3 ms·

Meanwhile using housing as much as an investment vehicle as housing (see London, SF, and numerous other cities) promotes the creation of shortages to drive up r

Meanwhile using housing as much as an investment vehicle as housing (see London, SF, and numerous other cities) promotes the creation of shortages to drive up rents and capital gain. You can't seriously be saying that the housing market is working as intended in places where pushing 70-80% of the wages cannot rent a basic apartment there. The cost of those artificially inflated housing prices are paid for someewhere else in the system. As increased stress and illness, as migrant workers in illegal occupation, as companies unable to fill lower pay roles, as a lack of nurses, teachers and firefighters, as lack of opportunity for their children. You don't have to adopt a socialist perspective to see it's broken right now.

brianwawok 11y ago
Well a sane person should cap housing expenses at 25% of income at most. If you can't afford a place, time to move. If you can't afford anyplace, minimum wage has a problem.
- ebiester 11y ago
  That's the problem. The places that are affordable don't have jobs, and the places that have jobs don't have affordable housing. As soon as a place has jobs, the affordable housing disappears. This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market. This rather sounds like the lack of jobs that allow remote work is the fundamental problem.
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      This is not helping it. I bet 50% of office jobs could be remote. What is the current %, I would guess under 1%.
    - ebiester 11y ago
      Jobs like retail, laundry, hotel service... The jobs at the lower end of the spectrum, in general (ignoring call-center type work), can't be done remotely.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    I hardly think it is this extreme. Switching back to specifically talking about developers (while the above was a more general statement): Look at the pay and housing cost in downtown SF. Now compare pay and housing costs to other places, say Austin, Chicago, Indianapolis, etc. Yes you may make 400k in SF, but I don't think that buys you a lower standard of living. People look at raw $$ too much, and not cost of living when making job decisions. Kind of a natural imbalance in the market.
- jacobush 11y ago
  Yes, housing by income strata is the best and ultimate city planning there is. Keep the proles where we can't see them. I agree with you 100 %.
- baq 11y ago
  that for most people means you have to move far into the suburbs.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    That's like if I said "You shouldn't buy a tesla X if you make under a million bucks a year" and you replied "that for most people means they have to drive a gas powered Jeep". Maybe? But maybe living within your means is more important than a sense of being entitled to live in or drive a specific thing.

brianwawok 11y ago

Well a sane person should cap housing expenses at 25% of income at most. If you can't afford a place, time to move. If you can't afford anyplace, minimum wage has a problem.

ebiester 11y ago
That's the problem. The places that are affordable don't have jobs, and the places that have jobs don't have affordable housing. As soon as a place has jobs, the affordable housing disappears. This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market. This rather sounds like the lack of jobs that allow remote work is the fundamental problem.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    This is not helping it. I bet 50% of office jobs could be remote. What is the current %, I would guess under 1%.
  - ebiester 11y ago
    Jobs like retail, laundry, hotel service... The jobs at the lower end of the spectrum, in general (ignoring call-center type work), can't be done remotely.
- brianwawok 11y ago
  I hardly think it is this extreme. Switching back to specifically talking about developers (while the above was a more general statement): Look at the pay and housing cost in downtown SF. Now compare pay and housing costs to other places, say Austin, Chicago, Indianapolis, etc. Yes you may make 400k in SF, but I don't think that buys you a lower standard of living. People look at raw $$ too much, and not cost of living when making job decisions. Kind of a natural imbalance in the market.
jacobush 11y ago
Yes, housing by income strata is the best and ultimate city planning there is. Keep the proles where we can't see them. I agree with you 100 %.
baq 11y ago
that for most people means you have to move far into the suburbs.
- brianwawok 11y ago
  That's like if I said "You shouldn't buy a tesla X if you make under a million bucks a year" and you replied "that for most people means they have to drive a gas powered Jeep". Maybe? But maybe living within your means is more important than a sense of being entitled to live in or drive a specific thing.