8 ms·

> But in recent years, as Seattle’s citizens begin taking Amazon to task for its role in driving urban inequality Right. It's Amazon's fault for bringing in hi

by ng12 8y ago

> But in recent years, as Seattle’s citizens begin taking Amazon to task for its role in driving urban inequality Right. It's Amazon's fault for bringing in high-paying jobs. Definitely has nothing to do with local politics.

natalyarostova 8y ago
Opioid addicts and chronic homeless just keep moving from across to country to set up tents in our city because of Amazon's high wages :(
dahdum 8y ago
By their logic this should be considered a big win. Amazon is no longer force feeding their high paid jobs into the local market. Those neighborhoods will be more equal now, even if it means having less.
- manfredo 8y ago
  This is a terrible kind of logic. It's better for everyone to be worse off just to make sure some people don't benefit more than others? This kind of toxic mentality is one of the things that turns me off the most from many so-called progressive movements.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Agree on the "so-called" adjective. The attitude you're describing is not a progressive attitude, it's literally a reactionary attitude.
  - lukeschlather 8y ago
    It's definitely a mixed bag. Someone above asked if you would rather live in a city where everyone makes $20k or a city where some people make $20k and some make $50k. The missing part of that equation is obviously cost of living. The latter sounds nicer in theory, unless it drives the minimum annual price of housing to $25k. In which case prosperity becomes an existential threat to the people making $20k. Now, with the right mix of upzoning, public housing, rent control, and social services, the threat doesn't have to hurt anyone, but in San Francisco and in Seattle we're not doing remotely near enough to ensure the people on the low end aren't hurt by the prosperity.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Talking about cost of living is avoiding the underlying point. Would you rather live in a society where everyone just gets enough to survive, or one where everyone gets enough to survive, half can afford basic consumer goods, and the other half can afford luxury consumer goods? A significant number of people would genuinely pick the former. Some people really do think the pursuit of equality is just even if it makes everyone worse off.
      - CydeWeys 8y ago
        I think this is a strawman argument. I really don't believe there are a significant number of people that would rather have everyone be poor so long as they're equally poor.
        manfredo 8y ago
        Plenty of people support policies that do exactly that. Plenty of people also have positive opinions of, say, the Cuban revolution despite all the metrics indicating that the overwhelming majority of Cubans were ultimately worse off because of it.
        CydeWeys 8y ago
        You're moving the goalposts now from "people actively want this" to "people support policies that I say have this as a side effect".
        manfredo 8y ago
        There really are people who think that eliminating inequality is worth it even if it makes everyone worse off, and say so explicitly. Usually they try to frame it as having some sort of positive externalities, but when you dig deep and probe specifically they will say that lowering inequality is good even if it leaves everyone worse off. I've met plenty of these people. Maybe I'm exposed to this view more often than you seeing as I live in San Francisco.
refurb 8y ago
This is the problem with looking at inequality all on it’s own. Take a population where everyone makes $20k per year. Great! It’s equal! Take another population where half make $30k and half make $50k. Oh no! Inequality! I’d rather be in the 2nd population.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Maybe. The folks making $30k in the second population may now be spending a bunch more in childcare and hours more on their commutes, because they've been priced out of the city and now have travel from further away. As an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-francisco-commute.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-fran...
  - epistasis 8y ago
    The only way to be priced out is if the city refuses to accept more people and build enough housing for people. This is a conscious choice by power brokers in cities, to restrict housing availability and enrich homeowners and landlords and real estate speculators. Pricing people is not an inevitable consequence of population growth, it's the consequence of an older generation of haves deciding that younger and less wealthy people do not deserve housing in a city.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      > The only way to be priced out is if the city refuses to accept more people and build enough housing for people. Which, given that it seems to happen pretty much everywhere, must be factored into decision making. "Wouldn't it be nice if humans didn't act like humans" is the sort of dreamy optimism that kills Communism.
  - refurb 8y ago
    That’s a separate problem.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
maxsilver 8y ago
> It's Amazon's fault for bringing in high-paying jobs. That's not a fair description of the criticism. Amazon isn't "bad" for providing people high-paying jobs, Amazon is bad for dumping the financial pollution from their high-paying jobs in downtown Seattle. Those are not the same thing. It's possible to recognize that high wages for employees are great, but to also to recognize that these high-wage earners drive the cost of living up for all nearby residents, and since those residents can't also work for Amazon they have no recourse.
- manfredo 8y ago
  "Financial pollution?" No, high paying jobs do not drive up the cost of living. Unwillingness to accommodate growing populations and reluctance to building housing is what is what is driving up costs of living. Most cities would kill for this so-called "financial pollution".
  - maxsilver 8y ago
    > No, high paying jobs do not drive up the cost of living. They absolutely do. Higher income folks can outbid and outpay for all basic essential services, driving the price of those services higher. Compare the cost of daycare in Seattle, for example, to the equivalent cost in say Michigan. > Unwillingness to accommodate growing populations Seattle is #1 in urban housing construction, nationwide. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-tops-the-nation-in-tower-cranes-for-third-straight-year-as-construction-reaches-new-peak/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-to... This isn't California, blaming lack of housing construction is not a valid argument. > Most cities would kill for this so-called "financial pollution". Their governments would, true. Most of their residents would not, because they'd have to bear the cost of the higher income residents. (See how most people's reaction to the Amazon HQ2 search was, "please not here")
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > They absolutely do. Higher income folks can outbid and outpay for all basic essential services, driving the price of those services higher. By why does bidding have to happen in the first place? Because there isn't enough supply. If increase of supply matches increase of demand, the price doesn't go up. Cities like Seattle have built a lot of housing but there's still more to be done. Seattle only built one unit of housing for every 3 jobs added. At least it's not as bad as San Francisco where only one unit of housing has been added for every 6 jobs. > Their governments would, true. Most of their residents would not, because they'd have to bear the cost of the higher income residents. (See how most people's reaction to the Amazon HQ2 search was, "please not here") Er, no, most people really did want Amazon to move there. New York is the exception not the norm, probably because the fallacious belief that well paying jobs causes costs to rise is generally more prevalent among so-called progressives (which disproportionately live in liberal cities).
allset_ 8y ago
I don't fault them for that, but they could definitely afford to improve the working conditions in the warehouses (including pay) which is part of the inequality.
jseliger 8y ago
Yes: that is exactly what I was going to point out. Seattle's own housing policies: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to-end-single-family-zoning-could-change-affordable-housing/398420/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to... are the primary driver of financial strain in the city. Surrounding cities's policies (Bellevue, Kirkland, etc.) are even worse. The city severely restricts the housing supply; housing costs go up; the people look for a scapegoat; and there is Amazon, handily enough, when the real fault is voters's. (http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/ http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/). A real pity: https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-fut...
- jupiter90000 8y ago
  Has it been demonstrated that if housing supply is less restricted, developers will want to build more? Is it always profitable for them to do so? I would think this is more complex, in that even if there were opportunities to build residences, it may not make sense to do so for a developer or property owner unless there were significant financial incentives to do so. I mean if I told you, "hey build apartments. Hopefully that means all the rents will go down." -- isn't that actually a disincentive to build, as not as much $$$ could be made after costs of development?
- manfredo 8y ago
  Actually, I think Western Washington has done pretty well as far as construction of housing. I grew up in Bellevue and it feels like there's a new apartment tower every time I come back to visit. Contrast this with San Francisco where people routinely shut down housing construction over frivolous objections.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    This. While I'm sure that city government could have done more to upzone faster, I'm not sure it would matter. The bottleneck isn't restrictions on builders, it's our construction capacity is completely tapped.

by ng12 8y ago

natalyarostova 8y ago

Opioid addicts and chronic homeless just keep moving from across to country to set up tents in our city because of Amazon's high wages :(

dahdum 8y ago

By their logic this should be considered a big win. Amazon is no longer force feeding their high paid jobs into the local market. Those neighborhoods will be more equal now, even if it means having less.

manfredo 8y ago
This is a terrible kind of logic. It's better for everyone to be worse off just to make sure some people don't benefit more than others? This kind of toxic mentality is one of the things that turns me off the most from many so-called progressive movements.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Agree on the "so-called" adjective. The attitude you're describing is not a progressive attitude, it's literally a reactionary attitude.
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  It's definitely a mixed bag. Someone above asked if you would rather live in a city where everyone makes $20k or a city where some people make $20k and some make $50k. The missing part of that equation is obviously cost of living. The latter sounds nicer in theory, unless it drives the minimum annual price of housing to $25k. In which case prosperity becomes an existential threat to the people making $20k. Now, with the right mix of upzoning, public housing, rent control, and social services, the threat doesn't have to hurt anyone, but in San Francisco and in Seattle we're not doing remotely near enough to ensure the people on the low end aren't hurt by the prosperity.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Talking about cost of living is avoiding the underlying point. Would you rather live in a society where everyone just gets enough to survive, or one where everyone gets enough to survive, half can afford basic consumer goods, and the other half can afford luxury consumer goods? A significant number of people would genuinely pick the former. Some people really do think the pursuit of equality is just even if it makes everyone worse off.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      I think this is a strawman argument. I really don't believe there are a significant number of people that would rather have everyone be poor so long as they're equally poor.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Plenty of people support policies that do exactly that. Plenty of people also have positive opinions of, say, the Cuban revolution despite all the metrics indicating that the overwhelming majority of Cubans were ultimately worse off because of it.
        CydeWeys 8y ago
        You're moving the goalposts now from "people actively want this" to "people support policies that I say have this as a side effect".
        manfredo 8y ago
        There really are people who think that eliminating inequality is worth it even if it makes everyone worse off, and say so explicitly. Usually they try to frame it as having some sort of positive externalities, but when you dig deep and probe specifically they will say that lowering inequality is good even if it leaves everyone worse off. I've met plenty of these people. Maybe I'm exposed to this view more often than you seeing as I live in San Francisco.

refurb 8y ago

This is the problem with looking at inequality all on it’s own. Take a population where everyone makes $20k per year. Great! It’s equal! Take another population where half make $30k and half make $50k. Oh no! Inequality! I’d rather be in the 2nd population.

ceejayoz 8y ago
Maybe. The folks making $30k in the second population may now be spending a bunch more in childcare and hours more on their commutes, because they've been priced out of the city and now have travel from further away. As an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-francisco-commute.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-fran...
- epistasis 8y ago
  The only way to be priced out is if the city refuses to accept more people and build enough housing for people. This is a conscious choice by power brokers in cities, to restrict housing availability and enrich homeowners and landlords and real estate speculators. Pricing people is not an inevitable consequence of population growth, it's the consequence of an older generation of haves deciding that younger and less wealthy people do not deserve housing in a city.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > The only way to be priced out is if the city refuses to accept more people and build enough housing for people. Which, given that it seems to happen pretty much everywhere, must be factored into decision making. "Wouldn't it be nice if humans didn't act like humans" is the sort of dreamy optimism that kills Communism.
- refurb 8y ago
  That’s a separate problem.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago

maxsilver 8y ago

> It's Amazon's fault for bringing in high-paying jobs. That's not a fair description of the criticism. Amazon isn't "bad" for providing people high-paying jobs, Amazon is bad for dumping the financial pollution from their high-paying jobs in downtown Seattle. Those are not the same thing. It's possible to recognize that high wages for employees are great, but to also to recognize that these high-wage earners drive the cost of living up for all nearby residents, and since those residents can't also work for Amazon they have no recourse.

manfredo 8y ago
"Financial pollution?" No, high paying jobs do not drive up the cost of living. Unwillingness to accommodate growing populations and reluctance to building housing is what is what is driving up costs of living. Most cities would kill for this so-called "financial pollution".
- maxsilver 8y ago
  > No, high paying jobs do not drive up the cost of living. They absolutely do. Higher income folks can outbid and outpay for all basic essential services, driving the price of those services higher. Compare the cost of daycare in Seattle, for example, to the equivalent cost in say Michigan. > Unwillingness to accommodate growing populations Seattle is #1 in urban housing construction, nationwide. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-tops-the-nation-in-tower-cranes-for-third-straight-year-as-construction-reaches-new-peak/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-to... This isn't California, blaming lack of housing construction is not a valid argument. > Most cities would kill for this so-called "financial pollution". Their governments would, true. Most of their residents would not, because they'd have to bear the cost of the higher income residents. (See how most people's reaction to the Amazon HQ2 search was, "please not here")
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > They absolutely do. Higher income folks can outbid and outpay for all basic essential services, driving the price of those services higher. By why does bidding have to happen in the first place? Because there isn't enough supply. If increase of supply matches increase of demand, the price doesn't go up. Cities like Seattle have built a lot of housing but there's still more to be done. Seattle only built one unit of housing for every 3 jobs added. At least it's not as bad as San Francisco where only one unit of housing has been added for every 6 jobs. > Their governments would, true. Most of their residents would not, because they'd have to bear the cost of the higher income residents. (See how most people's reaction to the Amazon HQ2 search was, "please not here") Er, no, most people really did want Amazon to move there. New York is the exception not the norm, probably because the fallacious belief that well paying jobs causes costs to rise is generally more prevalent among so-called progressives (which disproportionately live in liberal cities).

allset_ 8y ago

I don't fault them for that, but they could definitely afford to improve the working conditions in the warehouses (including pay) which is part of the inequality.

jseliger 8y ago

Yes: that is exactly what I was going to point out. Seattle's own housing policies: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to-end-single-family-zoning-could-change-affordable-housing/398420/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to... are the primary driver of financial strain in the city. Surrounding cities's policies (Bellevue, Kirkland, etc.) are even worse. The city severely restricts the housing supply; housing costs go up; the people look for a scapegoat; and there is Amazon, handily enough, when the real fault is voters's. (http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/ http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/). A real pity: https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-fut...

jupiter90000 8y ago
Has it been demonstrated that if housing supply is less restricted, developers will want to build more? Is it always profitable for them to do so? I would think this is more complex, in that even if there were opportunities to build residences, it may not make sense to do so for a developer or property owner unless there were significant financial incentives to do so. I mean if I told you, "hey build apartments. Hopefully that means all the rents will go down." -- isn't that actually a disincentive to build, as not as much $$$ could be made after costs of development?
manfredo 8y ago
Actually, I think Western Washington has done pretty well as far as construction of housing. I grew up in Bellevue and it feels like there's a new apartment tower every time I come back to visit. Contrast this with San Francisco where people routinely shut down housing construction over frivolous objections.
- dlp211 8y ago
  This. While I'm sure that city government could have done more to upzone faster, I'm not sure it would matter. The bottleneck isn't restrictions on builders, it's our construction capacity is completely tapped.