Housing is too expensive because it is an investment, full stop.

I live in Tokyo, famed for its "housing affordability".

Guess what, it's completely unaffordable for normal people now, because of people purchasing homes for investment purposes. Rent is still affordable but has a rapid upward trend as well.

The fundamental problem is that building quality housing is a society-level project - you don't just need to build a house/apt but supporting infrastructure, such as water, power, waste, public transport, supermarkets, and figure out how to connect it to the city's infrastructure.

There used to be political will to do this. Nowadays what I see around me, is that developers keep plopping down housing projects either in the middle of nowhere or in some highly undesirable area (like next to the train tracks, or some old industrial development) and sell the resulting apartments at crazy pricess. Zero infrastructure of course.

> Housing is too expensive because it's illegal to build enough of it.

This is a factor in some places, but a gross over-simplification in others.

There are neighborhoods full of affordable new construction houses not far from where I live. They sell slowly because people would rather live in the popular areas.

There are affordable high density housing options for rent here. They stay on the market because everyone wants their own house.

It's not even about remote work here, as the popular location for office builds and jobs is actually closer to those affordable housing neighborhoods few people want to live in. Being near the office buildings is actually a reason why they're undesirable.

There are some obvious broken housing situations like San Francisco, but I don't see permitting reform as a magic cure-all in every city.

> Housing is too expensive because it's illegal to build enough of it.

A lot is being built. The problem is ruthless cost extraction, parasitic chain of agents and agencies, and oftentimes real estate is the only investment vehicle free of capital gains tax. Have you seen what is being built everywhere from Australia, through Europe, to America? 20-30 sqmt apartments where you walk in straight to the kitchen and sleep next to the oven and dishwasher, if the place is even large enough to fit the full kitchen.

> Housing is too expensive because it's illegal to build enough of it.

A lot of us are in the US, where (except for SF and handful of specific cities) housing is legal to build practically everywhere, municipalities are handing out free money for any form of development, so people do build tons of new housing all over...

...and the prices still rise anyway.

80% of the buildings within a 1 mile radius of me did not exist at all 20 years ago. There's almost 5,000 new units around. Half of the new apartment buildings are only at like 70% utilization. We barely hit 1% population growth year-over-year.

Prices are at 40 year record high prices anyway (yes, even after factoring for inflation).

> Housing is too expensive because it's illegal to build enough of it.

This is part of the problem, and one that many people actively want to avoid discussing so it is important to discuss it, but it is only part of the problem.

I think for real reform in this area you need to have the government strictly regulate rental properties.

That includes determining the rental price, and imposing fines for empty units.

Every time there is a stimulus check or an increase in minimum wage the detractors say "this will just be captured by the landlords".

We need to have clear stipulations for rental prices and ideally link it to another value that also changes over time.

I would argue a 1 bedroom apartment should have its rent capped at less than 40% of the monthly take home of someone on minimum wage.

Let the landlords and employers battle over who gets the bigger slice of that pie, while allowing the workers to survive their petty skirmish.

Here is Adam Smith talking about a minimum wage:

> A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself: But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above-mentioned, or any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#chap1...

In what US city can someone on minimum wage raise two children? On the US federal minimum wage?!

> we are not satisfied to live in the same cramped 20m2 studio as singles were 30 or 50 years ago.

I conjecture that this is, at least partially, caused by modern people being more isolated and even when they do socialize there's less "third spaces" to get together with friends so someone ends up having to host the superbowl watch party in their apartment, for example.

> living spaces are growing too

Median home sizes have gone from 1400 sqft in the 70s to 2400 sqft in recent years.

https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/average-home-size/

Part of it is the economics of construction. Part of it is growing threshold for “bare minimum”. In unit laundry was optional in the 70s and I’ve heard people wanting a “laundry room”. Pandemic has pushed the need for an office. Larger kitchens and more storage space is also a big difference in newer units vs older ones.

30 years ago I did not need to rent a 20m² studio. As a young college student I rented a spacious 750 sq. ft. 1-bedroom, furnished apartment that was more than affordable on my paycheck from driving a forklift at the pipe yard.

30-50 years ago, a cramped 20m2 studio as a single was a luxury; the standard was to have roommates if you didn't have a partner.

>we are not satisfied

Some of us might be satisfied, but zoning and development approvals seems to have a hatred of small apartments. The ones that get proposed meet fierce opposition from locals who are afraid of having too many neighbors who aren’t rich people.

The price of rent is set by local household wages.

If both partners typically work: rent rises to eat nearly all the gain.

If AI makes everyone 20% more productive: rent rises to eat nearly all the gain.

If minimum wages lift the bottom earners from $7.50/hr to $18.50/hr: rent rises to eat nearly all the gain.

You need more than two incomes worth of salary in any country that does income tax bands. In the UK, two people earning 30k each will take home a combined 50k. A single person needs to earn almost 70k to take home the same. And for council tax you end up paying 75% of what an entire household would pay.

It makes more sense to me (both from a personal, and the bank's perspective), that a single person on double income goes to zero salary when he loses his job, thus its riskier lending to him with his monthly payment being 25% of his income, than say 2 people at half salary, in which case one person's income share of loans jumps from 25% to 50%, a financially difficult situation, but temporarily manageable.

"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." — Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI "Of the Rent of Land"

I guess I’m unusual because my house is far cheaper than I could afford. It’s quite modest compared to the surrounding area.

Sounds like a school choice policy would help decouple property tax zones / addresses to particular schools.

When people pay higher rent while their kids are in school and compete with FAANG software engineers, isn't that the market working?

Both groups could live somewhere else, but don't.

"Flophouses" or SROs used to provide affordable housing for young people new to a city, single people, workers, etc but they depend on density and transit to be cheap. They were largely made illegal in the mid-20th century. Land use/zoning laws are why we've built nothing but car-dependent suburbs for the last 50 years.

It has not been forever true that households have had two incomes. Now it is common.

> a large fraction of people really don't want to pair up.

Don't want to pair up, or can't meet/find someone with which to pair up?

Because from your massive oversimplification, you're making it sound like everyone has 50 potential partners knocking on their door daily asking to hook up or get married, and they tell them to get lost so he/she can keep play videogames in peace.

Have you asked single people why they're single to better understand the issue? I think you'll find that most people actually WANT some sort of loving partner in their lives. Otherwise the pet industry wouldn't be so massive in the west if people were so happy living alone without any company.

Forget being single, having a housemate/roommate is so painful that I refused to have one once I was in my late 20s. I’d rather pay a fat chunk of my salary to the landlord than have to deal with someone who created a mold problem by running a humidifier 24x7 because they wanted better skin.

What if the higher levels of pairing up was due to even stronger economic incentives in the past, specifically for women?

Actually Airbnb received a firm push back, nowadays everything lands on Booking. There are virtually no places in developed world cheaper than 100EUR/USD/GBP per night, the standard price is closer to 200. Why bother with long term rental if full month rent can be fetched within a week, or within two days if there is a concert or event nearby.

We are missing the private bedroom, shared kitchen/dining/living space that a lot of single people want. There are people I couldn't live with, but for the most part people crave some human contact and having the ability to grab a meal with a random person who happens to want to eat at the same time is nice.

When you are married (or acting like married) a shared bedroom is good. However single people often want that personal/private space all to themselves.

In the US at least having roommates carries massive risk. Sharing a place requires taking on full legal and financial responsibility for a total stranger. If your roomie ends up a drunk who trashes the place, that's 100% on you if they bail out. maybe you could hire a lawyer and take action, but more than likely you're going to be on the hook for any damages (and if you can't pay that debt, you are blacklisted from legitimate rentals until it's cleared.)

You mean the costs? Travel is expensive but I don't think there's much of an argument that it's gotten more expensive like housing. International flights used to be quite a luxury, now it's so easy that the popular destinations are getting swamped.

Most of the relaxation-oriented holiday industry is definitely designed for couples and families, but backpacking, adventures, and cultural immersion are, in my opinion, better alone so that you don't have the easy escape of sitting around with your partner. And if you want to relax nothing's stopping you from booking a few nights alone at a Japanese onsen or one of those treehouse style resorts in a Central American rainforest. I've spent many nights at onsens in between more outdoorsy climbing and skiing legs of trips in Japan.

Hmm I think this depends alot on the individual and their particular life situation though. I've done a ton of travel solo over the years and the vast majority of the time it was really fun.

You need to provide more information about your specific problems. Last I checked, two seats on a plant cost twice as much as a single one. That can't be it.

I'd be surprised to learn that backpacking is no longer singles-friendly

There is no world where a 4 hour commute to work is reasonable. That said, Stockton and Tracy seem like they happen more often at an hour and a half (to San Mateo or San Jose)

But why are we building a world where that is necessary? That's an awful world.

No, the modern ideas are fine for what they are. You can disagree with them if you want, but they are just ideas and for many people they are good.

The problem is we are setting government policy based on a one-size fits all idea of expectations and those who don't want those are forced to either follow anyway or live a worse life in other ways for not.