4 ms·
The correct answer is probably to build some new housing supply but definitely not as much as the peak demands. Why is that? It doesn't change the fact that on
by solidsnack9000 8y ago
The correct answer is probably to build some new housing supply but definitely not as much as the peak demands.
Why is that? It doesn't change the fact that once the mines are gone, they're gone. The value of existing homeowner's investment has been preserved but nothing's been done to buffer the economy or help people pushed out of rentals. It's just transferring wealth to rentiers.
Diversifying the economy -- having an environment more encouraging to industry, not less -- is the right answer.
- throwawaythekey 8y agoIn the mining example I gave it's probably more clear cut than the SV case. A whole heap of people are working high wage jobs in essentially the middle of nowhere. The local towns don't have the capacity to replace many lost jobs and aren't the ideal place for all of the now unemployed workers to end up. You don't want a whole heap of empty houses in an area with no jobs. Diversifying the economy is definitely a step in the right direction and is likely more feasible in an area like SV. On the flipside you've got to be careful that the other industries are valuable in their own right and don't exist solely due to the rivers of money in the area.