4 ms·
In the US, Texas is one of the places with the best employment prospects, and it also has a fairly low cost of living. We spend so much money subsidizing dying
by natrius 17y ago
In the US, Texas is one of the places with the best employment prospects, and it also has a fairly low cost of living. We spend so much money subsidizing dying Rust Belt cities and expensive housing in coastal cities, when there are plenty of people who should really move to places where they can get better jobs and pay lower costs.
Moving is a socially expensive act, but we shouldn't subsidize staying in place much more than we subsidize moving to a more economically reasonable area.
- starkfist 17y agoWe spend a lot of money subsidizing expensive housing in coastal cities? How do I get in on these subsidies?
- natrius 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) EDIT: Since I'm getting downmodded, maybe I wasn't clear. We spend a lot of money subsidizing housing for people with low incomes in coastal cities. It would cost less money to provide similar housing in other cities, and since some of those cities have better job markets, they might not need those subsidies at all. Since they currently get subsidies, there is little incentive to move. Subsidizing moving to areas with better economies as well as subsidizing housing would be a better approach.
- defen 17y agoI don't know if it counts exactly as a subsidy, but in some big cities, growth is artificially constrained by "Urban Growth Boundaries". These ordinances reduce the amount of available land for building, and hence inflate real estate prices above what they "should" be by artificially reducing supply. Check out Portland for an example of this. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing against UGB's - I don't think anyone has developed an alternative besides endless suburban sprawl, or naturally restricted land area, as in San Francisco or Manhattan.
- netcan 17y agoYou're right in some sense. It is problematic if we start subsidising people to stay in wealthy/expensive areas, but the alternative also have snags. I think your Texas exampls is a bit of a red herring. As a general principle employment, housing costs & affluence come together. Also, there is a big difference between moving in a planned way to take advantage of lower costs or better employment prospects and being driven there in desperation with nothing in your pocket. The latter can lead to longer term unemployment.
- bretpiatt 17y agoI live in San Antonio and it isn't a red herring. You can rent in a nice area of San Antonio for $399-$500/month which would leave her plenty of money to get a used car even with poor credit. (Example property: http://bit.ly/c5pJQb http://bit.ly/c5pJQb ) As of December 2009 numbers San Antonio is 3rd in the nation with only a 6.8% unemployment rate. ( http://www.bls.gov/web/laulrgma.htm http://www.bls.gov/web/laulrgma.htm ) After living here for a year if she still can't find work as a Texas resident community college is almost free. People get to a point where they're afraid to do anything. It isn't that they don't want to improve their life but the stress of the situation shuts them down and they can't act. This isn't something easy to fix.
- netcan 17y agoI didn't mean that it was untrue, just that it's not indicative of a wider reality.
- natrius 17y agoHow is Texas a red herring? http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/10/cities-buck-economy-forbeslife-cx_ab_1010realestate.html http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/10/cities-buck-economy-forbesl... Summary: Texas cities are among those with the best employment outlooks, and are among those where median incomes support a higher standard of living. EDIT: I read your other reply now. There is a spectrum of income to cost of living ratios across the country. We should encourage people who can't afford their current location to move to places with better ratios.