These four things are driving up housing costs



A for sale sign for a house

As the spring home sales season kicks into gear, state and Twin Cities realtor groups will report today on home sales and prices for April.

A recent report from the National Association of Realtors recently showed improvement in housing affordability nationwide.

But experts generally cite the low availability of housing as a factor that’s pushing prices up.

The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, said if Minnesotans want housing to be more affordable, we need more homes on the market.

Neel Kashkari at conference
Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, seen here at the 2025 Institute Research Conference in Minneapolis.
Annie Baxter | MPR News

“There's no question that the single most important driver is going to be supply,” he said.

At a recent St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce event, he said four main factors are constraining supply.

1.) Inflation

The cost of construction materials is going up, Kashkari said, making it more expensive to build housing.

“It’s our job to get inflation back down,” he said.

Prices in the building materials and supplies industry are at historical highs, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. And overall, annual inflation has consistently been above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent since March 2021.

“What’s been challenging the past five years is — economists call these shocks — different things keep hitting the economy,” he said. “COVID, the supply chains coming out of COVID, Russia invading Ukraine, (and) now, the war in Iran. These things are all inflationary: one after the other after the other.”

That’s part of the reason that Kashkari, who is serving a rotating term on the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee, dissented from that committee’s recent policy statement that signaled future rate cuts.

While rate cuts could stimulate the economy, Kashkari is concerned they’d also aggravate inflation.

2.) Interest rates

Interest rates are another important piece of housing affordability. Lower interest rates would make it cheaper to borrow money to build and buy houses.

While the federal funds rate set by the Federal Reserve influences mortgage rates, Kashkari said broader swings in the economy are pushing up interest rates, too.

For example, the ongoing data center boom has increased demand for investment capital and may be pulling capital away from projects like apartment buildings.

“Hundreds of billions of dollars a year of new investment demand, all else equal, is going to push up interest rates,” he said.

3.) Immigration and labor

Kashkari also cited labor availability as a constraint on construction.

“Obviously, if there are fewer immigrant workers to build homes, on the margin that’s going to make labor somewhat less available, potentially causing some inflationary pressure there,” he said.

The second Trump Administration’s surge of immigration enforcement has likely hit the construction sector particularly hard because a relatively large percentage of undocumented workers were employed by that industry, according to a recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

According to the paper, that hasn’t translated to higher wages for other workers, but employers are instead “reducing labor demand overall, including for jobs more often taken by U.S.-born workers.”

People build homes-4
Volunteers build homes at The Heights Development construction site during the Carter Work Project Week in St. Paul.
Tim Evans for MPR News 2024

4.) Zoning

Kashkari said local zoning regulations are a major hurdle to building more housing. Homeowners have an incentive to advocate for policies that keep prices high in their neighborhoods so their assets keep growing in value.

“When we all do that, you can’t build anywhere,” he added. “Then all of a sudden the home prices skyrocket because we just limit new supply from coming online.”

Kashkari said of the four constraints on construction, policymakers can most directly control zoning regulations if they want to keep prices down.

“You look around the country, there are some regions where it's a lot easier to build,” he said.

He noted that those areas still had to reckon with inflation, labor availability and challenging interest rates.

“But the zoning piece,” he said, “actually can make a big difference on how much new supply you can bring online.”



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


I was watching a Ford truck commercial—you know, the kind that airs during Monday Night Football—and the theme was how good solid blue-collar Americans who own small welding businesses and wear plaid flannel shirts always give 100%. Cue Bob Seger, “Like a Rock.”

Oh wait, that was Chevy. But you get the idea.

Anyway, Ford has obviously gone soft. Anyone who follows sports or business figures on social media knows that giving 100% is for losers. Winners give 110% every day. I know this from watching Shark Tank and that Michael Jordan documentary.

This idea is not limited to athletes and self-made billionaires. There’s another group that really likes to say that you need to exert the maximum possible effort, stretching yourself to the limit, every time, all the time.

The 110% mentality in law practice

Lawyers, of course. Especially in the BigLaw world. It’s a standard part of the culture.

Just ask that prominent “law-bro” recruiter who’s always giving cringey advice. Or that firm that billed a bazillion hours on the Twitter lawsuit.

I chalk up this 110% rhetoric mainly to marketing. It’s the image law firms want to sell to their clients, and also to their associates. They want clients to think they go all out, all the time, and they want associates to feel guilty when they don’t bill as many hours as humanly possible.

I’ve always been kind of skeptical about this idea. For starters, I just don’t think it’s realistic to demand maximum effort, 25 billable hours a day, for days on end. Anybody who has worked in a law firm knows this just doesn’t really happen.

I mean, we’re talking about practice. Not a game . . .

But lately I’ve been thinking about a different objection to the “always be grinding” mentality in law firm culture: does it actually result in better performance?

I hypothesize that lawyers and other professionals might actually perform at a higher level if they ditch the 110% approach.

To test this hypothesis, I did an experiment.

My scientific experiment

I went to the park to test how far I could kick a soccer ball. But here’s the key: I did it two ways.

First, I thought about kicking the ball as hard as I possibly could.

Second, I relaxed and thought about kicking the ball hard, but not as hard as I could.

To keep it scientific, I repeated the experiment multiple times. I mean, like at least three times.

I don’t even need to tell you what happened.

Yes, of course, I got more distance with the second approach. Maybe not every single time, but definitely most of the time.

The same experiment works with driving a golf ball off the tee. If you play golf at all, you already know this. When you walk up to the tee box thinking “I’m going to smack the crap out of this ball,” the result is almost always bad. Unless you are John Daly. But I digress.

The point is that the experiment illustrates a principle well known to sports psychologists, the “85 Percent Rule.”

The 85 Percent Rule

Here’s what people who coach elite athletes already know. Let’s say you tell a world-class sprinter to run the 100-meter dash at 85% effort. Often that results in a faster time than trying to run at 100% effort.

Now, of course, this isn’t a highly scientific theory, and you can quibble with the details. But that’s not the point.

The point is that athletes often get better results when they don’t try as hard as they possibly can.

What gives? Why is that?

The theory is that when elite athletes concentrate on exerting the maximum possible effort, they tense up, and their performance suffers. When they think about giving 85%, they relax and perform better.

Could the same principle hold true for lawyers, and other professionals?

Anecdotal evidence and my own personal experience suggest the answer may be yes.

Do the most effective lawyers give 110 percent?

Have you ever watched a lawyer in the courtroom who just seems to be trying too hard? It can be hard to watch. They’re going all out to try to persuade the judge or jury to go their way, but instead they just sound desperate, or overly aggressive.

And don’t get me started on law firms over-working a file.

On the other hand, think about the most persuasive lawyers you have seen in action. Did they seem like they were straining to exert themselves as much as humanly possible? Or did they seem relaxed and confident?

You don’t even have to say anything, I already know what the best lawyers are like.

Like a rock.

______________________

Zach Wolfe (zach@zachwolfelaw.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at Zach Wolfe Law Firm (zachwolfelaw.com). Thomson Reuters has named him a Texas Super Lawyer® for Business Litigation every year since 2020.

These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.



Source link