3 ms·

I'm not sure where you live, but right now on HN's front page there's a post about the housing bubble in Toronto and the 100k vacant homes in Paris. So what yo

I'm not sure where you live, but right now on HN's front page there's a post about the housing bubble in Toronto and the 100k vacant homes in Paris. So what you say may be true where you live but it is not the case elsewhere. Many people pay more than they were willing to or have to share their place to be able to pay rent. When the choice is between paying more than you were willing to or not having a place to live, you don't really have a choice.

Y_Y 10y ago
I agree with your sentiment but not your language. Nobody pays "more than they're willing to" in economic terms. They have the choice to not pay rent and be homeless, and the price they pay in rent reflects their desire not to do that. But I'll agree that most people pay more than they'd like, more than is sensible and more than is fair.
- caryhartline 10y ago
  People can also "choose" no to pay for food and eventually die of hunger. To describe paying for basics like its a choice is highly insulting to those who cannot afford those basics.
  - conanbatt 10y ago
    With the same morality it would be highly insulting to those who cant get food to worry about taxing properties in the city so middle-class have better access to them. But even more, it would be more practical to understand why are people paying such high rents, not only because of housing supply, but because of the concentration of work in the cities, once again, making it way more sustainable to live in a city than in the country side.
  - Y_Y 10y ago
    It's an economic model. If you're starving you'll choose to spend all your money on food and none of it on rent. And you'll choose to buy the cheapest food. Incidentally I don't believe it helps for you to get offended on behalf of the starving.
darawk 10y ago
> I'm not sure where you live, but right now on HN's front page there's a post about the housing bubble in Toronto and the 100k vacant homes in Paris. So what you say may be true where you live but it is not the case elsewhere. I live in Los Angeles, and rents here are certainly higher than i'd prefer. Not as high as some places, but much higher than most. But where I live doesn't really matter. What matters is that this is still a simple question of supply and demand. The fact that the real estate market has globalized has allowed these properties to get closer to their 'true value'. The true value of living in one of the most bustling, dynamic economies of the world turns out to be quite high. And that is a price that unfortunately most people can't afford. For some reason people tend to view this as an affront to human rights. We don't view it as a violation of human rights when someone can't afford a Ferrari, but we do when they can't live in San Francisco. But at a fundamental level, your cities like San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, etc..are the Ferrari's of cities. They are luxury products and life in them is priced accordingly. > Many people pay more than they were willing to or have to share their place to be able to pay rent. When the choice is between paying more than you were willing to or not having a place to live, you don't really have a choice. It isn't a choice between paying more or not living though. It's a choice between paying more and not living where you want to live. As I previously mentioned, it's also an issue of artificially constrained supply due to the political and social influence of existing property owners, which is indeed a huge problem.

Y_Y 10y ago

I agree with your sentiment but not your language. Nobody pays "more than they're willing to" in economic terms. They have the choice to not pay rent and be homeless, and the price they pay in rent reflects their desire not to do that. But I'll agree that most people pay more than they'd like, more than is sensible and more than is fair.

caryhartline 10y ago
People can also "choose" no to pay for food and eventually die of hunger. To describe paying for basics like its a choice is highly insulting to those who cannot afford those basics.
- conanbatt 10y ago
  With the same morality it would be highly insulting to those who cant get food to worry about taxing properties in the city so middle-class have better access to them. But even more, it would be more practical to understand why are people paying such high rents, not only because of housing supply, but because of the concentration of work in the cities, once again, making it way more sustainable to live in a city than in the country side.
- Y_Y 10y ago
  It's an economic model. If you're starving you'll choose to spend all your money on food and none of it on rent. And you'll choose to buy the cheapest food. Incidentally I don't believe it helps for you to get offended on behalf of the starving.

darawk 10y ago

> I'm not sure where you live, but right now on HN's front page there's a post about the housing bubble in Toronto and the 100k vacant homes in Paris. So what you say may be true where you live but it is not the case elsewhere. I live in Los Angeles, and rents here are certainly higher than i'd prefer. Not as high as some places, but much higher than most. But where I live doesn't really matter. What matters is that this is still a simple question of supply and demand. The fact that the real estate market has globalized has allowed these properties to get closer to their 'true value'. The true value of living in one of the most bustling, dynamic economies of the world turns out to be quite high. And that is a price that unfortunately most people can't afford. For some reason people tend to view this as an affront to human rights. We don't view it as a violation of human rights when someone can't afford a Ferrari, but we do when they can't live in San Francisco. But at a fundamental level, your cities like San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, etc..are the Ferrari's of cities. They are luxury products and life in them is priced accordingly. > Many people pay more than they were willing to or have to share their place to be able to pay rent. When the choice is between paying more than you were willing to or not having a place to live, you don't really have a choice. It isn't a choice between paying more or not living though. It's a choice between paying more and not living where you want to live. As I previously mentioned, it's also an issue of artificially constrained supply due to the political and social influence of existing property owners, which is indeed a huge problem.