Re: Not always joking, it seems

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <nCYuj.10454$XI.7665@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> I'm really baffled by that claim.  In 1967, the average one-income
>>>>> family could afford to buy a house.  By 2005, the average
>>>>> two-income family could not, even though 20-year mortgages had been
>>>>> replaced by 30-year mortgages.  In 1967, nearly everyone could
>>>>> afford medical insurance.  By 2005, tens of millions of Americans
>>>>> could not.
>>>> House sizes were in general much smaller in 1967, and they didn't
>>>> have a lot of modern amenities.
>>> If people today can afford small houses but not large ones with
>>> amenities, why have house sizes and amenities increased?  Why isn't
>>> the market providing what people can afford?
>>>
>> A very good question.  Why do developers have to be FORCED (by law if 
>> necessary) to provide "affordable housing" options?
> 
> Several possibilities, all of which might be true in different places:
> 
> 1. What you mean by "affordable" is a combination of house and price at 
> which the developer loses money. 

It's been calculated in the UK that building a house can cost as 
little as 60K (GBP) to the developer - but in Edinburgh there are no 
"new build" houses or apartments going for less than 150K (GBP)

> 
> 2. In some areas, it's effectively illegal because of zoning laws, 
> building codes, and the like, which mandate a level of house that isn't 
> what you would consider affordable. That might be deliberate--one 
> function of zoning laws is to keep poor people from living in places 
> where the majority of the current residents don't want them as
neighbors.
> 

Not applicable in the UK.  We don't have "zoning laws" and ALL houses 
have to be built to "code".

> 3. Because new housing can't compete with old housing at the low end of 
> the market. Most of the American poor own cars--but I doubt many of them

> bought the cars new. A large minority of the American poor own their own

> houses--but I doubt many of them were bought new either.
> 

My flat (apartment) cost 17.5K when we bought it 27 years ago.  It 
would now cost 190K to buy the same flat in the same street.  Our 
income hasn't gone up by the same ratio.  Technically we couldn't get 
a mortgage to buy our own home, if we hadn't already paid off the 
mortgage.

Oh and although it *looks* like we've made a huge profit, anything 
more or less equivalent would cost us even more.


-- 
Jette Goldie
jette@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)