, and the only realistic way for that to happen is to make housing easier and cheaper to build, typically by easing zoning restrictions and other things like parking minimums that drive up costs.
These are ironically the weakest counterarguments to abundance housing. Rich people don't move to a city because of their love of 5 over 1 buildings. Otherwise, developers could just build them in rural Kansas and everyone would be happy. They move the jobs and culture, which doesn't change regardless of any new housing built. Making it easier to build privately owned housing also makes it easier to build publicly owned housing. Public housing projects are also delayed by permitting and environmental reviews and have to pay for inflated land prices and parking spaces.
Jobs and culture are indeed reasons for people to move to the city, but it’s odd to claim that housing types don’t factor into consumer demand. Because housing types do, developers are incentivized to build housing that is the most profitable (such as less dense and luxury housing) not housing that best serves the needs of low income people (as more expensive units make more money). At best we can only expect minor effects from deregulatory mechanisms.
Which brings us to public housing. The main obstacle to public housing is funding these projects. Reasonable deregulation of public housing projects makes sense, sure, even though that is not the main blocker.
But public housing deregulation is not the argument of abundance, it’s YIMBY deregulation. Its proponents claim that it’s market based supply/demand effects that need to be unleashed by deregulation to provide adequate housing. Because “abundance” holds that YIMBY deregulation is the solution - not public housing - it misdirects efforts to address housing issues faced by low income people.
1 reply →
> It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement
This is a puzzling critique because it seems very much in the wheelhouse of "abundance YIMBYism" to advocate for cheaper housing--an argued byproduct of which is that fewer people are displaced. It probably changes the problem statement of gentrification since, if housing is abundant and displacement is low, there's not much to distinguish "gentrification" from just "investing in the neighborhood".
>the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities
This isn't a problem caused by YIMBYism, nor one whose solutions are obstructed by it. We could by that reason malign it for not solving heart palpitations or cancer too.
This “abundance” ideology which aims to influence Democratic policy promotes YIMBYism to address housing shortages by deregulating construction. It’s this claimed benefit I’m criticizing. Public housing does address this issue, which is why I bring it up.
Similarly, gentrification is enabled by this narrow focus on YIMBYism. Upzoning increases land value. Developers build profitable market rate houses there. This increases prices in the neighborhood leading to gentrification. This in turn leads to displacement - a key phenomenon that this ideology purports to address.
My issue is not YIMBYism in particular but that it’s offered as a solution to these problems.
5 replies →
Market rate housing doesn't need to trickle down. Most NIMBY regulations focus on the prevention of building low-value housing. Let developers flood the market with small, high density units, and they'll be cheap right away.
Developers are incentivized to build whatever units are most profitable, not what lowest income people need. More expensive units make more money.
Besides that, land and construction are both limited resources that constrain developers ability to “flood the market with small, high density units.” For example in high-land-value urban areas, developers need to build expensive units to be able to make a profit.
9 replies →
> the slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing
Slow and unproven? Supply and demand is the most reliable law of economics. Cities like Austin that are building market rate housing are actively seeing affordability improve.
Furthermore, even if it wasn't sufficient, abundance YIMBYism would still be helpful and necessary.
> gentrification displacement is not a thing
Studies show the same percent of people move out of neighborhoods regardless of whether or not the neighborhood is gentrified. They also show that those low-income people who stay in a gentrified neighborhood see their incomes rise. Those low-income people who are in a neighborhood that is not gentrified see their income go down.
Your intuitions are wrong following them is making the problems worse.
https://www.youtube.com/@justine-underhill
Your arguments are not backed up by anything.
> gentrification and displacement
These are not actual issues with regards to housing being too expensive. These are pet issues divorced from economics.
> the slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing
This is absolutely proven in the data, and even a basic thought experiment using the pigeon hole principle will show that more houses means the prices drop of existing stock.
> critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities
Why is this a critical need? More housing being built could also mean more public housing, but removing zoning and land use regulations doesn't hurt this.
It seems you are more disappointed that your personal pet political issues are being ignored in favor of a market solution to house prices.
> gentrification
Gentrification isn't actually a problem if it doesn't force lower income residents to leave. They wouldn't be forced to leave if their housing wasn't some of the only options for higher income people to inhabit
What it doesn’t address is the role of finance and the financial sector in explaining why things are the way they are.
It’s not just a missing detail it’s fatal to their entire argument.
Which isn’t an accident, since the goal of the “abundance movement” is to stop the actual progressive movements that want to take on concentrated financial power.
This is a bad-faith description of the abundance movement.
The central thesis of the abundance movement is this: Every time we make a regulation, we are making a tradeoff. In the case of housing, an example would be "zoning only for single family housing". It's trading off affordability for quieter neighborhoods. Another might be "public housing contracts must favor minority-owned contractors". It trades off affordability for the development of a disadvantaged constituency.
Over time, many of these such regulations accumulate. Environmental reviews. Impact studies. Public comment periods. And while every individual regulation might be well meaning, the totality of them creates market distortions that disincentivize or even utterly prevent the very thing we're trying to accomplish.
So, the abundance movement looks at these and says we need to think about these in terms of tradeoffs, and pare back the regulations that have bad tradeoffs. This is often derided by critics as deregulation which makes developers more profitable. While that might be a side effect, it's not the main reason. It's deregulation to remove market distortions that, in the case of housing, constrain supply and therefore drive up housing costs.
7 replies →
> slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing, or the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities
Your claims are unsubstantiated. I've only ever seen vague critiques by anti-abundance commentators. If you think YIMBY is wrong, then be specific in your criticisms. There is nothing special about direct public housing. It is housing built by the govt. The govt gets caught between regulations, is slower, wasteful & pays higher wages to workers. It's market rate housing but worse in every way. Chicago [1] is contemporary proof that Govt. can't build housing.
On the other hand, YIMBY Austin [2] has seen slower rent growth despite rapid migration over the last decade.
> gentrification and displacement
You realize this is a home ownership problem right ?
YIMBY doesn't cause gentrification. It is a balm to reduce the pain of inevitable gentrification. A neighborhood gentrifies because increased economic opportunity draws new transplants in. If housing supply is limited, then existing residents are going to get priced out one way or another. As a neighborhood starts to gentrify, YIMBY redevelopment projects roll in & existing landowners see large windfalls. It's great if you own. Gentrification is only bad if you rent. Even then, YIMBY redevelopment projects increase housing supply, giving locals an option to move to home ownership and reduce the magnitude of rent spikes. It curbs the supply crunch.
Anti-abundance people don't have a coherent alternative other than rent control. Rent control has an unbeaten track record of failure in the western world. Either, prices diverge [3] and create a rental class system between new tenants and old residents. Or, they turn dilapidated like America's famous inner-city 'projects'.
There are 2 ways to look at it: the empathetic lens vs the pragmatic lens.
We've looked through the empathetic lens for the existing residents. But, from a pragmatic lens, why do they deserve to live exactly where they want to ? Yes, A city should provide sufficient housing to earning families within its boundaries. But, why should a person deserve to live on a specific block over another ? The existing renter had a choice to lock a spot down by buying it, and they didn't. Now, the renter is owed no such right. The newcomer and the old renter both have a valid claim to reside on the land, and rent control takes an unequal stance by favoring the older renter over the newcomer. Even in its best rendition, rent control is discriminatory. And rent control's best rendition lives in the same realm as Santa Claus or True Communism, called 'things that never happen'. At least YIMBYism buys time and opportunity for the older renter to figure out their next move.(opportunity to buy new housing, time because rents creep up slower)
[1] https://citythatworks.substack.com/p/construction-costs-for-...
[2] https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-with-the-la...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/30/rents-...
What does it mean that “so much of what we read is […] barely reported”?
That the people writing it do very little of their own reporting. "Reporting" isn't writing or thinking; it's the act of collecting external facts. Calling a primary source on the phone is reporting; traveling to a location and observing events is reporting. Synthesizing existing facts and reporting is not reporting. It's still journalism! Reporting is a specific practice within journalism.
It's copy-pasted from Twitter, or it's explicitly a press release from a company with minor rewording. There is no digging for the truth because the news can't afford any labor
This has nothing to do with journalism. Both sides of this argument are advocates for points of view.
Yes, and I found Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein to be very credible on Lex Fridman:
Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson: Politics, Trump, AOC, Elon & DOGE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTPSeeKokdo
I like when the right and left can actually talk to each other -- solutions are more likely to emerge that way.
They had a meta-discussion of the fact that Fridman has been "coded" by the left (Thompson and Klein firmly representing the left).
I get that, because Fridman can be so uncritical that it can rise to the level of shilling.
But I also find it curious that many on the left won't sit for 3 hours with him. In contrast, Thompson and Klein sat for 3 hours, which shows me that they have something to say which stands up to scrutiny.
They have something to say that doesn't have to be carefully boxed into 30 or 60 minutes of talking points.
---
Related: even though Fridman can be annoyingly uncritical, I think this also serves the purpose of journalism. Because he gets the primary sources to talk freely.
For example, IMO this part an interview with Demis Hassabis is revealing. He asks if they're worried they will run out of high quality training data:
https://youtu.be/-HzgcbRXUK8?t=3931
From my perspective, Hassabis gives a mealy-mouthed answer about generating synthetic data of the right distribution, and then they change the subject. I would bet there's a lot more to it than that. If they had a good angle of attack, I feel like he'd be more excited to talk about it, and say something more substantive.
I guess you can argue that he's being cagey to not reveal anything to competition, but it seems like a real point of concern to me.
The rest of the interview is talking about AGI time frames and similar sales talk. Whereas my takeaway is that there's significant worry that LLMs are limited by training data, because they interpolate from it (rather than extrapolating), and are inefficient at using it.
Fridman is on the other end of the spectrum I'm describing.
You said heavily processed and barely-reported
If you want to say Fridman's content is "barely-reported", i.e. he barely does journalism, then I won't really argue.
But the interviews are NOT heavily processed, and that's precisely why some on the left won't sit with him. (But not Thompson and Klein, because they actually have something to say.)
So ironically, it kinda balances out. Being credulous attracts guests who talk almost as if they are off the record
13 replies →
I sometimes think back to a passage in "dialectic of enlighenment" where the authors write what amounts to "input without analysis is meaningless, but analysis without new input is madness as the analysis eventually becomes only analysis of other analysis".
I think that generally a true problem nowadays. Popular culture does a lot of "analysis", but not a lot of reality seeking.
>We're often so down on journalism on HN, and I believe a big part of that is we tend to read so much opinion and analysis and so little basic reporting.
The average article posted to HN is actually of far higher quality than the average newspaper article. Sit down and read many of the “big names” cover to cover. You’ll cry. Contrast them with the same newspaper twenty years ago and you’ll lose hope entirely.
I have a hypothesis. In the 2000s it became more common to Google things instead of asking people. For years, this worked out well, but today the quality of Google (and websites!) is terrible. Today we have an entire generation of journalists that know to do their research with the internet, and surprise, when your inputs are garbage, so are the outputs. The inputs are also homogenized content slop, so there aren’t any real different perspectives. Take any topic, say road construction or a controversial bill or new technology, and read articles about it twenty years ago and now. Twenty years ago you might see some really off the wall ideas - but now, all the articles will be the same. Left, right, whatever, nobody really has any new perspectives, they just have their specific bias projected onto the same universal set of 5 thoughts. If you’ve read one, you’ve read them all.
Back to this article, it seems well written and I have no bones to pick - but what the author did (pick up the phone and call people) would have been entirely unremarkable not long ago. The fact that we’re remarking on it now is an indication of how deeply fucked the profession is.
I agree - journalism isn't that hard - Derek Thompson does a good job here. There's lots of good journalism out there.
Still, probably more expensive that having ai write something, and it's not politically on point. Agendas aren't well-served by attempts to describe the truth!
[flagged]
You can be aligned with a group who benefits from the same position without being associated with that group or lobbying FOR that group i.e. the KKK members probably want cheaper electricity and I want cheaper electricity but that doesn't mean when I lobby for it, I'm lobbying for the KKK.
[flagged]
1 reply →
I'm curious how we can distinguish between someone lobbying hard for the homebuilding industry and someone lobbying hard for people who need homes?
It doesn't have to be a competition. If you're having trouble deciphering which is which, their interests might just be aligned.
On this thread you can tell if somebody is lobbying hard for people who need homes because they bring up realpage or public housing and get BURIED in downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44750927
The only solution that will make a difference, apparently, is relieving the private sector of onerous regulations which impact their profit margins shrug.
I thought neoliberalism was going out of fashion but apparently not.
And you obviously already got your big expensive house and just want number to go up...
Just flag comments that violate the guidelines, don't retaliate with your own violations.