5 ms·

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the

by Joe8Bit 11y ago

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents). Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford and wouldn't detrimentally affect their lives. I can speak from experience in London, poor communities have NO WHERE to move if an area is gentrified and they are forced out. Prices are city wide too high, gentrification has left no where 'cheap'. What that means is moving further from central London, which means moving further away from the main source of work and increasing expense of travel. Which all in turn means an even greater slip into poverty.

cbeach 11y ago
Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide. If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they need.
- UVB-76 11y ago
  The situation in London is complicated by a large influx of workers from elsewhere in the EU, who are willing to live in sub-standard conditions (many to a room, sharing beds, sheds in back gardens, etc.) and work for minimum wage, or even less. Some larger employers pay a "living wage" on principle, but nobody feels the need to raise wages for unskilled workers for lack of supply.
  - switch007 11y ago
    This is a very salient point about London. It's not widely known about just how squalid and cramped the living conditions are — though just ask any recently arrived migrant. It is not as black and white as poor people living in zones 3-9 and rich people living in 1-3.
- Joe8Bit 11y ago
  In a theoretically perfect economic market you're right, but there is little if any evidence to suggest there is a causal link between economic displacement and wage growth. In fact wage growth at the low end has stagnated in London[0] despite the advancing economic displacement of it's low paid workers[1]. [0]: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Economy%20Committee%20Fair%20Pay%2011%20Feb%2014.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Economy%20Comm... [1]: http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/low-pay/ http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/lo...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- branchless 11y ago
  Those doing the high-paid "work" are often those abusing state granted powers to issue credit. They say to the poor "pledge more of your working life to me in exchange for the right to exist or I will banish you". There is no relationship between value added and money gained in London.
  - cbeach 11y ago
    If you don't understand the benefit to society of mortgages and business loans, this really isn't the forum for you.
    - branchless 11y ago
      I understand the benefit of credit but not loose credit. If you don't understand 2008 being a problem then this isn't the planet for you. I also like water but understand I can drown in it.
      - cbeach 11y ago
        The problem in 2008 was that credit dried up! Remember? The "credit crunch"? A lack of available credit? Which ground the economy to a halt? #facepalm
        branchless 11y ago
        I'm afraid you are looking at the problem from the wrong end. You are looking at an event and associating it with the immediate result. Banks lost trust in each other and stopped lending because they knew many were going to fail due to over-issuance of credit leaving them far too leveraged. Citigroup head: whilst the music is playing we keep dancing. Your use of twitter hashtag in this debate seems very young. When you fall off a building it's only the last second that is a problem. Your solution is to keep digging a hole faster than terminal velocity. Mine is to not jump off the building.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Housing would be cheaper if they built more of it. Rents in Seattle actually declined this year.
- Joe8Bit 11y ago
  Broadly speaking you're right, but in London in particular housing stock growth has been significant in the last 10 years but it has had consequently little effect on housing price deflation[0]. There are many theories as to why that is, but a personal pet one is that London is lacking in housing stock across the market and as such it is economically more viable to build at the middle and top end of the market where profits are higher than at the low end. When this is combined with a record low investment in local government social housing in London you get London's extreme housing market e.g. demand is high, but supply has all gravitated to the place where returns are highest [0]: http://data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/ http://data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/
  - ido 11y ago
    Very dense residential areas still seem rare in London, compared to other cities of comparable size (it has lower population density than e.g. NYC, Paris, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo...)
    - Joe8Bit 11y ago
      Completely agree. London really needs to embrace 'up' as a viable building solution. Apparently, a lot of it has to do with some archaic laws surrounding building in London, the 'Protected Views' one is of particular note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view
- seibelj 11y ago
  No idea why you are being downvoted. Supply and demand, this is Economics 101. I have made the same arguments about SF and people downvote me too. The #1 way to decrease rent is to build more supply. If there was double the apartments in SF, the rent would not be as high.

by Joe8Bit 11y ago

cbeach 11y ago

Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide. If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they need.

UVB-76 11y ago
The situation in London is complicated by a large influx of workers from elsewhere in the EU, who are willing to live in sub-standard conditions (many to a room, sharing beds, sheds in back gardens, etc.) and work for minimum wage, or even less. Some larger employers pay a "living wage" on principle, but nobody feels the need to raise wages for unskilled workers for lack of supply.
- switch007 11y ago
  This is a very salient point about London. It's not widely known about just how squalid and cramped the living conditions are — though just ask any recently arrived migrant. It is not as black and white as poor people living in zones 3-9 and rich people living in 1-3.
Joe8Bit 11y ago
In a theoretically perfect economic market you're right, but there is little if any evidence to suggest there is a causal link between economic displacement and wage growth. In fact wage growth at the low end has stagnated in London[0] despite the advancing economic displacement of it's low paid workers[1]. [0]: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Economy%20Committee%20Fair%20Pay%2011%20Feb%2014.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Economy%20Comm... [1]: http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/low-pay/ http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/lo...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
branchless 11y ago
Those doing the high-paid "work" are often those abusing state granted powers to issue credit. They say to the poor "pledge more of your working life to me in exchange for the right to exist or I will banish you". There is no relationship between value added and money gained in London.
- cbeach 11y ago
  If you don't understand the benefit to society of mortgages and business loans, this really isn't the forum for you.
  - branchless 11y ago
    I understand the benefit of credit but not loose credit. If you don't understand 2008 being a problem then this isn't the planet for you. I also like water but understand I can drown in it.
    - cbeach 11y ago
      The problem in 2008 was that credit dried up! Remember? The "credit crunch"? A lack of available credit? Which ground the economy to a halt? #facepalm
      - branchless 11y ago
        I'm afraid you are looking at the problem from the wrong end. You are looking at an event and associating it with the immediate result. Banks lost trust in each other and stopped lending because they knew many were going to fail due to over-issuance of credit leaving them far too leveraged. Citigroup head: whilst the music is playing we keep dancing. Your use of twitter hashtag in this debate seems very young. When you fall off a building it's only the last second that is a problem. Your solution is to keep digging a hole faster than terminal velocity. Mine is to not jump off the building.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Housing would be cheaper if they built more of it. Rents in Seattle actually declined this year.

Joe8Bit 11y ago
Broadly speaking you're right, but in London in particular housing stock growth has been significant in the last 10 years but it has had consequently little effect on housing price deflation[0]. There are many theories as to why that is, but a personal pet one is that London is lacking in housing stock across the market and as such it is economically more viable to build at the middle and top end of the market where profits are higher than at the low end. When this is combined with a record low investment in local government social housing in London you get London's extreme housing market e.g. demand is high, but supply has all gravitated to the place where returns are highest [0]: http://data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/ http://data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/
- ido 11y ago
  Very dense residential areas still seem rare in London, compared to other cities of comparable size (it has lower population density than e.g. NYC, Paris, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo...)
  - Joe8Bit 11y ago
    Completely agree. London really needs to embrace 'up' as a viable building solution. Apparently, a lot of it has to do with some archaic laws surrounding building in London, the 'Protected Views' one is of particular note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view
seibelj 11y ago
No idea why you are being downvoted. Supply and demand, this is Economics 101. I have made the same arguments about SF and people downvote me too. The #1 way to decrease rent is to build more supply. If there was double the apartments in SF, the rent would not be as high.