3 ms·
This is good, except that I oppose subsidies for "below market rate housing". If workers are needed in an area, businesses will eventually need to pay them mor
by epicureanideal 10y ago
This is good, except that I oppose subsidies for "below market rate housing". If workers are needed in an area, businesses will eventually need to pay them more. Subsidizing their housing is a backdoor subsidy to the business owners who don't need to pay their workers enough to deal with living in the Bay Area.
- abalone 10y agoThat's not an unreasonable perspective but you didn't go far enough. If business owners were to pay workers enough to live at market rates in San Francisco, what would the effect on prices be? How much would a restaurant meal cost? Then, once prices resettle at $50/entree, how appealing a city would SF be? Note: Paul Graham recently spoke on how important affordable restaurants are to creating startup hubs![1] That's macroeconomics for you. [1] http://paulgraham.com/pgh.html http://paulgraham.com/pgh.html
- bbcbasic 10y ago> If workers are needed in an area, businesses will eventually need to pay them more. To me this is a sensible solution. Let the city start to suck a bit (expensive or closed restaurants for example) and then other cities can share the burden of being go-to places to live. > Subsidizing their housing is a backdoor subsidy to the business owners who don't need to pay their workers enough to deal with living in the Bay Area. Not to mention subsidizing the property investors, and driving up demand.