3 ms·
> The idea that all workers in an economy should be able to afford their housing is not saying everybody should get to live in the most expensive place. But t
by mozumder 9y ago
> The idea that all workers in an economy should be able to afford their housing is not saying everybody should get to live in the most expensive place.
But this is exactly what's happening. Look at the discussion here, and you'll see people pushing for high-rises.
Should high-rises be placed wherever there's demand? Or is it OK to say no and limit people?
- epistasis 9y agoThere's a huge difference between saying the limit should be changed and also that there should be no limits at all. I do know that the current limit is not working. We should change it somehow. Any move towards more housing will at least help. But this feels like a very false argument, like those who argue against a carbon tax or other Pigovian taxes that correct negative externalities. Sure, we may not know a priori what the best possible setting of the parameter is, but there's a huge range better settings out there, and it would be really hard to get it wrong if we take a single step in one direction. I don't see anybody arguing for high rises. I see some people mentioning Tokyo, but that's not all high rises. This bill was about low rises. And even building some high rises somewhere is not a terrible thing. Just because somebody mentions the possibility do we need to circle the wagons and stop all multi-unit buildings from going up?