
长久以来,经济学家、立法者和华尔街一直宣扬增加住房供应能改善可负担性,但问题也许并非如此简单。
根据加州大学尔湾分校(UC Irvine)博士生舒勒·路易(Schuyler Louie)与旧金山联储(San Francisco Fed)研究员约翰·蒙德拉贡(John Mondragon)、拉米·纳贾尔(Rami Najjar)及约翰内斯·维兰德(Johannes Wieland)共同撰写的最新报告,平均收入增长与房价增长存在“显著关联”。
他们补充道:“然而,平均收入增长与住房供应增长之间几乎没有关联。相反,住房供应增长与人口增长呈显著正相关。事实上,几乎所有大都市区的住房单元增速都超过了其人口增速——即便是在洛杉矶或旧金山这类房价高昂的市场也是如此。”
这挑战了一种根深蒂固的观念,即“邻避主义”、繁琐的官僚程序,以及那些推崇对租金进行管制而非新建住房的政客,正在加剧住房可负担性的危机。
与此同时,加州高昂的住房市场一直被视为这些趋势的典型代表,并经常与住房更为实惠的得克萨斯州市场形成对比。
诚然,加州的生活成本高昂,这加剧了无家可归问题,并推动了人口外流。但鉴于供应并非影响因素,研究人员进一步深入研究了需求差异如何影响房价。
通过分析1970年代中期以来的数据,他们指出在2000年之前,房价与中位数收入始终紧密同步变动,但2000年之后房价增速远超收入增长。
他们表示:“这项研究表明,监管改革可能对住房可负担性影响有限,且住房供应限制的差异并非各都市区住房动态差异的根本驱动因素。”研究人员发现1975年到2024年间,平均收入与房价增长“基本保持同步”。
因此,住房可负担性问题“可能主要源于高收入群体与中等收入群体在收入增长上的差异”,而非供应不足。换言之,收入不平等才是推高房价的核心动力。
此外,研究显示2000年至2020年间,收入水平与住房供应量之间并无明显关联。这可能是因为美国家庭财富增长后更倾向于翻新住宅、迁居至环境更优的地区,或通过其他方式提升居住品质——而非单纯增加购房数量。
真正推动住房供应增长的是城市新增家庭数量。数据显示:“几乎所有大都市区的住房供应增长都与人口增长呈现强烈正相关。”
研究人员特别指出两种不同的需求类型:当人们追求更高居住品质时,房价会被推高,但对住房数量的需求保持稳定。
而当人口增长带来住房需求(而平均收入水平不变时),住房数量的需求将同步增长,从而推动房价和供应量双双上升。
他们总结道:“这表明,要解决住房可负担性危机,最佳途径或许是理解劳动力市场的变化,尤其是不同地区和收入水平间经济增长的相对分配情况。”(财富中文网)
译者:珠珠
长久以来,经济学家、立法者和华尔街一直宣扬增加住房供应能改善可负担性,但问题也许并非如此简单。
根据加州大学尔湾分校(UC Irvine)博士生舒勒·路易(Schuyler Louie)与旧金山联储(San Francisco Fed)研究员约翰·蒙德拉贡(John Mondragon)、拉米·纳贾尔(Rami Najjar)及约翰内斯·维兰德(Johannes Wieland)共同撰写的最新报告,平均收入增长与房价增长存在“显著关联”。
他们补充道:“然而,平均收入增长与住房供应增长之间几乎没有关联。相反,住房供应增长与人口增长呈显著正相关。事实上,几乎所有大都市区的住房单元增速都超过了其人口增速——即便是在洛杉矶或旧金山这类房价高昂的市场也是如此。”
这挑战了一种根深蒂固的观念,即“邻避主义”、繁琐的官僚程序,以及那些推崇对租金进行管制而非新建住房的政客,正在加剧住房可负担性的危机。
与此同时,加州高昂的住房市场一直被视为这些趋势的典型代表,并经常与住房更为实惠的得克萨斯州市场形成对比。
诚然,加州的生活成本高昂,这加剧了无家可归问题,并推动了人口外流。但鉴于供应并非影响因素,研究人员进一步深入研究了需求差异如何影响房价。
通过分析1970年代中期以来的数据,他们指出在2000年之前,房价与中位数收入始终紧密同步变动,但2000年之后房价增速远超收入增长。
他们表示:“这项研究表明,监管改革可能对住房可负担性影响有限,且住房供应限制的差异并非各都市区住房动态差异的根本驱动因素。”研究人员发现1975年到2024年间,平均收入与房价增长“基本保持同步”。
因此,住房可负担性问题“可能主要源于高收入群体与中等收入群体在收入增长上的差异”,而非供应不足。换言之,收入不平等才是推高房价的核心动力。
此外,研究显示2000年至2020年间,收入水平与住房供应量之间并无明显关联。这可能是因为美国家庭财富增长后更倾向于翻新住宅、迁居至环境更优的地区,或通过其他方式提升居住品质——而非单纯增加购房数量。
真正推动住房供应增长的是城市新增家庭数量。数据显示:“几乎所有大都市区的住房供应增长都与人口增长呈现强烈正相关。”
研究人员特别指出两种不同的需求类型:当人们追求更高居住品质时,房价会被推高,但对住房数量的需求保持稳定。
而当人口增长带来住房需求(而平均收入水平不变时),住房数量的需求将同步增长,从而推动房价和供应量双双上升。
他们总结道:“这表明,要解决住房可负担性危机,最佳途径或许是理解劳动力市场的变化,尤其是不同地区和收入水平间经济增长的相对分配情况。”(财富中文网)
译者:珠珠
Economists, lawmakers, and Wall Street have long preached the need to increase housing supply to improve affordability, but it may not be that straightforward.
According to a recent note written by UC Irvine PhD student Schuyler Louie along with San Francisco Fed researchers John Mondragon, Rami Najjar, and Johannes Wieland, average income growth “relates strongly” to house price growth.
“However, there is almost no connection between average income growth and growth in housing supply,” they added. “Instead, housing supply growth has a strong positive relationship with population growth. In fact, almost all metro areas saw housing units grow faster than their population—even in expensive residential markets like Los Angeles or San Francisco.”
That challenges deeply ingrained notions that NIMBYism, red tape, and politicians who favor rent controls over new construction are worsening the housing affordability crisis.
Meanwhile, California’s pricey housing markets have been held up as a prime example of these trends and often contrasted with those in Texas, where homes are more affordable.
To be sure, California is expensive to live in, fueling homelessness and migration out of the state. But given that supply was not a factor, the researchers took a closer look at how differences in demand affect home prices.
Drawing on data going back to the mid-1970s, they pointed out that house prices and median income tracked each other closely until 2000. But after that, home price growth far surpassed incomes.
“This research indicates that regulatory reforms may have limited impact on housing affordability and that differences in housing supply constraints are not the fundamental drivers of differences in housing dynamics across metro areas,” they said.When looking at average income, the researchers found it grew “essentially one-for-one with house prices” from 1975 to 2024.
So rather than a lack of supply, housing affordability “may primarily be about differences in income growth at the top of the distribution relative to the middle.” In other words, income inequality drives home prices.
Meanwhile, when looking at incomes and housing supply from 2000 to 2020, there was no relationship. The reason may be that when U.S. households become wealthier, they prefer renovating homes, relocating to nicer locations, or finding some other way to improve their housing quality—rather than buying additional homes.
Instead of higher incomes, the arrival of new households to a city boosts supply, and the data show that “housing supply growth is strongly related to population growth across essentially all metro areas.”
The researchers highlight two different types of demand. When demand grows for better housing quality, home prices rise while demand for the number of housing units stays relatively unchanged.
But when housing demand comes from population growth that keeps average incomes steady, demand for the number of units increases, driving up both prices and supply.
“This suggests that the housing affordability crisis may be best addressed by understanding changes to the labor market, especially the relative distribution of economic growth across income levels and jobs in different areas,” they concluded.