
And no matter how many bad faith arguments are constructed to explain why this doesn’t apply to the housing market, this remains true in that context as well:
After decades of explosive growth, Austin, Texas, in the 2010s was a victim of its own success. Lured by high-tech jobs and the city’s hip reputation, too many people were competing for too few homes. From 2010 to 2019, rents in Austin increased nearly 93%—more than in any other major American city. And home sale prices increased 82%, more than in any other metro area in Texas.
But starting in 2015, Austin instituted an array of policy reforms aimed at encouraging the development of new housing, especially rentals. The city changed zoning regulations to allow construction of large apartment buildings, particularly near jobs and transit. In 2018, voters approved a $250 million bond measure to build and repair affordable housing. Permitting processes were reformed to speed development and reduce costs.
The efforts worked. From 2015 to 2024, Austin added 120,000 units to its housing stock—an increase of 30%, more than three times the overall rate of growth in the United States (9%).
Rents fell. In December 2021, Austin’s median rent was $1,546, near its highest level ever and 15% higher than the U.S. median ($1,346). By January 2026, Austin’s median rent had fallen to $1,296, 4% lower than that of the U.S. overall ($1,353). This decline occurred even though the city population grew by 18,000 residents from 2022 to 2024. In apartment buildings with 50 or more units, rents fell 7% from 2023 to 2024 alone—the steepest decline recorded in any large metropolitan area. Rents declined about 11% in older non-luxury buildings that cater to lower-income renters, known as Class C buildings.
Austin’s success serves as an important example of how regulatory barriers to building more housing are often varied and interconnected. No single solution can solve a housing shortage, but Austin has taken multiple steps that have helped to unlock large amounts of housing supply in its market and reverse rent growth, including rent for tenants of lower-cost, older apartments. The city continues to take forward-looking steps—among them reforming building codes, streamlining permitting, and facilitating the construction of small apartment buildings—to reduce housing underproduction and improve affordability for existing and future residents.
It cannot be emphasized enough that NIMBYS in urban centers in blue states are enemies of civil rights however they would like to think of themselves. NIMBYism also means that what should be more broadly-shared prosperity is both attenuated and disproportionately captured by incumbent homeowners (and, in many cases, the heirs of incumbent homeowners):
But there’s just no sign of any kind of Bay Area population boom. As high tech went from an interesting sector of the American economy to a globally dominant force, the places that saw booming population growth were Phoenix, Houston, Vegas, the remote exurbs of Los Angeles, and Fort Worth.
The three largest companies in the world by market cap are all located in the Bay Area. So is number eight and number nine, and number 10 was founded there.
But it’s not the largest metro area in the world. Or the largest metro area in the country. Or even the largest metro area in California. And that’s despite the weather and basic natural amenities there being dramatically nicer than those that greeted people who moved to Chicago and Detroit and other industrial hubs during their boom times. Alongside the trillion-dollar valuations and insta-fortunes, we in some sense should have been building a Tokyo-scale megacity, with San Francisco looking like Manhattan, skyscrapers next to Caltrain stations, and Marin County featuring the apartment towers it’s depicted as having in “Star Trek: Picard.”
Of course, mega-growth would have caused lots of traffic jams and stressed infrastructure and required the construction of new bridges or tunnels across the bay and new roads and rail lines. But it is possible to do these things. America has fast-growing metro areas. It’s just that unlike in the past, the growth is not concentrated where the economic boom is happening.
Americans sometimes look with envy on the rapid economic growth achieved in China during this period. But if you look at Shenzhen or any other major Chinese city, what you see is dramatic physical transformation across the course of the 21st century. That’s precisely what American public policy has been hostile to, not just in the Bay Area but almost everywhere that isn’t an unincorporated area on the fringes of a Sunbelt metro area.
To have a broad-based economic boom, we need a boomtown.
I get, of course, that “well, just move” is not the answer to the economic problems of struggling areas. At the same time, it’s just factually the case that millions of people did move during this period.
If they had moved to Mega City San Francisco Bay instead of to the suburbs of Fort Worth, almost all of them would have higher incomes. Not because they would have been rich software developers, but because they’d have been selling shovels during the gold rush — doing whatever jobs they do now, but at ground zero for global innovation.
It’s also true that the agglomerations around the tech industry itself would have been even sharper. But then beyond that, you have economic linkages across the country. You don’t build a megacity with only local resources. All of America’s manufacturing might would have gone into building the buildings and supporting the infrastructure that make a megacity. Even a dynamic as simple as “people with bigger homes would buy more appliances” would create jobs and economic opportunities for people far away from California.
Making it legal to build housing, especially multifamily housing, is not a magic bullet that will solve anything, but it would be an enormous net benefit for both equal citizenship and economic growth.
The post Increasing supply decreases prices appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.


