> Would wood prices be higher if timber sales were not subsidized?
I cannot find anybody who does not say "yes" to the above. Or profits
would be lower, the other possibility.
> If wood prices are higher, then house prices are higher.
Can't tell if you think this is good or bad or just a statement.
In my area, labor costs are far and away the biggest determinant of
construction costs. Also, I have observed that, if wood prices
increase, the result in the housing market is the substitution of
progressively crappier materials to keep the price the same. People who
have been in construction for decades are now reporting putting new
roofs (including structural) on buildings less than ten years old.
Largly this is due to materials, but sub-standard workmanship is also
rampant. All the quality is hidden from view, and the typical new home
buyer knows very little about it, so cannot make any choice on the basis
of quality. I would not buy a new home in my town if it were on the
clearance rack.
> Housebuilding employs a
> large workforce.
Maybe. I suspect that repairing and converting existing buildings would
actually employ more people and use substantially less materials to get
the same square footage as new construction. But again, the gains would
be decentralized, and the deck is stacked against that kind of option.
> Houses being built are way too big but until our society
> changes its values we will continue to see the presently popular mansion
> houses.
Is saying that houses are way too big equivalent to saying that new
construction is way too cheap, with many subsidies permitting
perpetuating this arrangement?
> >I'm enjoying this discussion and learning from it, but I'm not sure if
> >anyone else is very interested. I'd be glad to carry it on off list.
>
> I am learning and hope you will continue.
The topic seems entirely appropriate the the list title.
Loren Muldowney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
