4 ms·

Consider what would happen if you were a high-income tech worker looking to move to San Francisco. If there was a nice new apartment available, you might rent

Consider what would happen if you were a high-income tech worker looking to move to San Francisco. If there was a nice new apartment available, you might rent it. But if there wasn't, you would have to settle for an older apartment, which puts you into direct competition with poorer people over housing stock. This is what is happening in San Francisco now -- high-income people are bidding up the prices of older apartments, many of which are pretty crappy, because the supply of new apartments is pretty small. This is how the city ended up with 70-year-old crappy apartments renting for more than $3000 per month. If San Francisco built lots of new luxury apartments, the rich newcomers would live in them, and leave the older apartments available for the people who can't afford to pay more.

maxerickson 10y ago
That's the story. It doesn't answer the question though, which requires information about whether the high end supply actually matches up with the demand. For instance, this article has someone stating they believe the Bay Area isn't permitting nearly enough housing: http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay-Area-building-boom-may-not-end-housing-7223711.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay-Are... So the wealthy move into the new housing and are replaced in the old housing by the slightly less wealthy rather than anyone reasonably described as poorer.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > rather than anyone reasonably described as poorer. This doesn't make sense. They are poorer than the wealthy. There is still no justification why increasing supply leads to increased costs.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Say the annual income of the person renting a place goes from $300,000 to $280,000. The one with lower income isn't in any way poor.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > The one with lower income isn't in any way poor. The word used was "poorer". The one with lower income is "poorer"
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Sure, I said reasonably described as poorer. I don't think it's reasonable to describe a household in the top decile as poorer. They are less wealthy. Saying they are poorer carries the vague implication that the parties involved are poor, it's a poor word choice.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > I don't think it's reasonable to describe a household in the top decile as poorer. Virtually anybody who lives in the United States cannot be described as "poorer" by your definition, as we're almost all richer than 95% of the world's population. It's a great word choice - you're just arguing your personal preferences and vauge implications right now. People are poorer than other people, other than Bill Gates. Since we're talking about housing prices in inflated markets right now, there's a huge difference between an engineer making 160k a year vs a director making 400k a year. The engineer is "poorer". > it's a poor word choice. Don't you mean it's a less wealthy word choice, since it's in the top decile of words that are appropriate to use in that situation?

maxerickson 10y ago

That's the story. It doesn't answer the question though, which requires information about whether the high end supply actually matches up with the demand. For instance, this article has someone stating they believe the Bay Area isn't permitting nearly enough housing: http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay-Area-building-boom-may-not-end-housing-7223711.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay-Are... So the wealthy move into the new housing and are replaced in the old housing by the slightly less wealthy rather than anyone reasonably described as poorer.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> rather than anyone reasonably described as poorer. This doesn't make sense. They are poorer than the wealthy. There is still no justification why increasing supply leads to increased costs.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Say the annual income of the person renting a place goes from $300,000 to $280,000. The one with lower income isn't in any way poor.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > The one with lower income isn't in any way poor. The word used was "poorer". The one with lower income is "poorer"
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Sure, I said reasonably described as poorer. I don't think it's reasonable to describe a household in the top decile as poorer. They are less wealthy. Saying they are poorer carries the vague implication that the parties involved are poor, it's a poor word choice.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > I don't think it's reasonable to describe a household in the top decile as poorer. Virtually anybody who lives in the United States cannot be described as "poorer" by your definition, as we're almost all richer than 95% of the world's population. It's a great word choice - you're just arguing your personal preferences and vauge implications right now. People are poorer than other people, other than Bill Gates. Since we're talking about housing prices in inflated markets right now, there's a huge difference between an engineer making 160k a year vs a director making 400k a year. The engineer is "poorer". > it's a poor word choice. Don't you mean it's a less wealthy word choice, since it's in the top decile of words that are appropriate to use in that situation?