8 ms·

Why wouldn't NYC want to be a ``new tech mecca''? If the city wised up and killed rent control, ``scarce office and employee living space'' wouldn't be an issu

Why wouldn't NYC want to be a ``new tech mecca''? If the city wised up and killed rent control, ``scarce office and employee living space'' wouldn't be an issue.

siculars 16y ago
I would strongly disagree with that. Rent control is an absolutely necessity for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Sure. The point being that if it were taken away they'd no longer be New Yorkers -- they'd move to somewhere more reasonable for their income. The employment market would adjust. What would happen if only rich people could afford to live in New York? Gee, I dunno, probably about the same thing that happens when only rich people can afford to live in Beverly Hills.
  - rbranson 16y ago
    Comparing NYC to Beverly Hills is apples and oranges. The only likeness they share is, perhaps, that they are both independent municipalities. Exhibit A, NYC: The most populous city in the US with the highest density and having the highest economic output. It is considered the world capital for finance and is a world cultural center for fashion, media, art, theater, food, and music. More people live in the city limits of NYC than 40 of the 52 states. Exhibit B, Beverly Hills: An affluent bedroom community with around 30,000 residents and a suburb of Los Angeles.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Of course, they're very unlike each other. I'm just not convinced by the idea that a city needs poor (both in income and in quality) people in order to function. The low-paid jobs which do need to be done in Manhattan can easily be done by people commuting in from New Jersey. I'm actually not sure about the outer boroughs, I've never actually been there (that sounds snobbier than it is, I've only been to NYC twice). It seems to me that gentrifying the outer boroughs should be one of the great challenges facing New York City.
      - rbranson 16y ago
        Low, middle, and high-income people alike already DO commute from outside the city. The NYC metro area has extensive and expensive transit infrastructure that is constantly expanding. Cost of construction and infrastructure increases with density in a super linear fashion.
- CPops 16y ago
  As nice sounding as rent-control is, you can't change economic law with the power of good intentions. When the price of some good is artificially capped below the market equilibrium price, a shortage always occurs. Rent control benefits some people at the expense of harming a larger number of people.
  - rbranson 16y ago
    There are a few problems applying pure supply/demand theory onto the problem of available space in NYC. There are some heavy external costs involved: moving expense, employment churn, desirable local culture. People aren't going to leave NYC, they'll just keep moving around the same area for a better deal. Instead of efficient allocation, you'll have something more akin to musical chairs, which could have serious consequences for the local economy. So, economists loves to look at situations like NY rent control and pass judgement, but it's just a much more complex situation than that, even beyond the moral implications of kicking grandma out. I used to think the way you did and was skeptical of rent control, but research has led me to understand it, at least somewhat. The Wikipedia article has some good insight into why it's helpful from an economic point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Economic
    - jobeirne 16y ago
      > Instead of efficient allocation, you'll have something more akin to musical chairs, which could have serious consequences for the local economy. It seems to me that you're neglecting the economic reality that, were rent control dropped, landlords would be buying up land within the city left and right. Since price ceilings wouldn't be inhibiting profit potential and introducing negative incentives into maintaining apartments, opening apartment buildings would be an extremely attractive investment. The market would be flooded with new dwellings. Thus, should rent control be killed, a natural market equilibrium would be sought, the middle class could again reasonably live in NYC, and the city itself would bloom.
      - rbranson 16y ago
hugh3 16y ago
I hate to turn it around again, but why would they want to be a new tech mecca? I don't know, I think some people here have the idea that high tech is intrinsically better than other industries. But from a city's point of view, it's just another industry. The SF Bay Area is high tech. Los Angeles is entertainment. New York City is finance, fashion and publishing, except for the other bits of finance which are in Chicago. New York City has many problems (though not as many as it used to) and none of them can be solved by bringing in a new industry.

Why wouldn't NYC want to be a ``new tech mecca''? If the city wised up and killed rent control, ``scarce office and employee living space'' wouldn't be an issue.

siculars 16y ago

I would strongly disagree with that. Rent control is an absolutely necessity for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers.

hugh3 16y ago
Sure. The point being that if it were taken away they'd no longer be New Yorkers -- they'd move to somewhere more reasonable for their income. The employment market would adjust. What would happen if only rich people could afford to live in New York? Gee, I dunno, probably about the same thing that happens when only rich people can afford to live in Beverly Hills.
- rbranson 16y ago
  Comparing NYC to Beverly Hills is apples and oranges. The only likeness they share is, perhaps, that they are both independent municipalities. Exhibit A, NYC: The most populous city in the US with the highest density and having the highest economic output. It is considered the world capital for finance and is a world cultural center for fashion, media, art, theater, food, and music. More people live in the city limits of NYC than 40 of the 52 states. Exhibit B, Beverly Hills: An affluent bedroom community with around 30,000 residents and a suburb of Los Angeles.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Of course, they're very unlike each other. I'm just not convinced by the idea that a city needs poor (both in income and in quality) people in order to function. The low-paid jobs which do need to be done in Manhattan can easily be done by people commuting in from New Jersey. I'm actually not sure about the outer boroughs, I've never actually been there (that sounds snobbier than it is, I've only been to NYC twice). It seems to me that gentrifying the outer boroughs should be one of the great challenges facing New York City.
    - rbranson 16y ago
      Low, middle, and high-income people alike already DO commute from outside the city. The NYC metro area has extensive and expensive transit infrastructure that is constantly expanding. Cost of construction and infrastructure increases with density in a super linear fashion.
CPops 16y ago
As nice sounding as rent-control is, you can't change economic law with the power of good intentions. When the price of some good is artificially capped below the market equilibrium price, a shortage always occurs. Rent control benefits some people at the expense of harming a larger number of people.
- rbranson 16y ago
  There are a few problems applying pure supply/demand theory onto the problem of available space in NYC. There are some heavy external costs involved: moving expense, employment churn, desirable local culture. People aren't going to leave NYC, they'll just keep moving around the same area for a better deal. Instead of efficient allocation, you'll have something more akin to musical chairs, which could have serious consequences for the local economy. So, economists loves to look at situations like NY rent control and pass judgement, but it's just a much more complex situation than that, even beyond the moral implications of kicking grandma out. I used to think the way you did and was skeptical of rent control, but research has led me to understand it, at least somewhat. The Wikipedia article has some good insight into why it's helpful from an economic point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Economic
  - jobeirne 16y ago
    > Instead of efficient allocation, you'll have something more akin to musical chairs, which could have serious consequences for the local economy. It seems to me that you're neglecting the economic reality that, were rent control dropped, landlords would be buying up land within the city left and right. Since price ceilings wouldn't be inhibiting profit potential and introducing negative incentives into maintaining apartments, opening apartment buildings would be an extremely attractive investment. The market would be flooded with new dwellings. Thus, should rent control be killed, a natural market equilibrium would be sought, the middle class could again reasonably live in NYC, and the city itself would bloom.
    - rbranson 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

I hate to turn it around again, but why would they want to be a new tech mecca? I don't know, I think some people here have the idea that high tech is intrinsically better than other industries. But from a city's point of view, it's just another industry. The SF Bay Area is high tech. Los Angeles is entertainment. New York City is finance, fashion and publishing, except for the other bits of finance which are in Chicago. New York City has many problems (though not as many as it used to) and none of them can be solved by bringing in a new industry.