3 ms·

It's one thing if your community is dying economically. It's a different story if your area is doing great economically, but housing is so restricted that only

It's one thing if your community is dying economically. It's a different story if your area is doing great economically, but housing is so restricted that only a narrow subset of people can live there. Especially since government (via zoning) is creating the artificial scarcity in the first place.

maherbeg 10y ago
This is so true. The flip side of "let small towns die" is "let big cities thrive".
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Only if the big cities have enough untapped jobs that let new residents thrive.
  - adventured 10y ago
    Cities usually significantly outperform when it comes to unemployment: http://i.imgur.com/lPB3R7m.jpg http://i.imgur.com/lPB3R7m.jpg
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      That's fine, but it doesn't really address my point. To put it in different terms... imagine a city has 1 million jobs that pay a livable wage, and you increase the city's working age population by 2 million. Even if cities are more efficient at creating new opportunities than rural areas, that does nothing to address the shortfall in the job market in the short to medium term. Also, rapidly increasing the population size of a city tends to push up the price of accommodation faster than an increase in wages, which reduces the pool of available livable wage jobs. In short, rapidly increasing the population size of a city without the job market already set to support it isn't likely to lead to economic stability.
      - surfmike 10y ago
        Those jobs get created incredibly quickly, and often the only factor in preventing them from being living wage jobs is accommodation costs. So cities should be prepared for allowing accommodation to be built quickly too instead of adding too much delay and restrictions.
therpe1 10y ago
This idea that government is responsible for the scarcity of housing is dishonest. It's called democracy. The government is made up of the people who live there. The citizens of San Francisco (and to some extent, New York and Boston) have made it pretty clear they don't want a lot of new housing and they're quite happy with the way things are now. Given this, blaming the housing prices on "the government" is pretty silly, isn't it?

maherbeg 10y ago

This is so true. The flip side of "let small towns die" is "let big cities thrive".

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Only if the big cities have enough untapped jobs that let new residents thrive.
- adventured 10y ago
  Cities usually significantly outperform when it comes to unemployment: http://i.imgur.com/lPB3R7m.jpg http://i.imgur.com/lPB3R7m.jpg
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    That's fine, but it doesn't really address my point. To put it in different terms... imagine a city has 1 million jobs that pay a livable wage, and you increase the city's working age population by 2 million. Even if cities are more efficient at creating new opportunities than rural areas, that does nothing to address the shortfall in the job market in the short to medium term. Also, rapidly increasing the population size of a city tends to push up the price of accommodation faster than an increase in wages, which reduces the pool of available livable wage jobs. In short, rapidly increasing the population size of a city without the job market already set to support it isn't likely to lead to economic stability.
    - surfmike 10y ago
      Those jobs get created incredibly quickly, and often the only factor in preventing them from being living wage jobs is accommodation costs. So cities should be prepared for allowing accommodation to be built quickly too instead of adding too much delay and restrictions.

therpe1 10y ago

This idea that government is responsible for the scarcity of housing is dishonest. It's called democracy. The government is made up of the people who live there. The citizens of San Francisco (and to some extent, New York and Boston) have made it pretty clear they don't want a lot of new housing and they're quite happy with the way things are now. Given this, blaming the housing prices on "the government" is pretty silly, isn't it?