3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make? Having a job is not the same as being needed in an economy. As we know from economics, demand

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make? Having a job is not the same as being needed in an economy. As we know from economics, demand decreases when price increases. Conversely, demand increases when price decreases. Goodman is able to find a job at below the cost of production, so to speak, but if the price were to rise to a sustainable level, nobody would be willing to hire anymore. After all, if people were willing to hire at a higher price, the higher price would already be paid out. Any business can find customers producing widgets for free. Guaranteed. The hard part is finding customers willing to pay the cost of production + tidy profit in order to show that the market is actually in need of said widget. All Goodman is proving is the former; not brining in enough money to cover the actual cost of providing the job.

carapace 7y ago
> Having a job is not the same as being needed in an economy. Well, you have to define your context. In Communist Russia there were a lot of un-economical jobs, eh? To me it seems clear that there is demand for housing that the economic & political system in which Goodman finds herself is failing to supply. You seem to be saying that there is a dearth of jobs that pay enough money to cover the actual cost of providing the jobs. In that context, I'm saying, let's reduce that overhead. Rather than paying more we could reduce the actual cost of providing the job by building more houses. That's the whole point of the OP: we stopped building houses that people could afford and now there are people who can't afford housing. To me the question is why? Why don't we build more housing? Many folks point to "NIMBYism" but I suspect (IANAEconomist) that the real problem is just the tension between cities-as-living-places vs. cities-as-investment-vehicles. BTW... > As we know from economics, demand decreases when price increases. That's merely dogma. It's a common mistake to set prices too low. When I worked for an online marketplace we saw this all the time: people could raise prices and sell more volume. The same piece of jewelry that gathered dust at $15 would sell right away at $45.

carapace 7y ago

> Having a job is not the same as being needed in an economy. Well, you have to define your context. In Communist Russia there were a lot of un-economical jobs, eh? To me it seems clear that there is demand for housing that the economic & political system in which Goodman finds herself is failing to supply. You seem to be saying that there is a dearth of jobs that pay enough money to cover the actual cost of providing the jobs. In that context, I'm saying, let's reduce that overhead. Rather than paying more we could reduce the actual cost of providing the job by building more houses. That's the whole point of the OP: we stopped building houses that people could afford and now there are people who can't afford housing. To me the question is why? Why don't we build more housing? Many folks point to "NIMBYism" but I suspect (IANAEconomist) that the real problem is just the tension between cities-as-living-places vs. cities-as-investment-vehicles. BTW... > As we know from economics, demand decreases when price increases. That's merely dogma. It's a common mistake to set prices too low. When I worked for an online marketplace we saw this all the time: people could raise prices and sell more volume. The same piece of jewelry that gathered dust at $15 would sell right away at $45.