3 ms·

Yes, it means "build more houses". Cutting tourism and changing financing won't chop NYC rents in half. Expanding supply to meet the demand will. (Even if you c

Yes, it means "build more houses". Cutting tourism and changing financing won't chop NYC rents in half. Expanding supply to meet the demand will. (Even if you cut them in half, it'd still be expensive.) Yes, this means more infrastructure. Unfortunately, this does mean actually spending money on that infrastructure, instead of spending it on incompetence and/or corruption, and I fully admit this may be impossible. ($4.5 billion for three new stops on Second Avenue? That's 9x the cost of the Golden Gate Bridge. Yes, adjusted for inflation.)

lucideer 6y ago
I've re-read your comment a few times now and I've failed to find any justification for your position. I get that you believe building more houses will solve the issue, but I can't see where you've said why you think that or why I'm wrong here. No, it won't solve it because it's a simplistic one-dimensional answer to a complex multifaceted economic problem. I've listed some of these complexities. Would building housing be a component of some successful solution: highly likely. But it wouldn't even make up the majority of such a solution.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  If you do not understand that the laws of supply and demand are actually sort of kind of actual real things that apply in most cases, well, I cannot provide the full remedial education necessary here. If 700,000 of Manhattan's residents could find a 2BR in Brooklyn for $1000/mo, with a reliable 15-20 minute commute in to work, in a neighborhood not wreaked with crime ... do you think no one would take it? Do you think that landlords could keep getting away with $3000/mo for a shoebox studio apartment in the East Village that's falling apart? When cheap substitutes become available, the price of a good falls.
  - lucideer 6y ago
    > If you do not understand that the laws of supply and demand are... Clear from this opener you've not read either of my comments. At no point do I contradict or argue against the laws of supply and demand I'm merely pointing out that (a) building houses has limited impact on supply without accompanying measures and (b) building houses increases demand in particular circumstances. The combination of these two (less impact on supply and an increase in demand) make this measure only a small component of what's needed. > Do you think that landlords could keep getting away with $3000/mo [...] When cheap substitutes become available, the price of a good falls. Your last line is confusing as you say "cheap" and "price of good falls": how can one lead to the other, they're both the same thing? This is the cart before the horse? The market sets the prices of the "cheap subsitute" so it will only become cheap according to the laws of supply and demand. i.e. only if supply approaches/matches/exceeds demand. I'm not arguing supply and demand doesn't apply (that's ridiculous), I'm just arguing your idea won't increase supply as much as you believe, and won't leave demand static.

lucideer 6y ago

I've re-read your comment a few times now and I've failed to find any justification for your position. I get that you believe building more houses will solve the issue, but I can't see where you've said why you think that or why I'm wrong here. No, it won't solve it because it's a simplistic one-dimensional answer to a complex multifaceted economic problem. I've listed some of these complexities. Would building housing be a component of some successful solution: highly likely. But it wouldn't even make up the majority of such a solution.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
If you do not understand that the laws of supply and demand are actually sort of kind of actual real things that apply in most cases, well, I cannot provide the full remedial education necessary here. If 700,000 of Manhattan's residents could find a 2BR in Brooklyn for $1000/mo, with a reliable 15-20 minute commute in to work, in a neighborhood not wreaked with crime ... do you think no one would take it? Do you think that landlords could keep getting away with $3000/mo for a shoebox studio apartment in the East Village that's falling apart? When cheap substitutes become available, the price of a good falls.
- lucideer 6y ago
  > If you do not understand that the laws of supply and demand are... Clear from this opener you've not read either of my comments. At no point do I contradict or argue against the laws of supply and demand I'm merely pointing out that (a) building houses has limited impact on supply without accompanying measures and (b) building houses increases demand in particular circumstances. The combination of these two (less impact on supply and an increase in demand) make this measure only a small component of what's needed. > Do you think that landlords could keep getting away with $3000/mo [...] When cheap substitutes become available, the price of a good falls. Your last line is confusing as you say "cheap" and "price of good falls": how can one lead to the other, they're both the same thing? This is the cart before the horse? The market sets the prices of the "cheap subsitute" so it will only become cheap according to the laws of supply and demand. i.e. only if supply approaches/matches/exceeds demand. I'm not arguing supply and demand doesn't apply (that's ridiculous), I'm just arguing your idea won't increase supply as much as you believe, and won't leave demand static.