4 ms·

Not only high school students get paid minimum wage. On minimum wage you cannot even afford a room in the bay area. The economy is driven by demand. Economic

by ouid 8y ago

Not only high school students get paid minimum wage. On minimum wage you cannot even afford a room in the bay area. The economy is driven by demand. Economic prosperity is the result of EXACTLY the same thing that causes inflation. Dollars wanting to get spent on things that don't exist yet. However, I will say that the problem is more easily solved by simply building more housing, but everyone who owns property resists that because shortages drive up the price of the thing they own. Imagine if there was a shortage of food, and the people with good refrigeration units and lots of stored grain were drafting and passing legislation against growing new crops. That is the housing situation in the bay area.

triviatise 8y ago
Many people who own property absolutely want to put more units on. Others who own property want to stop it because of NIMBY. Lets say you have a single family home worth $2 million and you replace it with an 8 plex. You can sell each unit for $1M and still make a killing while also dramatically increasing the affordability of the area. The answer is simple, but the NIMBYs are stopping it due to "neighborhood character"
triviatise 8y ago
we do have that legislation against growing new crops today... The farm bills pay people to not grow crops. Historically speaking, the interstate commerce clause of the constitution was eviscerated as part of the new deal for exactly this reason. <<An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than the limits that he was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"[5]>>

by ouid 8y ago

triviatise 8y ago

Many people who own property absolutely want to put more units on. Others who own property want to stop it because of NIMBY. Lets say you have a single family home worth $2 million and you replace it with an 8 plex. You can sell each unit for $1M and still make a killing while also dramatically increasing the affordability of the area. The answer is simple, but the NIMBYs are stopping it due to "neighborhood character"

triviatise 8y ago

we do have that legislation against growing new crops today... The farm bills pay people to not grow crops. Historically speaking, the interstate commerce clause of the constitution was eviscerated as part of the new deal for exactly this reason. <<An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than the limits that he was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"[5]>>