4 ms·

> By the same token, the incentives are skewed when it comes to the cost of problems. Say air pollution or homelessness gets worse. You might think that would d

> By the same token, the incentives are skewed when it comes to the cost of problems. Say air pollution or homelessness gets worse. You might think that would degrade the quality of life in a city. But don’t leap to that conclusion too quickly: To the extent land is truly scarce, the main effect would be a decline in rents and real estate prices. Landowners would be worse off, but the typical city resident might find that the cheaper cost of living offsets the deterioration in conditions. There's a seemingly endless legion of morons moving to these mega-cities that can't afford to live there. I don't know what their ambitions are, but it's obviously unsustainable. Fortunately, I think CA and NY are going to tax themselves out of existence in the next generation or so. Everything is cyclical, and I believe these cities are anomalies reaching end of life.

reidjs 8y ago
Those “morons” are moving there because there are more opportunities to earn money than in their hometown.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  And then complain about how they don't make enough money (aka, the rent is too high) and the place is nasty? A simple cost/benefit analysis shows that living in SF or NYC is a losing proposition for most.
  - goobynight 8y ago
    It's only a losing proposition for those that are borderline retarded and think that driving Lyft or bartending is worth it in the city. Who cares though? They opted to grind it out and provide services to rich people and middle class engineers while making some landlord rich. More power to them if they enjoy that. Once you're clearing SF costs by $50k+ per year, it could start to make sense, right? I would only move to the bay for $150k+ and that's the desperate low end. Probably more like $170k is the minimum to have it make sense vs the alternatives available in 2019.
throwawaysea 8y ago
I do think there is a serious lack of accountability for personal choice involved in the recent demands for cities to redo their policies or for states to override city-level policies. Those moving to expensive places know what they're in for. They do it anyways because they want something they can't responsibly afford. And then the incumbents are demonized for not giving up the smaller-city life they desired and sought out, because newcomers are upset. It doesn't make sense to me.

reidjs 8y ago

Those “morons” are moving there because there are more opportunities to earn money than in their hometown.

linuxftw 8y ago
And then complain about how they don't make enough money (aka, the rent is too high) and the place is nasty? A simple cost/benefit analysis shows that living in SF or NYC is a losing proposition for most.
- goobynight 8y ago
  It's only a losing proposition for those that are borderline retarded and think that driving Lyft or bartending is worth it in the city. Who cares though? They opted to grind it out and provide services to rich people and middle class engineers while making some landlord rich. More power to them if they enjoy that. Once you're clearing SF costs by $50k+ per year, it could start to make sense, right? I would only move to the bay for $150k+ and that's the desperate low end. Probably more like $170k is the minimum to have it make sense vs the alternatives available in 2019.

throwawaysea 8y ago

I do think there is a serious lack of accountability for personal choice involved in the recent demands for cities to redo their policies or for states to override city-level policies. Those moving to expensive places know what they're in for. They do it anyways because they want something they can't responsibly afford. And then the incumbents are demonized for not giving up the smaller-city life they desired and sought out, because newcomers are upset. It doesn't make sense to me.