5 ms·
>It's a good thing that such an option exists. I totally agree. It makes me irrationally mad that some cities like London and Los Angeles enact policies meant
by tziki 7y ago
>It's a good thing that such an option exists.
I totally agree. It makes me irrationally mad that some cities like London and Los Angeles enact policies meant to prevent small apartments on a pretense of lofty words, completely ignorant to the fact that commute distance is one of the largest factors in one's happiness and well-being.
This is one of the best examples of "no skin in the game" decision making, as the vast majority of decision makers live in relative comfort and it costs them almost nothing to pass this type of policies which signal value, don't have immediate obviously bad effect and are not strongly opposed by anyone. However, the cost is paid by the countless people who spend hours in traffic and, consequently, the environment.
- esotericn 7y agoPretty much any zoning policy is based on protecting incumbents over newcomers. I'm slowly coming around to the idea that trying to move to a major city is just daft unless you're very wealthy. You're intentionally choosing to compete on a stage that you don't have to compete in and there are generally huge stacks of rules set up to ensure that it's difficult for you to do so.
- falcolas 7y ago> Pretty much any zoning policy is based on protecting incumbents over newcomers. And why shouldn’t it? They’re already living there, paying taxes, participating in the economy, and participating in the community. Everyone else, however, only might live there. There’s no guarantee. “My friends and I would make much better use of your grand piano than you do, so it should be taken from you and given to us.”
- esotericn 7y agoI don't think it shouldn't. Hence the second half of my post. Let them have their fun.
- jnordwick 7y agoBecause you shouldnt get to tell me how I live and the size of an apartment I should live in. If I want to live in an 80 square foot box, as long as I'm keeping it clean and safe, you really shouldn't have a say in it just because you have a place down the street. One of the worst parts of democracy is the deletion of individual rights and the majority telling the minority how they should live.
- qarlow 7y agoI don't really see your point. Places were the government don't care about how people live aren't very nice. In fact they are often outright authoritarian, much more so than any "tyranny of democracy". Preventing people from falling too far in the first place by having standards is a much better idea than often unchecked enforcement after the fact.
- falcolas 7y agoIf nobody had ever been kicked out of their normal apartment after having their rent artificially raised to build those 80 sqft apartments, I might agree with you. If nobody had ever had their house forclosed for the “greater good” and had efficiency apartments put in their place, I might agree with you. Both of these scenarios have happened. I don’t agree with you. This isn’t democracy in action, this is fighting back against unrestrained capitalism which would make everyone’s living conditions equally miserable in an effort to extract the most money possible out of them. And as an aside, it’s not as if the apartment owners have no say in the process either; its worth wondering why they aren’t throwing their considerable power around as well.
- ajmurmann 7y agoIt gets worse than that. With a minimum unit size you remove options for people who otherwise might not be able to afford a dwelling at all. Yeah, housing further away from the city is probably cheaper, but now you likely need a car to get to your job which again not everyone can afford to buy and maintain. I recently saw a report that showed an older man who worked as a dishwasher in Hong Kong. He lived in what could be described as the upper half of a bunk bed in a closet. Certainly undesirable, but definitely better than homelessness. Edit: formatting
- bjourne 7y agoI don't think that is right. What happens is that homes get built to be in compliance with minimum size regulations. Just as employment opportunities change to be in compliance with labor regulations. Neither minimum wage nor maximum work hour limits have removed options from workers.
- MickerNews 7y ago>I totally agree. It makes me irrationally mad that some cities like London and Los Angeles enact policies meant to prevent small apartments on a pretense of lofty words, completely ignorant to the fact that commute distance is one of the largest factors in one's happiness and well-being. Meanwhile all of northern England suffers from underemployment. The obvious solution is to not concentrate jobs in one place. It makes me irrationally angry that people can't see the obvious solution when it's staring them in the face.
- esotericn 7y agoIf most of your jobs revolve around serving those with money, in person, then they're going to be centered around wealthy areas. That's as far as I see it how the UK has evolved. Basically everyone with money lives in London or the Home Counties, so service employment is heavily biased towards there. I don't see how you can fix that without forcibly moving people.
- burroisolator 7y agoEconomies of scale and knowledge spillovers cause large labor markets to be more productive than smaller ones, and thus not trying to concentrate jobs will be an uphill battle. Increasing mobility in areas with more unemployment will probably be more effective.
- qarlow 7y ago> completely ignorant to the fact that commute distance is one of the largest factors in one's happiness and well-being. Only to a point. Usually somewhere around 30-40 square meters (10x square feet) per person. It is always easy to call out others for ignorance. The downsides with living in small apartments are apparent for anyone who has done it for a long periods of time. The human body is a certain size making most human activities take a certain amount of space. Being able to perform less activities negatively affects your quality of life.