3 ms·

You're being downvoted because your comment doesn't make any sense. To elaborate: > The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital t

You're being downvoted because your comment doesn't make any sense. To elaborate: > The housing crisis is caused by economic inequality concentrating capital to a handful of cities This is a pretty bizarre claim, since by definition a city's housing crisis is a local affair, so what does it have to do with capital being concentrated in a 'handful' of cities? But assuming your claim is that wealth in a city ---> housing shortage, then you need to explain how you make that connection. > Housing costs rise because that's where the money/power/jobs are What does this mean? If you mean that you need money to build housing, then shouldn't capital concentration to a city mean more housing? If you mean that wealthy or powerful people benefit from less housing, show your work. If you're trying to demonstrate the above connection between wealth and housing shortage, there are a plethora of cities with high wealth and no housing shortages (Singapore, Chicago, Budapest, Seoul...) Also, aren't housing costs driven by the same forces that drive the cost of anything else? Namely, supply and demand? > Instead of slapping a bandaid on it by increasing housing If the definition of the housing crisis is 'not enough housing for the people who need homes' then why would "increasing housing" - the literal solution to the crisis - be considered slapping on a bandaid? > which would just lead to further capital concentration and political polarization Again, this makes no sense. If more houses means more wealth concentration, then shouldn't the wealthy want to build more houses? But in your previous comment, you made it sound like the wealthy don't want to build more houses. > we need to address capital concentration This is a altogether different point that you are welcome to argue on your own time but it really has nothing to do with housing shortages unless you want to expound upon the above a little more clearly.

mywittyname 9y ago
The amount of money a household can spend on a mortgage increases drastically as income increases. Because, for the most part, the costs of raising a family doesn't have to increase in proportion to income. What this means is that a family making $100k/yr can spend dramatically more than one making $50k/yr, and making $200k can spend more on housing their the other two families make in a year. In most cities, this plays out by having islands of expensive neighborhoods in desirable areas. And housing decreases proportional to desirability as you get out. The problem in some cities in California is that there are so many extremely wealthy families, that the island of desirability has become so large that there are no affordable housing anywhere close to where the good jobs are, so lower income people are forced to commute for longer and longer. Most other cities do not have the same numbers of extremely wealthy people. But in every city where a large number of disproportionately wealthy people move in, a housing crisis seems to follow. It used to be, living closer to the city meant a compromise in some other area. Maybe you lived in an apartment and took the bus everywhere because you couldn't afford to have a house and a car in the neighborhood you want to be in. But now, people can afford to have a single family home with a garage in areas that really should be limited to large apartments.
- marnett 9y ago
  I most definitely agree with your last paragraph. Living in the urban core of a city should entail complete reliance on taxis, public transit, mopeds, and bicycles. Those in my city who are living downtown, yet willing and able to shell out $300+/month in parking fees shows there is room for more housing instead of parking spots.

mywittyname 9y ago

The amount of money a household can spend on a mortgage increases drastically as income increases. Because, for the most part, the costs of raising a family doesn't have to increase in proportion to income. What this means is that a family making $100k/yr can spend dramatically more than one making $50k/yr, and making $200k can spend more on housing their the other two families make in a year. In most cities, this plays out by having islands of expensive neighborhoods in desirable areas. And housing decreases proportional to desirability as you get out. The problem in some cities in California is that there are so many extremely wealthy families, that the island of desirability has become so large that there are no affordable housing anywhere close to where the good jobs are, so lower income people are forced to commute for longer and longer. Most other cities do not have the same numbers of extremely wealthy people. But in every city where a large number of disproportionately wealthy people move in, a housing crisis seems to follow. It used to be, living closer to the city meant a compromise in some other area. Maybe you lived in an apartment and took the bus everywhere because you couldn't afford to have a house and a car in the neighborhood you want to be in. But now, people can afford to have a single family home with a garage in areas that really should be limited to large apartments.

marnett 9y ago
I most definitely agree with your last paragraph. Living in the urban core of a city should entail complete reliance on taxis, public transit, mopeds, and bicycles. Those in my city who are living downtown, yet willing and able to shell out $300+/month in parking fees shows there is room for more housing instead of parking spots.