4 ms·

lol so unaffordable house prices are the fault of women who feel that they actually want to have a career instead of being a housewife? Oh and immigrants too,

lol so unaffordable house prices are the fault of women who feel that they actually want to have a career instead of being a housewife? Oh and immigrants too, right? Why not blame women for also having babies, that increases demand too, doesn't it?

Bartweiss 9y ago
What? The canonical book on this was written by Elizabeth Warren, it's not exactly a conservative idea. The basic model as she describes it is that since spaces in 'good neighborhoods' and good school districts were fundamentally limited (by space and law), adding a second income to a family did little to increase their wealth - all of the extra earnings were devoted to bidding up a supply-limited resource. Middle class families roughly doubled their earnings but saw almost no benefit for it. There's further evidence for this claim from the left, too. Piketty discusses overall inequality, but Rognlie persuasively argues that much or all of rising inequality in the US is attributable to skyrocketing land/housing costs. This isn't some trad-con claim that women working is a problem, it's a claim that what should have been a massively positive change for families in the middle class and below was consumed by a certain group of rentiers, resulting in more work without more wealth. edit: I missed the word 'all' in the last line of the parent to your comment - I thought it simply said "not the fault of feminism". That... changes things quite a bit. This wasn't an inevitable consequence of women working, and the implication that the proper cure would be women not working is hideous. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
- chongli 9y ago
  This wasn't an inevitable consequence of women working How wasn't it? The supply of housing in family-friendly neighborhoods is limited. Increase every family's disposable income and they'll bid up housing prices. In fact, if you look at the types of jobs women take it's exacerbated even further. The vast majority of women work in cities. Hardly any women work in remote areas. This puts even more upward pressure on home prices in cities. I didn't say the 'proper cure' is for women to not work. I'm glad so many women are able to live with financial Independence today. My comment needs to be read in context with the article. Women who have reached a point of success in their careers but are obviously unhappy due to not 'having it all'. They've been sold a bill of goods. For women, the ability to work has become the necessity to work.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    > The supply of housing in family-friendly neighborhoods is limited. The supply of housing in family-friendly neighborhoods is limited by the # of family-friendly neighborhoods, which in turn is limited by the number of people having families. As more people have families, there are more family-friendly neighborhoods, and so the supply increases.
chongli 9y ago
No, it's the fault of groups. I don't blame individuals of any sort for doing everything they can to improve their lot in life. But when everyone acts in their own interest the collective effect can be negative for all. Read Meditations on Moloch, [0] one of the best essays Scott Alexander has ever written, for a better explanation than I could give here. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Bartweiss 9y ago

What? The canonical book on this was written by Elizabeth Warren, it's not exactly a conservative idea. The basic model as she describes it is that since spaces in 'good neighborhoods' and good school districts were fundamentally limited (by space and law), adding a second income to a family did little to increase their wealth - all of the extra earnings were devoted to bidding up a supply-limited resource. Middle class families roughly doubled their earnings but saw almost no benefit for it. There's further evidence for this claim from the left, too. Piketty discusses overall inequality, but Rognlie persuasively argues that much or all of rising inequality in the US is attributable to skyrocketing land/housing costs. This isn't some trad-con claim that women working is a problem, it's a claim that what should have been a massively positive change for families in the middle class and below was consumed by a certain group of rentiers, resulting in more work without more wealth. edit: I missed the word 'all' in the last line of the parent to your comment - I thought it simply said "not the fault of feminism". That... changes things quite a bit. This wasn't an inevitable consequence of women working, and the implication that the proper cure would be women not working is hideous. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

chongli 9y ago
This wasn't an inevitable consequence of women working How wasn't it? The supply of housing in family-friendly neighborhoods is limited. Increase every family's disposable income and they'll bid up housing prices. In fact, if you look at the types of jobs women take it's exacerbated even further. The vast majority of women work in cities. Hardly any women work in remote areas. This puts even more upward pressure on home prices in cities. I didn't say the 'proper cure' is for women to not work. I'm glad so many women are able to live with financial Independence today. My comment needs to be read in context with the article. Women who have reached a point of success in their careers but are obviously unhappy due to not 'having it all'. They've been sold a bill of goods. For women, the ability to work has become the necessity to work.
- mcphage 9y ago
  > The supply of housing in family-friendly neighborhoods is limited. The supply of housing in family-friendly neighborhoods is limited by the # of family-friendly neighborhoods, which in turn is limited by the number of people having families. As more people have families, there are more family-friendly neighborhoods, and so the supply increases.

chongli 9y ago

No, it's the fault of groups. I don't blame individuals of any sort for doing everything they can to improve their lot in life. But when everyone acts in their own interest the collective effect can be negative for all. Read Meditations on Moloch, [0] one of the best essays Scott Alexander has ever written, for a better explanation than I could give here. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/