4 ms·

I don't think the parent poster would disagree with you. What they're saying is that the decreased quality of life for service industry workers hasn't lead to a

• davidw 10y ago
  Growing at 10% instead of 20% is still "a negative effect". "That which is not seen" and all that...
  • twblalock 10y ago
    What evidence is there that growth would increase in the areas with high housing prices if the housing prices were lower?
    • davidw 10y ago
      Less deadweight loss in the form of rent, and more towards people doing productive things is one completely obvious one.
      • twblalock 10y ago
        I asked for evidence, not what seems obvious. I already addressed this in my original post. It seems obvious that the displacement of workers would hurt the economy. However, it does not seem to actually happen -- the cities with the highest housing prices have the highest growth of any cities in the world.
        • davidw 10y ago
          http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154
        • tormeh 10y ago
          I think the causation goes the other way: Cities with high growth get high housing prices because people want to move to cities with high growth.
• twblalock 10y ago
  > What they're saying is that the decreased quality of life for service industry workers hasn't lead to a negative effect on the economy. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. High housing prices don't seem to hurt the economy. Quality of life arguments, whether they are right or wrong, are totally unrelated to that proposition.