There’s like a big plank of Abundance that says you really need to focus on results not process and it’s worth applying here.
If you’re not delivering the end state people want then you’re not winning the argument. People don’t want one inch drill bits they want one inch holes.
But this was precisely Thompson's point in the interview. YIMBYs have won the rhetorical argument and everyone must at least pay lip service to supply-side housing reforms now. But Abundance wasn't about that; it was about achieving real, rapid physical results.
I initially had the same reaction as you when I heard Thompson say that--it's only been a year! But it's been an entire year, and the outcomes aren't there yet. Your example for Auckland is for a six-year period. That's not good enough, and constant vigilance is still necessary to make sure the NIMBYs don't find loopholes (c. f. "Are we being pricks?). Winning the 'argument' is not winning the fight.
When Derek said that about housing starts, and Ezra echoed it, I was hiking with my dog and I shouted into the trees, "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT, DEREK." I was really glad Marc pushed back on it: He said "I have to say, in the scheme of things — you guys are journalists, and I’ve spent a long time in politics — the idea that a year later you’d have a bunch more housing built because of a book seems a little far-fetched to me." No kidding!
People don't care whether you produce more housing. People care whether the cost of housing, flat lines or goes down. That has not occurred. Until that occurs, this absolutely bizarre yimby tendency to constantly declare victory and spike the football as though you have already won is just so... weird
From the present moment of now, we tend to compress the time difference between one year and five years. Both seem in the distant future. So when something like zoning reforms don't kick in with more housing after a year we're impatient. That's what this essay does such a good job of illuminating. Measuring the effects of changes in zoning after one or even two years is close to meaningless.
And of course more supply will eventually affect prices. You can't make intelligent comments about an economic issue without understanding this basic law.
so you are just not going to engage in your awful contrarian pro trillionaire take? isn't the argument supposed to be about discussions. you responded more here than in the other piece. it's so gross you ignored doge and Elon literally saying he put USAID in the wood chipper
She specified in the section about Auckland: "The effect was massive: within six years, the reforms produced an additional 43,500 housing permits and rents ended up about 28% lower than they would have been without it." I suppose I agree that people aren't going to perceive housing prices as "going down" unless they're literally going down, which isn't going to happen without much more radical policy (and which I'm guessing Jerusalem would argue is not inherently desirable).
But it does seem like a problem worth noting that people see their rent go up 4% and perceive it as bad, instead of understanding that their rent could have instead gone up 20% and seeing 4% as good. There's little reason for policymakers to perceive that 4% as bad if they know about the 20% counterfactual.
1. Cities in California and Washington have a housing supply problem and are correct to address it aggressively.
2. Wealthy countries are happier. This is well documented. In Seattle, tech is the number one driver of housing supply needs. Tech is also a large part of what's improving our lives in the U.S. via economic growth.
3. In wealthy countries, people who live in cities--the drivers of economic growth--are paradoxically less happy than people in less dense areas even when controlling for income. This is called the rural happiness paradox (RHP) and it is also well documented.
4. In 1910, only 10% of individuals lived in cities. Today, it is 55%, trending towards 68% by 2050. Whatever causes the RHP is going to get worse.
Are the benefits of economic growth going to remain enough the counter the happiness penalty on individuals that live in cities when evaluating the well-being of a nation on the whole?
While the Census definition of urban has shifted over the decades, here is roughly the urban/rural makeup for the U.S. specifically, according to Claude:
"The US attained urban-majority status between 1910 and 1920  — so in 1910 the country was right at the tipping point, roughly 45-50% urban depending on definition. Today 83.5% of Americans live in urban areas  according to the World Bank. And by the middle of the century it is expected that almost 90% of the US population will live in an urban setting."
Actually, my question of whether or not the penalty to well-being that comes from urban density will one day outweigh the benefits of growth is probably answerable to someone with good data chops....
At least somewhat. It depends on what causes the RHP. If it is, in fact, the physical structure of density, then we would need to account for the fact that urban centers will become physically denser in addition to more people moving into them. That will be harder onto calculate.
California's NIMBYs are still very much here! I don't think you can declare victory when the NIMBYs are still in elected office. (Yes, things have improved, but this piece overstates the case by looking at vibes, not individual electeds.)
Karen Bass might win the mayoralty, Nancy Pelosi endorsed super NIMBY Connie Chan against Scott Wiener and NIMBY Aisha Wahab is continuing her electoral success in California.
On a less negative note, Xavier Becerra is gonna be governor (and he was less Yimby than Porter, Swalwell, Mahan and Steyer). This doesn't seem to be an issue he cares about.
one reason is because corporations and even a political belief that is good is weighed down by the greed and private equity mentality of squeezing every dollar out of people.
people hate corporations because post great financial crisis there were no consequences for companies, except a few bankruptcies. but our money bailed out goldman, amex, chase, Bank of America and so on and the CEOs didn't even change. people are skeptical of industry for good reason.
I'm an MBA but like companies now just try to squeeze everything out of customers, have a record quarter and then do massive layoffs. that's why people are distrustful as a start.
In California, reforms to Bonus Law have been a huge success. In 2024, it was used in nearly half of all project approvals, trippling since reforms began in 2021.
There’s like a big plank of Abundance that says you really need to focus on results not process and it’s worth applying here.
If you’re not delivering the end state people want then you’re not winning the argument. People don’t want one inch drill bits they want one inch holes.
I agree it's important to deliver on outcomes. That's why it's important to double down on building more housing.
But this was precisely Thompson's point in the interview. YIMBYs have won the rhetorical argument and everyone must at least pay lip service to supply-side housing reforms now. But Abundance wasn't about that; it was about achieving real, rapid physical results.
I initially had the same reaction as you when I heard Thompson say that--it's only been a year! But it's been an entire year, and the outcomes aren't there yet. Your example for Auckland is for a six-year period. That's not good enough, and constant vigilance is still necessary to make sure the NIMBYs don't find loopholes (c. f. "Are we being pricks?). Winning the 'argument' is not winning the fight.
When Derek said that about housing starts, and Ezra echoed it, I was hiking with my dog and I shouted into the trees, "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT, DEREK." I was really glad Marc pushed back on it: He said "I have to say, in the scheme of things — you guys are journalists, and I’ve spent a long time in politics — the idea that a year later you’d have a bunch more housing built because of a book seems a little far-fetched to me." No kidding!
It’s a win. It’s not the whole answer but part of the answer. It bends the arc.
People don't care whether you produce more housing. People care whether the cost of housing, flat lines or goes down. That has not occurred. Until that occurs, this absolutely bizarre yimby tendency to constantly declare victory and spike the football as though you have already won is just so... weird
The people who live in that housing certainly care. I grew up in housing developed by prescient upzoners and I certainly care.
From the present moment of now, we tend to compress the time difference between one year and five years. Both seem in the distant future. So when something like zoning reforms don't kick in with more housing after a year we're impatient. That's what this essay does such a good job of illuminating. Measuring the effects of changes in zoning after one or even two years is close to meaningless.
And of course more supply will eventually affect prices. You can't make intelligent comments about an economic issue without understanding this basic law.
so you are just not going to engage in your awful contrarian pro trillionaire take? isn't the argument supposed to be about discussions. you responded more here than in the other piece. it's so gross you ignored doge and Elon literally saying he put USAID in the wood chipper
She specified in the section about Auckland: "The effect was massive: within six years, the reforms produced an additional 43,500 housing permits and rents ended up about 28% lower than they would have been without it." I suppose I agree that people aren't going to perceive housing prices as "going down" unless they're literally going down, which isn't going to happen without much more radical policy (and which I'm guessing Jerusalem would argue is not inherently desirable).
But it does seem like a problem worth noting that people see their rent go up 4% and perceive it as bad, instead of understanding that their rent could have instead gone up 20% and seeing 4% as good. There's little reason for policymakers to perceive that 4% as bad if they know about the 20% counterfactual.
...but it has: https://www.macrotrends.net/3389/austin-area-home-price-index
Some thoughts:
1. Cities in California and Washington have a housing supply problem and are correct to address it aggressively.
2. Wealthy countries are happier. This is well documented. In Seattle, tech is the number one driver of housing supply needs. Tech is also a large part of what's improving our lives in the U.S. via economic growth.
3. In wealthy countries, people who live in cities--the drivers of economic growth--are paradoxically less happy than people in less dense areas even when controlling for income. This is called the rural happiness paradox (RHP) and it is also well documented.
4. In 1910, only 10% of individuals lived in cities. Today, it is 55%, trending towards 68% by 2050. Whatever causes the RHP is going to get worse.
Are the benefits of economic growth going to remain enough the counter the happiness penalty on individuals that live in cities when evaluating the well-being of a nation on the whole?
While the Census definition of urban has shifted over the decades, here is roughly the urban/rural makeup for the U.S. specifically, according to Claude:
"The US attained urban-majority status between 1910 and 1920  — so in 1910 the country was right at the tipping point, roughly 45-50% urban depending on definition. Today 83.5% of Americans live in urban areas  according to the World Bank. And by the middle of the century it is expected that almost 90% of the US population will live in an urban setting."
Actually, my question of whether or not the penalty to well-being that comes from urban density will one day outweigh the benefits of growth is probably answerable to someone with good data chops....
At least somewhat. It depends on what causes the RHP. If it is, in fact, the physical structure of density, then we would need to account for the fact that urban centers will become physically denser in addition to more people moving into them. That will be harder onto calculate.
California's NIMBYs are still very much here! I don't think you can declare victory when the NIMBYs are still in elected office. (Yes, things have improved, but this piece overstates the case by looking at vibes, not individual electeds.)
Karen Bass might win the mayoralty, Nancy Pelosi endorsed super NIMBY Connie Chan against Scott Wiener and NIMBY Aisha Wahab is continuing her electoral success in California.
On a less negative note, Xavier Becerra is gonna be governor (and he was less Yimby than Porter, Swalwell, Mahan and Steyer). This doesn't seem to be an issue he cares about.
These are serious hurdles!
one reason is because corporations and even a political belief that is good is weighed down by the greed and private equity mentality of squeezing every dollar out of people.
people hate corporations because post great financial crisis there were no consequences for companies, except a few bankruptcies. but our money bailed out goldman, amex, chase, Bank of America and so on and the CEOs didn't even change. people are skeptical of industry for good reason.
I'm an MBA but like companies now just try to squeeze everything out of customers, have a record quarter and then do massive layoffs. that's why people are distrustful as a start.
In California, reforms to Bonus Law have been a huge success. In 2024, it was used in nearly half of all project approvals, trippling since reforms began in 2021.
We took the W with our recent report "Win-Win Bonus:" https://www.circulatesd.org/win_win_bonus_report