4 ms·
The only area that I am aware of that has that problem is the bay area. Yeah, you guys are fucked but every other city that I am aware of is aggressively build
by mrep 8y ago
The only area that I am aware of that has that problem is the bay area. Yeah, you guys are fucked but every other city that I am aware of is aggressively building to supply demand for housing.
- throwawayjava 8y agoBoston, NYC, and DC are all similarly fucked. Not as bad, but not good... Part of the problem is that a lot of wage growth is concentrated in areas that are experiencing a housing crunch.
- grandmczeb 8y ago> Part of the problem is that a lot of wage growth is concentrated in areas that are experiencing a housing crunch. This is actually a really good point. There's actually a great paper that covers how much higher housing prices have hurt growth due to workers being discouraged from moving to high productivity areas[1]. The tl;dr is that if only NYC, SF, and San Jose adopted the land uses restrictions of a median US city, GDP would be about 9% higher (about $8,775 per worker assuming the labor share of GDP and number of workers doesn't change). [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w21154.pdf
- grandmczeb 8y agoTake a look at this paper[1] for actual data on different cities respond to demand (table VI). Bay Area cities are all in the top 10 of least elastic, but there are a number of other cities with a similar level (the authors specifically call out NYC, Boston, and LA as examples of low elasticities translating into higher prices). [1] http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_Turner/ec2410/readings/Saiz_QJE_2010.pdf http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_T...