Category: Economics

• New York City is back

  So here’s the headline: More people are moving to Manhattan than before the pandemic. This is true. But an even more accurate description might be that New York City was losing people before the pandemic and it is still losing people. But things have rebounded since the lows of the pandemic and it is now losing less people. Here are two charts from Bloomberg:

  

  

  This is generally good news since the increased exodus (to places like Miami) led some to believe that one of the most important global cities in the world was now dying. I never thought that was the case. But there’s no arguing against the fact that the fastest growing cities in the US are the ones with more affordable housing and fewer constraints on new development.

  2022.06.09

• How to tell if you have a housing shortage

  

  Housing supply is one of those topics that a lot of people can’t seem to agree on. Some people, including annoying city bloggers from Toronto, will tell you that we’re not building nearly enough new housing. While others will tell you that, no, everything is just fine. We are totally building enough to meet demand.

  So today I am going to encourage all of you to read Brian Potter’s latest Construction Physics article. In it, he answers the question: Is there a housing shortage or not? But just in case some of you don’t feel like doing that, here is the tl;dr:

  • You can’t look at construction rates alone and infer whether or not you have a housing shortage. There are so many other factors to consider, including household size (see above chart). A drop in household size alone, for example, means that you need more housing, even if nothing else is going on.
  • The US is probably short at least several million housing units right now.
  • Vacancy rates, within a market, are pretty useful for predicting housing cost increases. When vacancy rates fall, prices go up. This is one reason why housing supply matters.
  • Looking at the gap between population increases and housing supply increases is “hilariously non-predictive” if you’re trying to determine whether or not you need more housing. We’ve all seen this before: This city added X people, but only constructed Y new homes.
  • Finally, there is an extremely strong correlation between housing supply restrictions (i.e. land use restrictions) and home prices. It turns out that the harder we make it to build new homes, the more expensive they become.

  So yeah, Potter’s article is definitely worth a read when you get a moment.

  Chart via Construction Physics

  2022.05.11

• Le Pen’s voter base: France’s poor rural drivers

  The presidential election that is underway right now in France is playing out exactly as one might imagine. The first round of votes took place on April 10, and the second and final round — which is now between Macron and Le Pen — will take place on April 24.

  How people voted in the first round can be mostly explained by geography. If you live in an urban center, an attractive tourist center, or have reasonably good rail connectivity to either of these two kinds of places, you likely voted for Macron.

  On the other hand, if you live in a poorer rural area, you were more likely to vote for Le Pen. Our spiky unequal world remains, even in France, where more wealth tends to be redistributed compared to places like the UK and the US.

  But there’s another potentially correlative factor that should interest readers of this blog (even if it is somewhat obvious). If you voted for Macron in the first round, you were also less likely to rely on a car to get to work. Here are two charts from the Financial Times:

  

  This point is perhaps obvious because geography and built form largely determine whether or not you want/need to drive. And the way to not drive is to live in a dense city. But I think it’s also a useful reminder that owning a car does not necessarily need to correlate with high economic status.

  In fact, when I look at these charts, not having to drive to work feels like a good thing.

  2022.04.15

• Shrinkflation in the housing market

  We all know that inflation is a thing right now. Prices are rising. One way businesses can choose to respond to this is through something called “shrinkflation”, which the Financial Times writes about here. The idea behind shrinkflation is that, instead of just raising end prices to absorb higher costs, you instead shrink or reduce your product or service offering. Of course, you could also do a combination of both things: increase your price and shrink your offering.

  This shrinking can take many forms. A few less chips in your bag. A slightly smaller chocolate bar. Smaller food portions at the restaurant. Or maybe opt-in room service for your hotel room. It can also take the form of less space. Average apartment sizes in most big cities have trended downward over the years for this exact same reason. Developers are working to maintain some kind affordability in the face of rising costs.

  I think a lot of people like to scoff at these sorts of practices. Why can’t we just build bigger family-sized suites? But the reality is that it is being driven by real market constraints. Without something giving, like suite sizes, urban housing would be multiples less affordable compared to current levels. The developers I know don’t have any sort of deep-rooted philosophical aversion to selling 5,000 square foot estates in the sky. The problem is simply that most buyers and renters won’t like the sticker price.

  2022.03.23

• Quietly booming tech town

  We have all seen these headlines before, so it’s not so under the radar for us. But the New York Times just published this article about Toronto calling it a “quietly booming tech town.” Depending on how you want to measure things, Toronto is now the third largest tech hub in North America after Silicon Valley and New York City (or at least that’s what the NY Times is telling me). The article touches on some of the ingredients for this success, but let me be a bit more explicit in this post because I think it is particularly relevant right now.

  Canada is a “Western” country. What does that mean? It means that we’re a democracy, we have the rule of law, we respect individuals (including private property), and we allow for pluralism of opinion, along with many other freedoms. These are all wonderful and magical things that are sometimes taken for granted. But I couldn’t imagine living in a place that doesn’t allow for such freedoms, nor would I want to.

  On top of this foundation, we have two other important ingredients: extraordinary universities, like the ones mentioned in the article (University of Toronto and University of Waterloo), and some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. Our borders are open for the smartest and most ambitious. With just these handful of things — freedom, rules, education, and talent — we can screw up a lot of other stuff and still accomplish some pretty great things. I may be oversimplifying, but probably not by much.

  Humans are wonderfully talented. Let people be and they’ll show you. Because history has shown us time and time again that the above recipe works remarkably well. (Related post: Do the best cities have a lot of immigrants?)

  2022.03.21

• Where US students want to live after college

  

  Axios and Generation Lab have something new called the Next Cities Index. The goal is to track US work and culture trends through people’s geographic preferences. For their first cities index, they asked over 2,100 students in the US, on two separate occasions, the following question: “Considering all factors that matter to you, where would you most like to live after college?”

  The aggregate answer to this question is shown above. But they also collected people’s incomes (anticipated since they’re students?), political affiliations, and gender. The list of cities changes slightly when you sort based on these different factors, but not by much. Seattle, New York, and Los Angeles remain top cities — at least in people’s minds.

  It is, however, interesting to note that about 45% of respondents had different answers to where they want to live and where they think they will live. For a number of reasons, the city of people’s dreams isn’t often a practical or realistic choice it would seem. Still, wanting a particular place still tells you certain things I suppose.

  Given all the chatter over this pandemic, I would have thought that Miami would have appeared higher up on this want list.

  Chart: Axios/Generation Lab

  2022.03.14

• Rebalancing retail sector taxation

  Back in 2006, online shopping in the UK represented about 3% of total retail sales. As of March 2020, right before the pandemic, this number had increased to about 22%. Online shopping then spiked during the pandemic, as we all know, but it has since normalized and the January 2022 figure was about 27.1%. But if you exclude grocery sales (because food is special), I believe the percentage of online sales is now in the range of 35-40% for the UK.

  What is clear is that there is a longstanding shift towards more online shopping. It has just become so easy. However, UK retailers, as well as many others I’m sure, have been arguing that part of the reason for this systemic shift is an unfair tax advantage.

  Physical retailers tend to be located in high-traffic areas and so they are naturally subjected to higher municipal taxes. Online retailers, on the other hand, get to locate their warehouses and distribution centers in lower cost locations and so aren’t taxed at the same kind of rates.

  Because of this perceived imbalance, the UK is now studying the pros and cons of implementing an online sales tax (OST) as a way “to help rebalance taxation of the retail sector.” Tax online so offline seems more attractive.

  But this is a tricky thing. Nobody wants to see our main streets and urban centers void of retail activity. That would be like walking through a financial district that had decided to bury all of its retail activity underground or something. But at the same time, does it make sense to shift taxes to what the market seems to like and want? Though I suppose it could be a lucrative tax since you generally want to target things with inelastic demand.

  What are your thoughts?

  More info on the OST consultation, here.

  2022.03.08

• Climate and economy

  

  I have long been interested in the possible relationships between climate and economy. Because my unproven hypothesis is that, given the choice, most city dwellers would probably prefer to hang out on Ipanema beach and drink caipirinhas in the sun than sit in a windowless cube farm toiling away on cover pages for TPS reports.

  Well it turns out that there is some science to support this theory. A 2012 study by professors at Harvard and the University of North Carolina did in fact discover that people tend to work a little harder and focus a bit more when the weather is crappy outside and they’re not distracted by the promise of glorious sunshine.

  This Scientific American article from 2013 also argued that there are physiological reasons for why we’re maybe not as sharp in extremely warm weather. The possible science is that excessive heat is more taxing on our body (compared to the cold) and so more energy is required to maintain homeostasis. That leaves less mental capacity for TPS cover pages.

  Of course, these sorts of ideas aren’t all that novel. For centuries, economists as well as many others have posited that climate could be one of the reasons why geographies like northern Europe have historically had a higher standard of living than the south. It instilled work ethic and an awareness of deadlines. If you didn’t plan accordingly, you would starve to death in the winter.

  But we also know that climate alone won’t do it. There are many examples of tropical cities with advanced economies and high-functioning societies. (The invention of air conditioning surely played a meaningful role.) And on the flipside, there are many examples of cold shitholes. So it’s complicated. But all this being said, doesn’t a caipirinha on the beach sound nice right about now?

  Photo by TAIS HELENA DE CARVALHO on Unsplash

  2022.03.07

• Money as social construct

  In Matt Levine’s latest Money Stuff newsletter he talks about how money is really just a social construct. In his words, money is “a way to keep track of what society thinks you deserve in terms of goods and services.”

  But over the years, we have learned that it can be manipulated through the actions of central banks and other authorities. This, he argues, has become more obvious in the last 15 or so years. Which is one of the reasons why people continue to argue that cryptocurrencies are both a good thing and something we need more of.

  Crypto is neutral, or at least that is the intent. But at the same time, it too remains a social construct. Cryptocurrencies have value because that is what we have collectively decided to layer on top of their math-based blockchains — a global market cap of nearly $2 trillion.

  Ironically, the more value we ascribe to them the less neutral they are likely to become. Because the more they ingratiate themselves into mainstream society, the more likely they are to get regulated. But Matt’s overarching argument is that this is in fact a good thing.

  Monies exist through webs of interdependencies that generally keeps us all in check by encouraging “prosocial behavior.” So the fact that authorities can intervene, when needed, isn’t a bug, it is a feature. It means that when you clearly misbehave, the world can punish you by doing things like freezing your foreign reserves.

  2022.02.28

• Weekend link roundup — Ukraine and gas supply to Warren Buffet and Canadian housing supply

  I spent much of this morning reading about and listening to discussions about what’s happening in Ukraine and so, instead of a typical post this morning, I’m just going to share a mélange of links.

  • Monocle 24 Foreign Desk episode talking about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speakers are Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, former NATO chief Richard Shirreff, Russian journalist Ekaterina Kotrikadze, and Russia expert Mark Galeotti. I found this helpful in better understanding some of the dynamics at play here and what might happen going forward — though, of course, who knows. All of this is both deeply sad and frustrating. [Link]
  • Discussion in Bloomberg Green about the feasibility of the EU shutting off Russian gas right now, as opposed to through a protracted transition. Currently, the EU satisfies about 20% of its total energy needs through gas and about 40% of it comes from Russia. [Link] Also, a chart showing Russian natural gas exports, by destination. [Link]
  • Warren Buffet published his widely read annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this weekend. He likes to deliver news like this on a Saturday so that people have time to digest it before the markets reopen on Monday. The overall message was one that we have heard before: BH has a lot of cash (~$144 billion to be exact) and they’re not finding very many compelling opportunities in which to deploy it. [Link]
  • To add to the above, here is a longish Q&A session with Buffet’s partner, Charlie Munger. He continues to be worried about excess money in the system and high inflation. [Link]
  • Construction has been recently completed on a Mies van der Rohe design from 1952 that had been forgotten and buried in some archives. Originally commissioned to be a fraternity house at Indiana University, the building is now the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design. This is a supremely cool story, particularly for an architecture school. [Link]
  • Yet another simple example by Bobby Fijan on how highly restrictive zoning codes and design guidelines don’t always produce the end results that we might want. Different times and different contexts in this example. But it’s interesting to think about how best to promote design excellence in our cites. Is more creative market freedom the answer? [Link]
  • My friend Randy Gladman, who is senior vice-president of development advisory at Colliers here in Toronto, published an opinion piece in the Financial Post last week about the hidden costs of inclusionary zoning. It is consistent with the ad nauseam discussions that we have been having on this blog for the past few years, but it of course remains an important read. [Link]
  • Steve Pomeroy of Focus Consulting makes an argument in the Globe and Mail that elevated home prices in Canada isn’t primarily the result of a supply deficit. Using recent census data that allegedly shows that housing supply in Vancouver actually kept pace with demand (over how long of a period?), Pomeroy instead points to the other typical culprits: strong demand, low interest rates, unused homes owned by non-residents, and so on. This one likely deserves a dedicated post at some point. [Link]

  Ironically, the post turned out to be wordier than my usual ones.

  2022.02.26