Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag Economics

Skyscrapers as Economic Indicators

Ever hear of interesting economic indicators such as the correlation between the economy and length of skirts?  Here’s one urbanists should appreciate: the skyscraper index, which shows strong correlation between the completion of world’s tallest buildings and downturns in the business cycle.  Mark Thornton discusses the skyscraper index in his article, Skyscrapers and Business Cycles [or mp3 read by the author], which was originally published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics: The skyscraper is the great architectural contribution of modern capitalistic society and is even one of the yardsticks for 20th-century superheroes, but no one had ever really connected it with the quintessential feature of modern capitalistic history — the business cycle. Then in 1999, economist Andrew Lawrence created the “skyscraper index” which purported to show that the building of the tallest skyscrapers is coincidental with business cycles, in that he found that the building of world’s tallest building is a good proxy for dating the onset of major economic downturns. Lawrence described his index as an “unhealthy 100 year correlation.” Introduction Do Skyscrapers Predict? Table 1: Skyscrapers and Economic Crisis Figure 1: Skyscrapers and Economic Crisis Cantillon Effects in Skyscrapers Cantilloned Buildings and Business Cycles When the Skyscraper Index Is Wrong References Notes While macro business cycle theory is beyond my core strength in economics and the scope of this blog, this is a particularly interesting topic to me as I am an economics enthusiast with a passion for tall buildings.  The basic premise is that construction of worlds tallest buildings has strong corelation with economic downturns.  Construction of these buildings begin during times of economic expansion towards the peak of business cycles.  However, by the time the buildings are complete, the market has taken a turn for the worse.  Could the Burj Dubai be an indicator that tough times are […]

Glaeser on Affordability of NY vs Houston

Harvard Economist Ed Glaeser wrote an opinion piece in the New York Sun about the differences in housing affordability and other costs of living between Houston and New York. New York is naturally more expensive than Houston because the geographical constraints force higher density development, which is more expensive to build. New York’s highly regulated land use and zoning process adds more constraints that exacerbate this problem. On the flip side, Houston has few geographical constraints and relatively loose regulation, allowing the market to allocate housing more efficiently. In conclusion, Glaeser recommends that New York could do much to improve affordability by loosening it’s many regulations. NY Sun – Houston, New York Has a Problem Why is it so much more expensive in New York? For one, supplying housing in New York City costs much, much more — for a 1,500-square-foot apartment, the construction cost alone is more than $500,000. Also, part of the reason is geographic: an old port on a narrow island can’t grow outward, as Houston has, and the costs of building up — New York’s fate, especially in Manhattan — will always be higher than those of building out. And the unavoidable fact is that New York makes it harder to build housing than Chicago does — and a lot harder than Houston does. The permitting process in Manhattan is an arduous, unpredictable, multiyear odyssey involving a dizzying array of regulations, environmental, and other hosts of agencies. A further obstacle: rent control. When other municipalities dropped rent control after World War II, New York clung to it, despite the fact that artificially reduced rents discourage people from building new housing. Houston, by contrast, has always been gung ho about development. Houston’s builders have managed — better than in any other American city — to make the […]

Urban[ism] Legend: Greedy Developers

This post is part of an ongoing series featured on Market Urbanism called Urbanism Legends. The Urbanism Legends series is intended to expose many of the myths about development and Urban Economics. (it’s a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) We’ve all heard it said by some NIMBY activist: “This greedy developer doesn’t care about the people of the neighborhood, he just wants to maximize his own profit.” Are developers the devil? No doubt, developers usually are self interested, and seek profit. However, just like in any business, profit seekers must try to satisfy the desires of its customers better than its competitors. The successful developer must direct capital towards creating value in the real estate market for potential customers. So, perhaps it seems particularly greedy that a developer who is creating value in a community, cares less about the current inhabitants than newcomers. But, as Henry Hazlitt wrote in the classic, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics: the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. here’s a link to the quote in an online version of the book Most Urbanism Legends, like most economic myths, rely on looking at policies from the perspective of one group without looking at the effects on other groups and society as a whole. This Urbanism Legend is no different. Looking deeper at the issue, the developer represents the needs of the community in a less visible, yet […]

$5 Gas and Commuting Costs

Environmental and Urban Economics – Commuting Cost Arithmetic When people work in the suburbs, will they save many gallons of gasoline if they move to the center city? Yes, they will be closer to their center city friends and stores but they will still need to reverse commute by car to their jobs (unless they can ride the Google Bus from Center City San Fran to Mountainview). So this raises the question of whether high gas prices will push employers to move back to the center city? Employers who need land (think of Google) will be unlikely to want to rent out 35 stories of a skyscrapper. Total One Way commute cost = price of a gallon of gas + hourly wage Case #1: you make minimum wage = 5 + 7 = 12 and the share of expenditure on gas = 5/12 Case #2: Ivy League graduate = 5 + 100 = 105 and the share of expenditure on gas = 5/105 So this simple example highlights how the wage can swamp the price of gas for the high skilled but for the less educated, gas is a huge part of the commute cost. Interesting point. CBDs tend to attract highly talented workers, who tend to earn higher salaries. So, will those people have the incentive to move closer? Probably not much. However, there are plenty of middle wage workers who commute to CBDs, and may be tempted to locate closer. But, a firm that desires to attract the most talented workers will most likely locate in the CBD anyway. Thus, I wouldn’t expect as much difference in firm location preference, compared with the shifts in housing location preference. Those who work in suburban locations may end up moving closer to their jobs, making living patterns more compact near […]

Urban[ism] Legend: Zoning Creates Density

This post will be the first of many of an ongoing feature at Market Urbanism entitled Urbanism Legends. (a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) In many public forums and in the blogosphere, I consistently encounter myths about land development and Urban Economics. These myths typically look at how policies may benefit or harm a specific person or groups of people. However, as with many popular economic misconceptions, these viewpoints fail to look at how a particular policy may affect other, less visible people. These less visible people are the ones who William Graham Sumner called “The Forgotten Man” in a famous 1883 lecture. These myths are plentiful, and I expect the feature to be stocked with myths to dispel well into the distant future. In many different contexts, I have heard people argue that liberalizing zoning restrictions will cause “over development” or high density development filled with low income people. Even in relatively low density areas, people make the sensationalist argument that if zoning restrictions were lifted, high rises would be built in their community, creating congestion and overburdening infrastructure. On the other end of the spectrum, I have even heard free-market advocates argue against Smart Growth and other urbanist concepts using several Urbanism Legends. They argue that Smart Growth goes against the market and causes density to increase in urban areas. They are correct when they refer to Urban Growth Boundaries that restrict development in outlying areas. Strangely, these market advocates rarely applaud Smart Growth proponents advocacy for loosening zoning restrictions in infill areas. They have argued that the upzoning discourages single family homes, which is the desired living arrangement for most people. And that the market should allow for more single family homes. The reality is that zoning can not create […]

NYC 20-Somethings’ Stagnant Wages and Higher Cost of Living

I need help with this one. Is this a phenomenon of statistical cherry-picking or a true trend that should worry us? New York Observer – A Yoke for the White Collar New York’s college grads now hustle for jobs paying 1970s wages. Meet their coping mechanism—massive debt! A younger New Yorker could be forgiven for running up debt: Real wages for 20-something professionals in New York haven’t changed since the early 1970s. At the same time, the number of college grads competing for white-collar jobs has increased—as has the cost of everything from real estate to beer to MetroCards. image from article: Nigel Holmes: Source: Gotham Gazette, June 19, 2007 In 1970, 19.5 percent of New Yorkers in their 20s had college degrees, according to the analysis. By 2005, that percentage had more than doubled. By 2006, roughly one in three New Yorkers 25 and older had at least a college degree, according to N.Y.U.’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. For younger college grads, the job market has become ever more competitive and the monetary rewards stagnant. And yet they come. Something doesn’t seem right and I can’t put my finger on it. The statistics seem a little cherry-picked, but I have suspicion that some important demographic trend is being neglected. Sure, I can see where wages are stagnant, but as more college educated young people have moved to New York? Have shifts in immigration trends caused this? Or perhaps loss of manufacturing jobs that paid relatively well for young native New Yorkers? I think it’s safe to say that many more college students have flocked to New York in the past decade, and many college students are taking longer to graduate. Could part of it be that more 20-somethings in New York are spending more time […]

Subsidies and Taxes Favor Owning Over Renting

Paul Krugman asks a question that has been addressed at Market Urbansim: But here’s a question rarely asked, at least in Washington: Why should ever-increasing homeownership be a policy goal? How many people should own homes, anyway? Listening to politicians, you’d think that every family should own its home — in fact, that you’re not a real American unless you’re a homeowner. “If you own something,” Mr. Bush once declared, “you have a vital stake in the future of our country.” Presumably, then, citizens who live in rented housing, and therefore lack that “vital stake,” can’t be properly patriotic. Because the I.R.S. lets you deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income but doesn’t let you deduct rent, the federal tax system provides an enormous subsidy to owner-occupied housing. On top of that, government-sponsored enterprises — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks — provide cheap financing for home buyers; investors who want to provide rental housing are on their own. (Krugman neglects to mention that landlords also deduct mortgage interest, passing some of the savings to tenants. However, landlords pay taxes on income and gains, which the homeowner usually does not.) Krugman then gives 3 downsides to society of encouraging ownership: First of all, there’s the financial risk. Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake. I agree, sometimes these risks are better absorbed by the capital markets if the risks cannot be properly diversified through an individual’s portfolio. Owning a home also ties workers down. Even in the best of times, the costs and hassle of selling one home and buying another — one estimate put the average cost […]

Bush’s “Ownership Society” and Subprime

From Rationalitate – The WaPo finally realizes the root cause of the subprime crisis Agencies like FHA and HUD, and pseudo-private agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were the government’s tool to manipulate the market for mortgages, and manipulate it they did: 40% of all mortgages are financed by lending companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt, and receive tax breaks (read: subsidies) to the tune of $6.5 billion a year. Part of the irony of Bush’s “ownership society” is that it requires taxpayers to fund it. While on its face home ownership might seem like the paragon of private property and private ownership, it’s really not in very high demand in the actual free market. While America does indeed have very high rates of homeownership, it’s in spite of the market, not because of it. (I don’t really agree with the phrasing, “it’s not really in high demand.” I think almost all people desire to own their dwelling, but at a price that makes sense for them.) “Experts” often say how important it is for people to “own” their homes. I agree that ownership is great. But, at what cost? Market distortions that create bubbles? Wealth transfers from the less fortunate and landlords to “owners” of homes? “Ownership” isn’t best for everyone, especially the “owners” of a junk loan…

California’s Water Resources vs Development

There are some good articles out there this morning, I want to share them with you… Rationalitate – California developments halted over water While the knee-jerk libertarian reaction might be disgust, I think the markets are probably ruined by the government, and current pricing isn’t what it would be in a market setting. UCLA professor Edward Leamer corroborates this, saying “[w]ater has been seriously under-priced in California.” So, the plan would have an effect similar to a liberalization: increased barriers on sprawling development. But obviously it’s only a nudge in the right direction, and is a woefully inadequate mechanism compared to outright liberalization of water resources. Is it possible to liberalize the water market, which would be the ideal solution?

Thank you Lynne Kiesling

Yesterday, Lynne Kiesling of Northwestern University encouraged readers of her popular economics blog, Knowledge Problem to visit Market Urbanism. The link generated the highest day of traffic to date. I hope visitors find Market Urbanism interesting and return often. Thank you for visiting Market Urbanism. Adam

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire