15 ms·
Right. Since urban areas are (in practice) fuzzily-defined, the real economic question is not "What are the rents?" but "What is the best rent/commute/quality-o
by pw0ncakes 17y ago
Right. Since urban areas are (in practice) fuzzily-defined, the real economic question is not "What are the rents?" but "What is the best rent/commute/quality-of-life trade-off available?" The fact that a few neighborhoods are expensive isn't relevant, but the fact that every accessible neighborhood is expensive is a problem.
Defining "reasonable rent" as 30% of after-tax income (which is about the point at which governments should limit rent levels, IMO) and noting that an entry-level job in New York pays about $3500/month after tax, reasonable rent would be $1050 for a starter apartment.
It's not impossible to find a decent apartment for under $1000/month in "the greater New York area", but it is impossible to do so with less than a 30-minute commute.
- look_lookatme 17y agoI don't want to go off-topic but: "Defining "reasonable rent" as 30% of after-tax income (which is about the point at which governments should limit rent levels, IMO)" How on earth would that work?
- pw0ncakes 17y agoMake it illegal to spend more than 30% of one's after-tax income on rent. A fine is assessed to the landlord (and a small token fine of perhaps $50 to the tenant). Now the glut of idiots (and parentally-funded schmucks who currently live in $4000+/month apartments while working unpaid marketing/fashion internships, who would be forced out of the city) willing to destroy their finances in order to live in New York is gone; they're forced by law out of the auction. Our rents are high because we have to compete with these assholes. So let's take them out. Landlords will either lower their rents to reasonable values or accept vacancies.