The US does not have a housing shortages. Like just about any “shortage” , perhaps famines, the cause is political and manmade. It is a distribution, or rather redistribution issue. At about 1000 sqft per capita, hard to argue there is a shortage. But if the top 10% take up 90%, breaking the Pareto Principle, of course, we will be in trouble. And we are.
The U.S. has roughly 140 million housing units, a broad category that includes mansions, tiny townhouses, and apartments of all sizes. Of those 140 million units, about 80 million are stand-alone single-family homes. Of those 80 million, about 15 million are rental properties. Of those 15 million single-family rentals, institutional investors own about 300,000; most of the rest are owned by individual landlords.
Rental-home companies own less than half of one percent of all housing, even in states such as Texas, where they were actively buying up foreclosed properties after the Great Recession.
15/140 = 10.7% of homes are rental properties.
.3/140 = .2% investment companies own less than 1% of homes.
Sail on container ship: looks like greenwashing to me. Anyone who actually learns anything about sailing, learns that wind power is a direct function of direction of travel angle vs. wind angle. Or in other words, you never get 100% of wind power unless the 2 are exactly the same.
But even in that case - that ship is super heavy. The heaviest sailing ships ever used commercially were in the 10K ton displacement range. They had steel masts and hulls and had sails pretty much covering the entire surface area around the ships - clipper ships essentially.
The ship in question is 11000 tons displacement so comparable to the last generation of sailing ships - but its capacity of 5000 tons is competing against fossil fuel powered ships with an average capacity of 100,000 tons ... so replacing 1 fossil fueld ship with 20 of these. Not the least bit clear this is going to be economically viable without truly enormous carbon tax credits or carbon emissions penalties on fossil fueled cargo ships.
Incompetent cynics: LOL.
Research after research has shown that the group of people most likely to have a realistic view of the world are those who are clinically depressed.
Time will tell on the effectiveness of cargo ship sails. However you don't have to get 100% wind power to get power from the device. Since fuel is at least 50% of the cost of running a ship, if the device can reduce fuel usage by 20% that could pay for itself over time easily.
Agreed - the sails may help. The equation isn't as simple as percent of maximum wind power reaped, however. For example: the weight of the apparatus affects friction overall because it affects displacement.
The sails also represent danger: the exact same mechanism by which wind is reaped to gain energy also represent potential risk from sudden violent air movements like gust fronts - although in theory, modern weather forecasting and radar systems should give warning.
There are also economic considerations. If average speed is significantly lower (or higher) than the typical fossil fuel cargo ship speed, this affects the cost of transport equation.
This may well be a case of "times, they are a-changing" due to fundamental fossil fuel price differences today vs. the early 1900s but only time will tell.
"Honestly, if drone racing is a sport then I’m also calling myself an athlete for publishing this newsletter every week."
I lol'd.
The US does not have a housing shortages. Like just about any “shortage” , perhaps famines, the cause is political and manmade. It is a distribution, or rather redistribution issue. At about 1000 sqft per capita, hard to argue there is a shortage. But if the top 10% take up 90%, breaking the Pareto Principle, of course, we will be in trouble. And we are.
Confused about what you define shortage vs distribution issues.
You can't distribute houses like food stuffs obviously you are not saying that, care to elaborate?
Got it. Unfortunately that is not the case.
The U.S. has roughly 140 million housing units, a broad category that includes mansions, tiny townhouses, and apartments of all sizes. Of those 140 million units, about 80 million are stand-alone single-family homes. Of those 80 million, about 15 million are rental properties. Of those 15 million single-family rentals, institutional investors own about 300,000; most of the rest are owned by individual landlords.
Rental-home companies own less than half of one percent of all housing, even in states such as Texas, where they were actively buying up foreclosed properties after the Great Recession.
15/140 = 10.7% of homes are rental properties.
.3/140 = .2% investment companies own less than 1% of homes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/blackrock-ruining-us-housing-market/619224/
By some estimates we are 3 million homes short.
So take all the homes owned by corporations and that is only 10% of the homes we need.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089174630/housing-shortage-new-home-construction-supply-chain
Sail on container ship: looks like greenwashing to me. Anyone who actually learns anything about sailing, learns that wind power is a direct function of direction of travel angle vs. wind angle. Or in other words, you never get 100% of wind power unless the 2 are exactly the same.
But even in that case - that ship is super heavy. The heaviest sailing ships ever used commercially were in the 10K ton displacement range. They had steel masts and hulls and had sails pretty much covering the entire surface area around the ships - clipper ships essentially.
The ship in question is 11000 tons displacement so comparable to the last generation of sailing ships - but its capacity of 5000 tons is competing against fossil fuel powered ships with an average capacity of 100,000 tons ... so replacing 1 fossil fueld ship with 20 of these. Not the least bit clear this is going to be economically viable without truly enormous carbon tax credits or carbon emissions penalties on fossil fueled cargo ships.
Incompetent cynics: LOL.
Research after research has shown that the group of people most likely to have a realistic view of the world are those who are clinically depressed.
Obviously utopian PanGloss-ian types don't qualify.
Time will tell on the effectiveness of cargo ship sails. However you don't have to get 100% wind power to get power from the device. Since fuel is at least 50% of the cost of running a ship, if the device can reduce fuel usage by 20% that could pay for itself over time easily.
Agreed - the sails may help. The equation isn't as simple as percent of maximum wind power reaped, however. For example: the weight of the apparatus affects friction overall because it affects displacement.
The sails also represent danger: the exact same mechanism by which wind is reaped to gain energy also represent potential risk from sudden violent air movements like gust fronts - although in theory, modern weather forecasting and radar systems should give warning.
There are also economic considerations. If average speed is significantly lower (or higher) than the typical fossil fuel cargo ship speed, this affects the cost of transport equation.
This may well be a case of "times, they are a-changing" due to fundamental fossil fuel price differences today vs. the early 1900s but only time will tell.
‘Publishing Athlete’ lol, definitely a thing