Joe Fish
@sadbusdriver.bsky.social
PhD student doing urban econ and industrial organization at Duke. Former highest paid cashier in the Midwest; former RA at Eviction Lab; Macalester College. Not a real bus driver
putting my sociologist hat on and zooming in on baltimore specifically, when I say the underlying asset ownership is durable I mean that rental units used to be owned by out of neighborhood White landlords, and they continue to be owned by out of neighborhood White landlords.
December 9, 2025 at 2:10 AM
putting my sociologist hat on and zooming in on baltimore specifically, when I say the underlying asset ownership is durable I mean that rental units used to be owned by out of neighborhood White landlords, and they continue to be owned by out of neighborhood White landlords.
the lincoln land institute, which the article largely sources from, has graphs like this and defines corporate similarly to redfin, corelogic, etc, which is "owned via an investment vehicle".
but when you plot their data, it becomes clear this trend isn't related to much
but when you plot their data, it becomes clear this trend isn't related to much
December 9, 2025 at 2:00 AM
the lincoln land institute, which the article largely sources from, has graphs like this and defines corporate similarly to redfin, corelogic, etc, which is "owned via an investment vehicle".
but when you plot their data, it becomes clear this trend isn't related to much
but when you plot their data, it becomes clear this trend isn't related to much
all of this gets fed through into the lit reviews where the point estimates are interpreted divorced of any statistical uncertainty
(that Mukhija et al. 2010 is also just a kind of goofy paper. log. your permits!)
(that Mukhija et al. 2010 is also just a kind of goofy paper. log. your permits!)
December 8, 2025 at 1:54 AM
all of this gets fed through into the lit reviews where the point estimates are interpreted divorced of any statistical uncertainty
(that Mukhija et al. 2010 is also just a kind of goofy paper. log. your permits!)
(that Mukhija et al. 2010 is also just a kind of goofy paper. log. your permits!)
It's a similar story in Schuetz, Meltzer, and Been 2011; they interpret a very noisy point estimate in San Francisco as "no effect". (Also, the permit numbers used are only single family homes, which I think is a bit weird)
December 8, 2025 at 1:48 AM
It's a similar story in Schuetz, Meltzer, and Been 2011; they interpret a very noisy point estimate in San Francisco as "no effect". (Also, the permit numbers used are only single family homes, which I think is a bit weird)
I'll pick on this paper:
They say in their abstract that "IZ policies did not affect municipality-wide housing permits or rents." But that's not true!
Their results are statistically insignificant because they're *noisy* not because they can rule out large effects. Look at those standard errors!
They say in their abstract that "IZ policies did not affect municipality-wide housing permits or rents." But that's not true!
Their results are statistically insignificant because they're *noisy* not because they can rule out large effects. Look at those standard errors!
December 8, 2025 at 1:35 AM
I'll pick on this paper:
They say in their abstract that "IZ policies did not affect municipality-wide housing permits or rents." But that's not true!
Their results are statistically insignificant because they're *noisy* not because they can rule out large effects. Look at those standard errors!
They say in their abstract that "IZ policies did not affect municipality-wide housing permits or rents." But that's not true!
Their results are statistically insignificant because they're *noisy* not because they can rule out large effects. Look at those standard errors!
Which dovetails with the other issue of vouchers: tenants are incentivized to not be price sensitive.
If you’re in a unit and your subsidy gets more generous, that money mostly goes to your landlord bc search costs are so high
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/defaul...
If you’re in a unit and your subsidy gets more generous, that money mostly goes to your landlord bc search costs are so high
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/defaul...
December 6, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Which dovetails with the other issue of vouchers: tenants are incentivized to not be price sensitive.
If you’re in a unit and your subsidy gets more generous, that money mostly goes to your landlord bc search costs are so high
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/defaul...
If you’re in a unit and your subsidy gets more generous, that money mostly goes to your landlord bc search costs are so high
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/defaul...
Eg this paper finds lease up rates around 60% and that they’re lower in markets with more fewer vacant homes.
Intuitively, this makes sense. Voucher tenants are discriminated against and discrimination is more
Costly when landlords face more competition
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Intuitively, this makes sense. Voucher tenants are discriminated against and discrimination is more
Costly when landlords face more competition
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
December 6, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Eg this paper finds lease up rates around 60% and that they’re lower in markets with more fewer vacant homes.
Intuitively, this makes sense. Voucher tenants are discriminated against and discrimination is more
Costly when landlords face more competition
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Intuitively, this makes sense. Voucher tenants are discriminated against and discrimination is more
Costly when landlords face more competition
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
same thing, but with 4 different base years. 2021 is the worst year for this exercise.
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
December 4, 2025 at 4:48 PM
same thing, but with 4 different base years. 2021 is the worst year for this exercise.
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
although, it also looks like they're using mean wages and not median wages, the former of which have grown slower since 2021
December 4, 2025 at 3:23 PM
although, it also looks like they're using mean wages and not median wages, the former of which have grown slower since 2021
this chart is a bit weird because it *really* matters which year you set as your baseline.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
December 4, 2025 at 3:17 PM
this chart is a bit weird because it *really* matters which year you set as your baseline.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
This is why people need to write down models.
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
December 3, 2025 at 8:39 PM
This is why people need to write down models.
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
For instance, geography classic, City as a Growth Machine
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
December 2, 2025 at 2:51 AM
For instance, geography classic, City as a Growth Machine
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
A cool paper I wish I had done argues a lot of these down zonings (broadly, increases in exclusionary zoning) happened in response to more Black people migrating to non-Southern cities.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
December 1, 2025 at 5:45 PM
A cool paper I wish I had done argues a lot of these down zonings (broadly, increases in exclusionary zoning) happened in response to more Black people migrating to non-Southern cities.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
The period from 2015 to 2025 has been the best decade in the past 50 years for large and broad-based income gains
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
December 1, 2025 at 4:03 PM
The period from 2015 to 2025 has been the best decade in the past 50 years for large and broad-based income gains
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
People are purportedly losing faith in the value proposition of a college degree, however, it is simultaneously true that:
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
November 29, 2025 at 5:56 PM
People are purportedly losing faith in the value proposition of a college degree, however, it is simultaneously true that:
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
the issue with Bruce's data, to close the circle, was that there are people, particularly those who are homeless, who are very challenging to survey and who likely have very low incomes.
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
November 28, 2025 at 1:37 AM
the issue with Bruce's data, to close the circle, was that there are people, particularly those who are homeless, who are very challenging to survey and who likely have very low incomes.
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
My recollection of the debate was correct, and the debate largely revolved around how to account for and measure in-kind benefits, particularly in survey data.
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
November 28, 2025 at 1:34 AM
My recollection of the debate was correct, and the debate largely revolved around how to account for and measure in-kind benefits, particularly in survey data.
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
aside from being a chart crime, I'm think the answer to "why are fewer people living in extreme poverty in china than the US" is "the data aren't comparable".
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
November 28, 2025 at 1:19 AM
aside from being a chart crime, I'm think the answer to "why are fewer people living in extreme poverty in china than the US" is "the data aren't comparable".
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
the long view of shelter inflation also makes a much stronger case for the primacy of supply constraints in determining housing affordability
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
November 27, 2025 at 4:55 PM
the long view of shelter inflation also makes a much stronger case for the primacy of supply constraints in determining housing affordability
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
this is almost entirely driven by shelter inflation tracking mostly 1 for 1 with income gains
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
November 27, 2025 at 4:41 PM
this is almost entirely driven by shelter inflation tracking mostly 1 for 1 with income gains
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
People seldomly make this point correctly, but you can make a mostly-coherent argument that if you look at income gains in terms of the prices of "essentials", they're somewhere between modest and stagnant, depending on which year you pick for your base.
November 27, 2025 at 4:38 PM
People seldomly make this point correctly, but you can make a mostly-coherent argument that if you look at income gains in terms of the prices of "essentials", they're somewhere between modest and stagnant, depending on which year you pick for your base.
what else would you call this?
November 26, 2025 at 4:25 PM
what else would you call this?
He "discusses" it, but he clearly does not understand how poverty lines are constructed or how hedonic adjustment works.
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
November 26, 2025 at 4:07 PM
He "discusses" it, but he clearly does not understand how poverty lines are constructed or how hedonic adjustment works.
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
crazy you basically can't get a mortgage with a <760 credit score anymore
November 26, 2025 at 3:54 AM
crazy you basically can't get a mortgage with a <760 credit score anymore
Here's how we know this: 130K would be about 12,000 in 1960s dollars.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
November 25, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Here's how we know this: 130K would be about 12,000 in 1960s dollars.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.