Housing is expensive in California:

In 2021, San Jose had the least affordable housing among the 92 major US housing markets, with a median multiple of 12.6. San Francisco had a median multiple of 11.8, Los Angeles was at 10.7, followed by San Diego, at 10.1).7 Housing was severely unaffordable even in the interior markets, with Riverside-San Bernardino at 7.4 and Sacramento at 6.7.

And there are some explanations for why that is the case:

Dartmouth economist William Fischel published an early seminal review 9 of housing affordability in California (1970 to the 1990s). Fischel suggested that regulatory research should look for major changes that “are adopted in some places but not in others.”

Fischel examined the higher house price increases that occurred in California compared to the rest of the nation between the late 1960s and late 1980s. Fischel cites various possible causal factors. He found that the higher prices could not be explained by higher construction cost increases, demand, higher personal income growth, the quality of life, amenities, Proposition 13, land supply or water issues.

Instead Fischel cites stronger land use restrictions --- There were two principal issues, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local growth management restrictions.10

We have discussed this issue many times before on the blog, but Wendell Cox's article is helpful in pointing out that zoning in and of itself wasn't the problem. The problem arose, at least according to Fischel's research, when these policies went from "ordinary zoning" to something that became a tool to restrict growth.

The illustrate what "ordinary zoning" means, Cox uses the idiom, "a place for everything, but everything in its place." And I think this is an interesting way of putting it. Part of the reason why we have zoning is that it is a way to organize uses. It is a way of saying that sex shops and cannabis shops can't go here, but they can go over there.

But the key part of this idiom is its first part: a place for everything. What this implies is that the answer should never just be, "no, sorry, you can't build this." At most, it should be, "no, sorry, you can't build this here, but you can over there." There is a place for everything.

Of course, this is much harder to do when you flip from sprawl development to infill development. Because now there are fewer places "over there." You really have to figure out "here."

Some of you are probably shocked by this headline. But it is true. Here's the chart to prove it:

Toronto is number one. Los Angeles is number two. And New York sits just behind Winnipeg and Calgary. Huh?

The reason this is likely surprising to you is that when most people think of urban density they think of the urban core. And you are correct in thinking that the urban core of New York City is denser than the urban core of Winnipeg.

The difference here is that we are talking about "urban area" (or "population centre" in Canada). This is the continuously built up area around each major city. Think of it as the lit up area that you might see on a nighttime aerial photo.

Urban areas don't care about municipal or other jurisdictional boundaries. And they don't factor rural areas. Urban areas are a measure of continuous urbanization.

So even if you have the densest downtown on the planet, if you have a sprawling low-density urban area surrounding it, you can still end up with a relatively low overall population density. And this is precisely what is happening here with New York.

This is also why there's only so much that you can glean from a blended average like this. Because you can have very different urban forms and very different mobility splits (think New York City vs. Winnipeg), and still end up with somewhat comparable averages.

Chart: New Geography

A super-entrepreneur, according to the common definition, is a rich person who has amassed a net worth of at least US$1 billion dollars by either starting a company or taking a small company and growing it into a big one. A super-entrepreneur is, by definition, not someone who inherited their wealth. Though I'm not sure what the cut off is. If you inherited $1 million and then started a massive company, does that still make you a super-entrepreneur? What about if you inherited $100 million?

In any event, here is a chart from New Geography showing super-entrepreneurs by region:

The USA is in the lead in this chart at about 3.1 super-entrepreneurs per one million inhabitants. But the highest rate in the world, at least according to this data set, actually belongs to Singapore at 4.7 per million. Europe, as a whole, doesn't look all that great here. But again, if you get more specific, some European countries are actually doing quite well. Sweden, for instance, is sitting at around 2 per million, which is higher than Canada's figure.

Why this data is potentially interesting is that it tells you a bit about these countries. It tells you whether they have strong property rights, whether it's easy to conduct business, and whether it's supportive of new ideas, among, of course, many other things. There also appears to be a clear link between the presence of super-entrepreneurs and unemployment. Turns out that the more people you have starting wildly successful businesses, the lower unemployment tends to be.

For the full New Geography article, click here. In addition to what I just wrote about, it talks about Europe's "entrepreneurial paradox" and issues of gender equality.