3 ms·

Here's an idea for billionaires: "invest" in things that only break even at best and don't beset the economy with future rent-keeping. Get yr money back, or fu

Here's an idea for billionaires: "invest" in things that only break even at best and don't beset the economy with future rent-keeping. Get yr money back, or further tax breaks. For instance, affordable housing.

ummonk 8y ago
So you mean like Uber, Lyft etc. that rely on infusions of cash from investors because they aren't profitable?
- angel_j 8y ago
  No, those are trying to be profitable, and the fact that they aren't makes them more menacing, more willing to screw over workers, game regulations, and buy political favor.
anovikov 8y ago
Affordable housing is an oxymoron. In the U.S. in general, housing is very, very affordable already. It's just that in the few spots where the money is, it is super expensive, exactly because everyone wants to get there. Build a lot of affordable housing, and you will pay with the time you spend standing in traffic, also an unaffordable amount.
- angel_j 8y ago
  Sure, we'll just have school teachers live in Idaho and commute to S.F. FOH.
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    It also doesn't make sense to have everyone in the country try to live in a dozen cities. Those cities themselves are unsustainable: SF, Portland, and Seattle are all literal shitholes, due to failed civic leadership and uneconomic policies. As a civilization, we need to figure out how to reduce the pressure to collect in a handful of places, and spread ourselves back over multiple locations and jurisdictions -- because it's clear that's a better plan. Our current system is optimized for a few major players, and it's collapsing. They're right to worry, and try to adjust it. Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people.
    - nercht12 8y ago
      > Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people. ... And thus a bunch of Californians moved to affordable Austin, TX and made it super expensive, driving all the native residents and average day workers out of their homes and onto the streets. Pressure moved from one location just builds it somewhere else because people tend to congregate. You can't just say "Everyone, go move to remote places in Montana". It doesn't work like that. People congregate around the job markets, money pools, and nice locations. Hence, the coastal states in the US (centers of trade and places with beaches) have the highest population densities.
      - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
        > People congregate around the job markets, money pools, and nice locations. To be fair, there's a lot of nice locations outside of major cities. But I agree with you that people tend to congregate around job markets and money pools -- and I think that's precisely what has the wealthy concerned and looking for new models, because the attractive forces in the current paradigm lead to unsustainable attractive blobs.

ummonk 8y ago

So you mean like Uber, Lyft etc. that rely on infusions of cash from investors because they aren't profitable?

angel_j 8y ago
No, those are trying to be profitable, and the fact that they aren't makes them more menacing, more willing to screw over workers, game regulations, and buy political favor.

anovikov 8y ago

Affordable housing is an oxymoron. In the U.S. in general, housing is very, very affordable already. It's just that in the few spots where the money is, it is super expensive, exactly because everyone wants to get there. Build a lot of affordable housing, and you will pay with the time you spend standing in traffic, also an unaffordable amount.

angel_j 8y ago
Sure, we'll just have school teachers live in Idaho and commute to S.F. FOH.
- NotAnEconomist 8y ago
  It also doesn't make sense to have everyone in the country try to live in a dozen cities. Those cities themselves are unsustainable: SF, Portland, and Seattle are all literal shitholes, due to failed civic leadership and uneconomic policies. As a civilization, we need to figure out how to reduce the pressure to collect in a handful of places, and spread ourselves back over multiple locations and jurisdictions -- because it's clear that's a better plan. Our current system is optimized for a few major players, and it's collapsing. They're right to worry, and try to adjust it. Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people.
  - nercht12 8y ago
    > Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people. ... And thus a bunch of Californians moved to affordable Austin, TX and made it super expensive, driving all the native residents and average day workers out of their homes and onto the streets. Pressure moved from one location just builds it somewhere else because people tend to congregate. You can't just say "Everyone, go move to remote places in Montana". It doesn't work like that. People congregate around the job markets, money pools, and nice locations. Hence, the coastal states in the US (centers of trade and places with beaches) have the highest population densities.
    - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
      > People congregate around the job markets, money pools, and nice locations. To be fair, there's a lot of nice locations outside of major cities. But I agree with you that people tend to congregate around job markets and money pools -- and I think that's precisely what has the wealthy concerned and looking for new models, because the attractive forces in the current paradigm lead to unsustainable attractive blobs.