4 ms·

Less waiters in the city presumably means rising wages for the waiters that are in the city. If wages can't rise enough to have adequate staff, restaurants clo

Less waiters in the city presumably means rising wages for the waiters that are in the city. If wages can't rise enough to have adequate staff, restaurants close. If restaurants close, real estate values decline. If real estate values decline, waiters can afford to live in the city. Unfortunately, subsidized housing and welfare enable businesses to pay less than a living wage. People that are in poverty are kept in poverty, and the businesses have a captive labor force. It's almost like there's a specific cause and effect.

conanbatt 8y ago
Not necessarily: prices can rise. I've seen first hand how many things increased prices in the last few years, and is all most likely a consequence of rent. All in all, for a city that has an annual budget of 11 billion dollars, the city is a mess, and times of plenty beget times of crisis. At some point even people with RC will leave the city, and the downturn will not be negotiable.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  The question is, why is the rent so high? The reasons are purely economic. Arbitrarily low number of housing units available (zoning laws) and subsidized behavior. Rent-Controlled apartments further remove inventory from the marketplace overall, pushing the increased cost onto other renters. Higher taxes for government subsidized transportation (buses, metro, even roads) raises the rent. You're not saving anyone any money by building these things, only moving the cost (for mass transit, people will invariably respond with the immeasurable economic benefits these things provide, but they are mistaken as to whom actually benefits). Democracy at it's finest. I expect the rent and real estate to keep rising perpetually, that's what the voters seem to be demanding, even if indirectly.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    I think San Francisco is simply explained by the Georgist interpretation of the same city in the 1900's. The city awards landlords with lots of income from corporate and sales taxes, and reduced property taxes. Then piles on rent-control to produce pseudo-landlords. The interests are very misaligned, and thus you get high rents in old buildings, homeless people and a transient-disproportionally foreign- population. But the music stops: at some point the bargaing of a tech-job will not be enogh to keep people in.
    - linuxftw 8y ago
      I think we'll see a new age in public housing and basic income in SF before the music finally stops there; we might see some dips and down turns, but it's got a long way to go before it approaches that cliff. With the right political administration in power at the right time, they might even be able to wrangle a bailout from the rest of the country! The midwest successfully did it vis-a-vis UAW and GM (sure, the fatcats got a taste, but the real money was in preserve the taxbase of those towns and saving the workers' pension).
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        > I think we'll see a new age in public housing and basic income With a tax expenditure of 2,600U$S per household by the city management, i wouldn't expect any basic income ever.

conanbatt 8y ago

Not necessarily: prices can rise. I've seen first hand how many things increased prices in the last few years, and is all most likely a consequence of rent. All in all, for a city that has an annual budget of 11 billion dollars, the city is a mess, and times of plenty beget times of crisis. At some point even people with RC will leave the city, and the downturn will not be negotiable.

linuxftw 8y ago
The question is, why is the rent so high? The reasons are purely economic. Arbitrarily low number of housing units available (zoning laws) and subsidized behavior. Rent-Controlled apartments further remove inventory from the marketplace overall, pushing the increased cost onto other renters. Higher taxes for government subsidized transportation (buses, metro, even roads) raises the rent. You're not saving anyone any money by building these things, only moving the cost (for mass transit, people will invariably respond with the immeasurable economic benefits these things provide, but they are mistaken as to whom actually benefits). Democracy at it's finest. I expect the rent and real estate to keep rising perpetually, that's what the voters seem to be demanding, even if indirectly.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  I think San Francisco is simply explained by the Georgist interpretation of the same city in the 1900's. The city awards landlords with lots of income from corporate and sales taxes, and reduced property taxes. Then piles on rent-control to produce pseudo-landlords. The interests are very misaligned, and thus you get high rents in old buildings, homeless people and a transient-disproportionally foreign- population. But the music stops: at some point the bargaing of a tech-job will not be enogh to keep people in.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    I think we'll see a new age in public housing and basic income in SF before the music finally stops there; we might see some dips and down turns, but it's got a long way to go before it approaches that cliff. With the right political administration in power at the right time, they might even be able to wrangle a bailout from the rest of the country! The midwest successfully did it vis-a-vis UAW and GM (sure, the fatcats got a taste, but the real money was in preserve the taxbase of those towns and saving the workers' pension).
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      > I think we'll see a new age in public housing and basic income With a tax expenditure of 2,600U$S per household by the city management, i wouldn't expect any basic income ever.