The Deleted Scenes - Prices Aren't Metaphysics
Here’s a bit from a previous piece at this newsletter, titled “Housing and Deservingness.” I was responding there to people who reply, when I talk about housing affordability, something like, “I just think people should buy what they can afford.”
I want to think some more about this. What it seems like to me is that some people view prices not as market signals, but as metaphysical facts or revelations: This thing is valuable, and lowering its price would be to devalue it. Not in the obvious economic sense, but in some vague moral sense. In other words, “What you can afford” is a fixed thing, not an accident of market or regulatory forces. And wanting to lower prices is the same thing as demanding something—another fixed thing—that you can’t afford. You could, I suppose, make a sort of argument along these lines—that housing prices should be high, because housing is some sort of reward, and the actual prices in the real world reflect the “real,” metaphysical, price. This is essentially a religious belief, but it could be argued. But any such argument disappears when you consider how we talk about prices in (almost) any other context. Consider, for example, gas prices. The only people who think gas should cost more are environmentalists. The “normal” view of gas prices is basically that they’re always too high. Lowering gas prices is a key political activity: strategic petroleum reserves, pressuring OPEC, opening up drilling, various direct and indirect subsidies to the oil industry. The legitimacy of using market and even government pressure to lower gas prices is basically just assumed. Or look at how we talk about grocery prices. Again, the idea that some groceries should cost more—that supermarkets and farm bill subsidies and factory farming externalize and conceal the “real” costs of food—is a minority and sort of ideological opinion, again coming from people like environmentalists. They’re probably correct, but the “normal” opinion is that those side effects are okay because cheap groceries are an obvious boon to the consumer. The notion that lowering prices for these goods and expanding access to them would be morally questionable, let alone wrong, strikes most people as absurd. Yet that exact idea comes up when housing advocates talk about housing affordability. In effect, the minority “ideological” view of prices you find with gas or beef has become the “normal” view for housing. And the “normal” view that housing is a necessity, and should be built, and should be affordable, has become the minority “ideological” view. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the very fact that there are “housing advocates” or “YIMBYs” is a symptom of a very deep problem. Something so universal and basic should not require this level of advocacy or particular identification. Can you imagine if people who believed in farming or grocery retailing were called “food advocates”? But there is one other thing you can buy that people generally talk about this way. Stocks! Homeowners talk about housing prices the way stockholders talk about stocks. This dynamic is (broadly) referred to as the “homevoter hypothesis,” after a book by William A. Fischel arguing that homeownership and its interests heavily shape local government. A house is the largest asset most people will ever own, and they have an obvious interest in maintaining its value. That isn’t wrong. But what is weird is how that economic self-interest morphs into a moral argument: how the fact that lowering housing prices might hurt some people’s investment turns into the judgment that young people are entitled for wanting to be able to afford housing—and that, like not rewarding a toddler for a tantrum, it would be wrong to give the entitled young people what they demand. I think it’s important to understand people’s arguments and logic, so that you can understand how they arrive at their conclusions. But it’s also important to recognize when you aren’t dealing with an argument, per se, but an ex-post-facto rationalization. I know I knock conservatives here frequently, but that’s because they’re the folks I grew up with and interact with most (I didn’t really even know left-NIMBYism was a thing until I got on Twitter.) And so, it reminds me of something you sometimes hear about controversies over voting rights and voting access: something like, “It’s good to make it harder to vote, because that selects for people who really care and are invested in our democracy.” In other words, the adversity is not merely a side effect of trying to make the process more secure; it is the point. Or at least, that’s how the argument goes. I do not think many people really believe this. I think they probably just don’t object to making voting harder (which, for a variety of reasons, intentional and not, often selects against Democratic voters.) These are strikingly similar arguments. In both cases, you take something obviously good and widely considered good; artificially restrict it for matters of raw self-interest; then construct a moral argument which characterizes the good thing as too good or too important to make easily available. And, finally, cast those who want more of the good thing as entitled, lazy, or asking for a handout. In other words, when people talk about “building character,” “life’s not fair,” “school of hard knocks,” “beggars can’t be choosers,” pop open the hood and look for the self-interest underneath. These are not arguments at all. They are cynical attempts to conceal entitlement with a veneer of social concern. Now, of course, homeownership and its economic interests are not partisan. Often, you can hardly tell the difference between a socialist and a right-winger when it comes to housing. As long as homeownership is the norm in America—and, to be clear, I have no problem with it—homeowners and housing advocates will to some degree be at odds. But the expectation that housing prices, like stock prices, should always go up, is an antisocial expectation arising from a broken status quo. It is not a moral revelation. Related Reading: Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only post, plus full access to the archive: over 600 posts and growing. And you’ll help ensure more material like this! You're currently a free subscriber to The Deleted Scenes. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. |
Key phrases
Older messages
Beyond Bed Bath & Beyond, To What?
Tuesday, May 9, 2023
We'll miss the category killer when it's gone
If You Love Something, Let It Grow
Monday, May 8, 2023
NIMBYism is a denial of the natural order of the built environment
Multigenerational Suburbia
Saturday, May 6, 2023
When most Americans have never lived in a city
New and Old #108
Friday, May 5, 2023
Friday roundup and commentary
Talk Notes: Traffic and Crowding
Thursday, May 4, 2023
Things I think I'll say in Woodbridge, Virginia
You Might Also Like
Gigi Hadid Just Wore The Summer Dress We’ve Been Looking For
Sunday, May 12, 2024
A moment for her off-duty style.
Building Foundations
Saturday, May 11, 2024
The magic of mirepoix and her cooking cousins ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Our 2024 Grooming Awards Will Help You Look and Feel Better Than Ever
Saturday, May 11, 2024
We aren't kidding when we say we tested hundreds of products and spent months lathering, scrubbing, slathering and spritzing to weed out the duds and find the very best. And whether you're a
The Ultimate Workouts for Men Over 40 💪
Saturday, May 11, 2024
Build Muscle At Age 40+ With Our Best Selling Program Men's Health Shop logo Build a Stronger, Fitter Body in Your 40s and Beyond. Build a Stronger, Fitter Body in Your 40s and Beyond. View in
Everything We Know About Prime Day 2024 (So Far)
Saturday, May 11, 2024
Best TV Channels You Can Stream for Free. When Prime Day 2024 will take place, and what deals you can expect. Not displaying correctly? View this newsletter online. TODAY'S FEATURED STORY
Weekend: Charging Friends for Dinner Parties 💸
Saturday, May 11, 2024
But first: don't let money mess with your marriage — Check out what we Skimm'd for you today Subscribe Read in browser May 11, 2024 Daily Skimm Header Image Together with new york life But
Trolling Alone
Saturday, May 11, 2024
Or, unfortunately, together ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
The Week in Review
Saturday, May 11, 2024
Week of May 6 — Homeownership Hampered, Claims climb, Mortgage manacles ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
"Songs to the Peonies Sung to the Air: 'Peaceful Brightness'" by Li Bai, translated by Florence Wheelock Ayscough
Saturday, May 11, 2024
The many-coloured clouds make me think of her upper garments, Facebook Twitter Instagram Poem-a-Day is reader-supported. Your gift today will help the Academy of American Poets continue to publish the
Capri Pants Are Back For 2024 & We're Obsessed
Saturday, May 11, 2024
They're more elevated than ever.