3 ms·

> I don't think you quite grasp the effects of a massive influx of hundreds to thousands of new individuals making $150k-250k. I'm from the bay area and pay cl

> I don't think you quite grasp the effects of a massive influx of hundreds to thousands of new individuals making $150k-250k. I'm from the bay area and pay close attention to land use/zoning issues, so yeah, I think I do. The bay area has had particularly extreme series of decades of rent increases precisely because of anti-housing policies. If the market was allowed to respond, rents would still rise, to be sure, but not nearly as much. > Sure, it might create a few new jobs for baristas and shopkeepers, a few bartenders and waitresses. But ultimately it just leads to gentrification and prices people out of the market. Anchor industries succeeding in a metro also raises wages for others in that metro. But, the catch is that the wage rise may not necessarily be enough to match the increase in cost of living. The bay area (and really all coastal California) is a good example of this. Wages for a lot of random job types are higher than normal, but housing is still too expensive. > You wonder why people are angry? It's because of tonedeaf responses from big companies pushing their agendas. Companies have a basic duty to run themselves ethically and obey laws and regulations. "You created too many high-paying jobs" is a silly thing to get upset at them for, when the problem is clearly a governmental failure. Liberal US cities are neither permitting the market to create new housing, nor are they creating large amounts of public housing themselves. Their attitude amounts to, "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!" You want a solution? Look at Singapore or Vienna.

evanlivingston 8y ago
Or conversely, look at Portland for an example a place where keeping up with housing demand has not translated into preserving a quantity of affordable housing. Abstracted supply and demand alone does not result in ensuring housing at various price points
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Portland still greatly restricts where denser housing may be built. When you concentrate most of the new stock in huge towers, it's harder to get anything affordable since huge towers are inherently expensive to build. The point isn't that fewer restricts means housing prices won't climb at all, but that they won't climb as quickly. For the truly affordable segment, they're either served with old housing (like with cars), or with public housing.
- seucs 8y ago
  Or Vancouver. Singapore and Vienna is really a counter argument more than anything else. These are places were the government have significant control over, and are essentially undermining, the housing market. This isn't changing zoning a little bit. In Singapore the government acquired most of the land. And Austria is spending the equivalent of a defense budget each year on housing subsidies alone.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    Personally I'm fine with either the market or the government providing new housing, and ideally I think we'd have a lot of both. > This isn't changing zoning a little bit. It's true, fairly radical zoning changes are warranted. Or at least, radical by US standards. Although you probably wouldn't have to go quite as far as Singapore, since obviously US cities aren't as land restricted.
  - mosdl 8y ago
    Except Vienna housing keeps getting more expensive as there isn't much stock available.
- sizzle 8y ago
  Conversely? Did I misinterpret your comment? Rent has significantly increased in the Portland metro area and gentrification is in full effect. There are vacant luxury multi-tenant properties littering the city and many more in the planning stages. As more tech companies enter the Portland market, expect this trend to accelerate.
  - evanlivingston 8y ago
    Right, I'm agreeing with you. Portland has increased housing substantially without preserving affordability.
- true_tuna 8y ago
  Portland in no way kept up with adding new housing at the same rate it added jobs.
Apocryphon 8y ago
> Companies have a basic duty to run themselves ethically and obey laws and regulations. Externalities exist. Companies cannot pretend they operate independently of the communities they're based in. They also can't shut their ears. Even if local zoning laws are at fault, these companies which spend lavishly on lobbyists at the national and provincial level, don't seem to be agitating for local change to improve housing conditions, which would better both their employees' quality of life and their own public perception.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > Externalities exist. Companies cannot pretend they operate independently of the communities they're based in. True enough, higher wages cause prices of goods and services to rise. But again, the externality in this case is a result of workers having more money: exactly what everyone in the country, right and left, wants to see. That's why getting upset at them for that is silly. It's like getting upset at green energy companies for making coal miners obsolete by getting cheaper and more productive. Yeah, that's an externality, and it sucks for those miners. But ultimately, that's still what society wants to have happen. > Even if local zoning laws are at fault, these companies which spend lavishly on lobbyists at the national and provincial level, don't seem to be agitating for local change to improve housing conditions, which would better both their employees' quality of life and their own public perception. No, they absolutely do. For example, Google is in frequent contact with the Mountain View city council over land use, for example, and has been supportive of adding housing to the north bayshore area where their HQ is. However, many residents, especially long-term residents, are skeptical or critical of big tech companies, so they can only throw their weight around so much. Putting too much pressure on local cities would just cause a political backlash. Yes, Google is rich, but ultimately residents voting is what brings about regulatory changes. Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, companies can't just directly buy new laws.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - carapace 8y ago
    I think you're a good person, and arguing in good faith, but I wish you could hear how you sound to "the other side", meaning the folks who just got themselves arrested for their silly stunt. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just trying to point out how the same words can sound wonderful or insidious, friendly or patronizing, depending on the listener.

evanlivingston 8y ago

Or conversely, look at Portland for an example a place where keeping up with housing demand has not translated into preserving a quantity of affordable housing. Abstracted supply and demand alone does not result in ensuring housing at various price points

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Portland still greatly restricts where denser housing may be built. When you concentrate most of the new stock in huge towers, it's harder to get anything affordable since huge towers are inherently expensive to build. The point isn't that fewer restricts means housing prices won't climb at all, but that they won't climb as quickly. For the truly affordable segment, they're either served with old housing (like with cars), or with public housing.
seucs 8y ago
Or Vancouver. Singapore and Vienna is really a counter argument more than anything else. These are places were the government have significant control over, and are essentially undermining, the housing market. This isn't changing zoning a little bit. In Singapore the government acquired most of the land. And Austria is spending the equivalent of a defense budget each year on housing subsidies alone.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Personally I'm fine with either the market or the government providing new housing, and ideally I think we'd have a lot of both. > This isn't changing zoning a little bit. It's true, fairly radical zoning changes are warranted. Or at least, radical by US standards. Although you probably wouldn't have to go quite as far as Singapore, since obviously US cities aren't as land restricted.
- mosdl 8y ago
  Except Vienna housing keeps getting more expensive as there isn't much stock available.
sizzle 8y ago
Conversely? Did I misinterpret your comment? Rent has significantly increased in the Portland metro area and gentrification is in full effect. There are vacant luxury multi-tenant properties littering the city and many more in the planning stages. As more tech companies enter the Portland market, expect this trend to accelerate.
- evanlivingston 8y ago
  Right, I'm agreeing with you. Portland has increased housing substantially without preserving affordability.
true_tuna 8y ago
Portland in no way kept up with adding new housing at the same rate it added jobs.

Apocryphon 8y ago

> Companies have a basic duty to run themselves ethically and obey laws and regulations. Externalities exist. Companies cannot pretend they operate independently of the communities they're based in. They also can't shut their ears. Even if local zoning laws are at fault, these companies which spend lavishly on lobbyists at the national and provincial level, don't seem to be agitating for local change to improve housing conditions, which would better both their employees' quality of life and their own public perception.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> Externalities exist. Companies cannot pretend they operate independently of the communities they're based in. True enough, higher wages cause prices of goods and services to rise. But again, the externality in this case is a result of workers having more money: exactly what everyone in the country, right and left, wants to see. That's why getting upset at them for that is silly. It's like getting upset at green energy companies for making coal miners obsolete by getting cheaper and more productive. Yeah, that's an externality, and it sucks for those miners. But ultimately, that's still what society wants to have happen. > Even if local zoning laws are at fault, these companies which spend lavishly on lobbyists at the national and provincial level, don't seem to be agitating for local change to improve housing conditions, which would better both their employees' quality of life and their own public perception. No, they absolutely do. For example, Google is in frequent contact with the Mountain View city council over land use, for example, and has been supportive of adding housing to the north bayshore area where their HQ is. However, many residents, especially long-term residents, are skeptical or critical of big tech companies, so they can only throw their weight around so much. Putting too much pressure on local cities would just cause a political backlash. Yes, Google is rich, but ultimately residents voting is what brings about regulatory changes. Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, companies can't just directly buy new laws.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- carapace 8y ago
  I think you're a good person, and arguing in good faith, but I wish you could hear how you sound to "the other side", meaning the folks who just got themselves arrested for their silly stunt. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just trying to point out how the same words can sound wonderful or insidious, friendly or patronizing, depending on the listener.