It hasn't had much of an effect on housing costs because it's too late. Claw back all the housing they bought up, sell it off to citizens at reasonable prices, and then you'll see an effect on housing costs.
This artificial pseudointelligence exists because there's the “gee whiz, that's cool” of a computer talking like a person, and a bunch of hype chasers looking to cash in. Much like cryptocurrency before it, and the dot-com boom before that, there is little substance to it, and most of it will be commercially irrelevant a decade from now.
There are forms of non-SFH density that offer plenty of privacy.
Namely?
The existence of rowhouses makes this false. It’s completely possible to have a yard while not living in densities that support public transportation and cycling.
Rowhouses are just single-family housing subdivisions without gaps between the buildings. They are not high-density housing and they are not any more supportive of public transportation and cycling.
Furthermore, they combine the worst of both worlds: they're little denser and therefore little better for the environment than single-family housing, but they do have a building manager whose whims you have to obey.
Higher densities also usually come with common amenities like parks, where your children can play, and also walk to/cycle to
My cats aren't going to happily wander around in a park full of humans. They're going to run and hide in terror. Parks are not a substitute for a yard.
almost no living space,
Baseless falsehood.
My parents' single-family house has about three times the square footage of my apartment. That's a fact, not a falsehood.
Higher densities does not equal living in a rental apartment
Irrelevant. Even if you “own” a part of a building, someone is in charge of the building as a whole—the building manager—and everyone living in that building must obey the building manager's whims, no matter how cruel, or face fines and/or confiscation of “their” home.
Ownership of parts of buildings is a legal fiction ripe for abuse. Only entire buildings, and the plots of land on which they stand, can be truly owned.
As opposed to living in a house which you don’t have to incur any debt whatsoever to obtain?
“Buying” a condo incurs debt in exactly the same way as buying a house, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Cities are usually more expensive on account of the fact that people actually want to live there
Well, I certainly can't imagine why.
people want to be close to the things that they want to do, and not have to spend their lives sitting in traffic behind the wheel all their lives.
A minor inconvenience, compared to everything that's wrong with city life.
There isn’t the customer base accepting of higher prices anymore.
Because we're being robbed by their grocery stores and landlords, and cannot afford to eat out like we used to. You suffer from the same problem as we do, just indirectly.
Although I’m surprised as it is clearly cheaper to eat in restaurants than it is to eat at home nowadays.
Not around here, it isn't. Most restaurants have jacked up their prices as well. Eating at home is expensive, but eating out is even more so.
Admittedly, it is hard to beat food cooked by your own hand.
It's very easy to beat food cooked by my hand. I'm a horrible cook. I sorely miss being able to afford to eat out frequently.
Rent prices are dependent almost exclusively on local market circumstances, and essentially all urban markets are plagued by a drastic lack of supply due to underbuilding of housing for decades
That would explain a gradual increase in housing costs over decades, but it doesn't explain housing costs skyrocketing in only a few years.
combined with more and more people wanting to move to cities.
What in the world for? I can't imagine wanting to live in conditions like that.
The federal government doesn’t actually have that much authority to regulate housing, which is something generally relegated to the states.
Well, they're failing catastrophically, and almost no one seems to be complaining. Do people like paying outrageous property taxes?
However, Biden has provided some incentives for loosening zoning codes and some other programs to encourage more housing construction, though there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.
That isn't going to do anyone any good as long as billionaires are allowed to hoard real estate.
Democrat state and local governments have absolutely done a horrendous job here as well, to be clear, though California at least is beginning to change course out of raw necessity.
California is the worst of them. My family and I fled California in the early 2000s because of extreme housing costs. Last I heard, our modest suburban house sold for over a million dollars. Madness. The whole place must be a giant slum by now, with dozens of people per house.
Definitely charitable. My interpretation of his statement is that his idea of failure is unions because his idea of success is screwing over his employees.
Exactly. These aren't impoverished farmers doing what's necessary to live in some semblance of comfort. They're greedy SOBs who don't give a rip about anything other than riches. They don't deserve sympathy.
What rubbish. If it was government-mandated fees, ISPs would print them on the bill in big bold letters, right next to the relevant Congressmember's phone number. These fees are pure profit for the ISP. Deceptive advertising, nothing more.
These companies need to be Ma Bell'd. Immediately.
Don't worry. It won't. It'll just frustrate you. Windows has gone seriously downhill since 7.