3 ms·
That's the cost of being economically successful. That's because there is more competition for workers which drives up salaries, and for living spaces which dri
by nyokodo 9y ago
That's the cost of being economically successful. That's because there is more competition for workers which drives up salaries, and for living spaces which drives up their cost. So even if you don't work for Amazon you're likely to benefit from the more competitive marketplace.
- vkou 9y ago> That's the cost of being economically successful. This is a cost disproportionately borne by low-income renters currently living in a city. If they have a choice, why should they pay it? > That's because there is more competition for workers which drives up salaries, and for living spaces which drives up their cost. Amazon workers will always outbid locals for housing. Unless 50,000 housing units will be built in the next few years (Contrary to the interests of property owners), this will reduce the quality of life for people not working for Amazon. They'll get to enjoy higher rents, longer commutes, and smaller disposable incomes. People getting gentrified out where they live rarely benefit from the more competitive marketplace, or from coffee shops selling $14 avocado toast. Adding jobs to an economically depressed area, with a surplus of housing benefits most people living in it. Adding jobs to an economically vibrant area, with a shortage of housing harms most people living in it. An Amazon office in Detroit would be great for the city. An Amazon office in San Francisco... Not so much. Disclaimer: I don't live in Philadelphia, so I don't know where it is on the spectrii of 'economically vibrant' and 'housing shortage.'
- benwilber0 9y agoI'm not seeing the point that you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that Philadelphia (or any major metropolis) would not benefit from the sudden windfall infusion of 50,000+ high-paying jobs? I think every small business owner in Philly is probably drooling at the prospect of Amazon dumping tens of thousands of people with disposable incomes at their front door.
- KidComputer 9y agoSmall business owners are definitely not drooling at that prospect. They usually have very slim margins and their rent will sky rocket as the landlords get greedy. Only a select few will remain usually due to being hip local places that already have high foot traffic that can successful raise the prices of their 'famous' cheesesteaks or opening the property. But for the average small business owner running the typical depressed looking establishment they'll see their repeat customers disappear one by one. They won't have the necessary capital to reinvigorate their image or pay their tremendously higher rent when the landlord decides they want to attract Starbucks to that location. Look at Bleeker street, the lower east side, Chinatown, the east village all in NYC. All places I've seen personally change rapidly over the years. I've talked to many owners, the story is always the same, we're being forced out of our lease. Being in tech I'm certainly part of the problem. And to be honest most of the new places that come in, particularly restaurants, are often better than what was there before. But let's not say the existing small business owners are drooling, they're almost certainly filled with dread at the prospect.
- ashelmire 9y agoPhilly is economically vibrant and has an affordable housing shortage (although with the number of units currently being built, this might change in a year). The closer you are to jobs, the less affordable. Wages here are depressed compared to other US cities, however.