7 ms·

At what point though can we declare the choice has been made and just lean in to whatever conclusion has been decided? It seems like we’re always stuck in an i

At what point though can we declare the choice has been made and just lean in to whatever conclusion has been decided? It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling, and we can never get out unless we make the “right” choice (which is always implied to be the interests of the struggling) Maybe the choice has already been made, and people just don’t like the outcome. What then? Barring a massive catastrophe or economic downturn I don’t see the Bay Area housing problem getting better in my lifetime.

tomc1985 9y ago
That's really easy... the wealthy can generally protect their own interests whereas the needy cannot. Ergo, charity
- matte_black 9y ago
  Not sure what you’re proposing
Naritai 9y ago
Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Where these sorts of articles comes from is observers who would like to change that narrative.
- matte_black 9y ago
  The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? If the roles were reversed I doubt these observers would be calling for a change in narrative.
  - lallysingh 9y ago
    It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. Not many have to move before the rest start to follow, and the speculative part of the home valuations disappear. Either they let the pressure out gradually or the thing is going to pop.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Has that ever panned out in practice? I mean, has a city economy in the US or somewhere else in the world ever popped because of too high housing prices?
      - wonder_er 9y ago
        It might be about to! The USA has never had housing priced at such a high number of hours of work before.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        We’ve always gotten this high and then housing would crash, the jobs would leave causing housing to fall, not the other way around.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Probably not. > Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. And if that happens in even a small degree, housing prices will drop, relieving the problem. It's only a problem if their is a sharply threshold where below which no one moves out, but just above which lots of companies do. That's not entirely implausible, but it's not all that probable. > Not many have to move before the rest start to follow That right there is the highly speculative part; if it's true, you have an out of control positive feedback loop, but otherwise it's a self-controlling negative feedback loop.
    - collyw 9y ago
      They have been saying that for years, and instead the opposite has happened. Most IT work could be done remotely, yet the vast majority of companies want staff on site. Almost every job I have had has involved distributed teams yet I am still expected to be in an office most of the time.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? That isn't actually what happens -- and the misunderstanding is what causes so much of the conflict. If you rezone for high density, the price per square foot goes down, but the price per acre goes way up -- because suddenly developers will pay you a mint for your land so they can knock down your house and build a high rise there. The people who theoretically lose out are the people who own property way out in the suburbs, because most people won't want to live there and spend two hours in traffic every day once they can afford to live in the city. But even they don't really lose out because now they can afford to live in the city and the value of not having to sit in traffic every day is worth more than what they're losing on their house. The whole thing is just a huge misunderstanding. A cynic might suggest the narrative was devised by the banks to drive up mortgage loan principal amounts. Or the car companies to keep people from living in places with viable mass transit.
  - Naritai 9y ago
    I actually agree with you here, I'm just pointing out that there is no indecision of any sort on the part of homeowners.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  > Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Not me, and not lots of other homeowners, judging by the polls. NIMBYism is common, but most Californians do want more housing constructed.
debt 9y ago
“It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling,” Ha. History seems to side with the wealthy on that one.

tomc1985 9y ago

That's really easy... the wealthy can generally protect their own interests whereas the needy cannot. Ergo, charity

matte_black 9y ago
Not sure what you’re proposing

Naritai 9y ago

Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Where these sorts of articles comes from is observers who would like to change that narrative.

matte_black 9y ago
The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? If the roles were reversed I doubt these observers would be calling for a change in narrative.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. Not many have to move before the rest start to follow, and the speculative part of the home valuations disappear. Either they let the pressure out gradually or the thing is going to pop.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Has that ever panned out in practice? I mean, has a city economy in the US or somewhere else in the world ever popped because of too high housing prices?
    - wonder_er 9y ago
      It might be about to! The USA has never had housing priced at such a high number of hours of work before.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        We’ve always gotten this high and then housing would crash, the jobs would leave causing housing to fall, not the other way around.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Probably not. > Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. And if that happens in even a small degree, housing prices will drop, relieving the problem. It's only a problem if their is a sharply threshold where below which no one moves out, but just above which lots of companies do. That's not entirely implausible, but it's not all that probable. > Not many have to move before the rest start to follow That right there is the highly speculative part; if it's true, you have an out of control positive feedback loop, but otherwise it's a self-controlling negative feedback loop.
  - collyw 9y ago
    They have been saying that for years, and instead the opposite has happened. Most IT work could be done remotely, yet the vast majority of companies want staff on site. Almost every job I have had has involved distributed teams yet I am still expected to be in an office most of the time.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them? That isn't actually what happens -- and the misunderstanding is what causes so much of the conflict. If you rezone for high density, the price per square foot goes down, but the price per acre goes way up -- because suddenly developers will pay you a mint for your land so they can knock down your house and build a high rise there. The people who theoretically lose out are the people who own property way out in the suburbs, because most people won't want to live there and spend two hours in traffic every day once they can afford to live in the city. But even they don't really lose out because now they can afford to live in the city and the value of not having to sit in traffic every day is worth more than what they're losing on their house. The whole thing is just a huge misunderstanding. A cynic might suggest the narrative was devised by the banks to drive up mortgage loan principal amounts. Or the car companies to keep people from living in places with viable mass transit.
- Naritai 9y ago
  I actually agree with you here, I'm just pointing out that there is no indecision of any sort on the part of homeowners.
pcwalton 9y ago
> Clearly everybody who already owns a home is heavily leaning into the 'make housing as expensive as possible' conclusion. Not me, and not lots of other homeowners, judging by the polls. NIMBYism is common, but most Californians do want more housing constructed.

debt 9y ago

“It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling,” Ha. History seems to side with the wealthy on that one.