3 ms·
The argument I'm putting forth is that raising the costs (and pay) for service work, if that could be done without raising the rent, would be a net positive for
by lsc 8y ago
The argument I'm putting forth is that raising the costs (and pay) for service work, if that could be done without raising the rent, would be a net positive for said service workers, just 'cause they spend a disproportionately large percentage of their income on rent (compared to tech workers) -
- afarrell 8y agoBut they're still going to have really long commutes because they can't find housing near where they live unless they outbid software engineers, which would raise the rent. And then the software companies will just have to raise salaries to beat them and more money will go toward the landlords. If you have a mostly-fixed supply and you subsidize buying that supply, you just raise the price. In order to increase the number of people who are able to live their jobs, you need to change the physical structure of area near their jobs to have more housing. You can't turn money into housing by just adding money. Only construction can do that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lsc 8y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16991980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16991980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16992481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16992481 I was responding to the objection that even if we were building unlimited new housing, the new stuff would be unaffordable to those on the bottom. And one solution to that is to pay them more relative to those on the top. I think it's obvious to people who don't own or live in rent controlled places that we need more housing overall. I was just responding to the fair objection that more housing, by itself, isn't enough to house people who are massively underpaid.
- afarrell 8y agoAh yes, point taken.