3 ms·

> it keeps my house value up On a regular working man's salary my grandfather could rent a house on a pristine, practically undeveloped beach for a month a sum

> it keeps my house value up On a regular working man's salary my grandfather could rent a house on a pristine, practically undeveloped beach for a month a summer a short drive from a major east coast city. You are arguing it's a good thing that population growth has made this no longer possible.

randallsquared 17y ago
You still can for most east coast cities. Probably less so in the northeast, though even there, southeastern Delaware is only about five hours from NYC, which is fine if you're going for a month, or every weekend for a month. A bigger issue for that scenario would be that most people don't get a whole month off in the summer.
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  > most people don't get a whole month off in the summer This is directly related to the population and labor supply issue. I call hooey on your claim it's still possible. Quintupling the drive and substituting for nice house right on the beach a condo on a densely developed block is not what I'm talking about. There are barely any beaches that aren't over-developed on the entire east coast, anyway.
  - astine 17y ago
    This is directly related to the population and labor supply issue. No it's not. The American 'working class' never really got a whole month off in the summer. You are idealizing a non-existent past.
    - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
      They worked much less, for sure. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/03/SWA08_Chapter3_Wages_r2_Table-3.2.jpg http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/03/SWA08_Ch... And this ignores that one income supported a stay at home wife.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Quintupling the drive? I guess "short" means a hour, for you. That is, a slightly longer than normal commute, for my co-workers. Are there beach houses even within an hour of most east coast cities at all? Atlanta is a major east coast city, and is over three hours from the coast. I live near DC, and I'm not sure I could even get to a beach in an hour or less. I expect the same goes for Philly, and having lived on the beach and worked in Orlando, I can assure you my commute was longer than an hour for that major east coast city, too. :) I guess what you really meant was that your mythical working class man could afford a condo in a skyscraper on the beach, since that's what would be within an hour.
ggrot 17y ago
Is this the key criteria to optimize for?
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  You are missing the general point about quality of life and cost of living. Also, I might add, about income inequality. Conveniently located housing or easy access to nature is now more something for the rich where-as it used to be for everyone.
  - petercooper 17y ago
    Only in relatively small areas that have other desirable properties - such as low crime, diverse populations, entertainment or culture.. such as swathes of western Europe, and blotches across the US with a focus on the coasts. Housing is cheap and conveniently located for purpose in, say, Nebraska - and even the poor have easy access to nature. Same applies to the majority of the Canada, Africa, or Asia land masses.
    - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
      I'm not sure what convenient means to you, but I'm thinking it means near jobs and culture.
      - petercooper 17y ago
        The only places that there are jobs and "culture" are within an hour of major metropolitan centers? Where there are no jobs (or means of production), there are no people. There are plenty of people conducting business and making livings even in deepest Nebraska, Wyoming, Africa, Canada, or wherever. You seem to be attaching special importance to the types of jobs and "culture" that massive congregations of people produce, while complaining that the number of people in those locations is too high ;-)
petercooper 17y ago
on a pristine, practically undeveloped beach In your grandfather's time - let's assume 50 years ago - living in such a place wouldn't even be comparable to now. Most likely no convenient place to buy groceries, poor communications, poor amenities generally. The value of that land is significantly improved now - not just because of evil moneygrabbing property owners like myself, but because it's significant better to live in remote places thanks to modern technology, so it's under heavier demand. I could argue that in your grandfather's time, you could have bought land at bargain rates in Orlando or Las Vegas whereas now the prices suck.. but it's not comparing two compatible realities.
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  > Most likely no convenient place to buy groceries, poor communications, poor amenities generally. Incorrect on all points. We're not talking about a remote place. We're talking about a one hour drive from a major city. Come off it. A spacious and fairly pristine spot on the beach was once affordable. Such a spot would now be worth millions because of overpopulation. There is no interesting twist to do with technology. I'll also add the fish and crabs were plentiful, where now they are quite scarce.
  - blueben 17y ago
    Are you making the argument that the world is worse off because you have to share?
- blhack 17y ago
  I disagree. People populate areas and the technology follows them, not the other way around. One example of this is a place my family has vacationed since I was an infant: Crosslake, MN. Crosslake started as a small, sleepy fishing town with gorgeous views, nice people, lots of fish, and lots of wilderness--basically heaven for a Minnesotan. Because it was heaven, people started moving there in droves and drove the property prices to absolutely absurd levels. It went from a place where your grandfather might own a little fishing cabin, to a place littered with multi-million dollar estates that have $250,000+ boats parked in front of them. This had nothing to do with technology. Only recently (within the last decade or so) has the town started getting "modern". This didn't prevent people from flocking there.
pfedor 17y ago
Would your grandfather have been able to retire if not for the population growth?

randallsquared 17y ago

You still can for most east coast cities. Probably less so in the northeast, though even there, southeastern Delaware is only about five hours from NYC, which is fine if you're going for a month, or every weekend for a month. A bigger issue for that scenario would be that most people don't get a whole month off in the summer.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
> most people don't get a whole month off in the summer This is directly related to the population and labor supply issue. I call hooey on your claim it's still possible. Quintupling the drive and substituting for nice house right on the beach a condo on a densely developed block is not what I'm talking about. There are barely any beaches that aren't over-developed on the entire east coast, anyway.
- astine 17y ago
  This is directly related to the population and labor supply issue. No it's not. The American 'working class' never really got a whole month off in the summer. You are idealizing a non-existent past.
  - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
    They worked much less, for sure. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/03/SWA08_Chapter3_Wages_r2_Table-3.2.jpg http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/03/SWA08_Ch... And this ignores that one income supported a stay at home wife.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Quintupling the drive? I guess "short" means a hour, for you. That is, a slightly longer than normal commute, for my co-workers. Are there beach houses even within an hour of most east coast cities at all? Atlanta is a major east coast city, and is over three hours from the coast. I live near DC, and I'm not sure I could even get to a beach in an hour or less. I expect the same goes for Philly, and having lived on the beach and worked in Orlando, I can assure you my commute was longer than an hour for that major east coast city, too. :) I guess what you really meant was that your mythical working class man could afford a condo in a skyscraper on the beach, since that's what would be within an hour.

ggrot 17y ago

Is this the key criteria to optimize for?

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
You are missing the general point about quality of life and cost of living. Also, I might add, about income inequality. Conveniently located housing or easy access to nature is now more something for the rich where-as it used to be for everyone.
- petercooper 17y ago
  Only in relatively small areas that have other desirable properties - such as low crime, diverse populations, entertainment or culture.. such as swathes of western Europe, and blotches across the US with a focus on the coasts. Housing is cheap and conveniently located for purpose in, say, Nebraska - and even the poor have easy access to nature. Same applies to the majority of the Canada, Africa, or Asia land masses.
  - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
    I'm not sure what convenient means to you, but I'm thinking it means near jobs and culture.
    - petercooper 17y ago
      The only places that there are jobs and "culture" are within an hour of major metropolitan centers? Where there are no jobs (or means of production), there are no people. There are plenty of people conducting business and making livings even in deepest Nebraska, Wyoming, Africa, Canada, or wherever. You seem to be attaching special importance to the types of jobs and "culture" that massive congregations of people produce, while complaining that the number of people in those locations is too high ;-)

petercooper 17y ago

on a pristine, practically undeveloped beach In your grandfather's time - let's assume 50 years ago - living in such a place wouldn't even be comparable to now. Most likely no convenient place to buy groceries, poor communications, poor amenities generally. The value of that land is significantly improved now - not just because of evil moneygrabbing property owners like myself, but because it's significant better to live in remote places thanks to modern technology, so it's under heavier demand. I could argue that in your grandfather's time, you could have bought land at bargain rates in Orlando or Las Vegas whereas now the prices suck.. but it's not comparing two compatible realities.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
> Most likely no convenient place to buy groceries, poor communications, poor amenities generally. Incorrect on all points. We're not talking about a remote place. We're talking about a one hour drive from a major city. Come off it. A spacious and fairly pristine spot on the beach was once affordable. Such a spot would now be worth millions because of overpopulation. There is no interesting twist to do with technology. I'll also add the fish and crabs were plentiful, where now they are quite scarce.
- blueben 17y ago
  Are you making the argument that the world is worse off because you have to share?
blhack 17y ago
I disagree. People populate areas and the technology follows them, not the other way around. One example of this is a place my family has vacationed since I was an infant: Crosslake, MN. Crosslake started as a small, sleepy fishing town with gorgeous views, nice people, lots of fish, and lots of wilderness--basically heaven for a Minnesotan. Because it was heaven, people started moving there in droves and drove the property prices to absolutely absurd levels. It went from a place where your grandfather might own a little fishing cabin, to a place littered with multi-million dollar estates that have $250,000+ boats parked in front of them. This had nothing to do with technology. Only recently (within the last decade or so) has the town started getting "modern". This didn't prevent people from flocking there.

pfedor 17y ago

Would your grandfather have been able to retire if not for the population growth?