5 ms·

Why would you want to incentivize wealthy people to leave?

by idoh 6y ago

mywittyname 6y ago
Because they drive up prices. If a bunch of people with 10-100x your income kept moving into your city, driving property prices into the stratosphere, you'd be pissed too. It doesn't stop with houses either. All of the middle class stores start getting replaced with higher cost ones that cater to the ultra-wealthy, leaving you to drive further out for good deals. Resident who don't want to be pushed out have their own breaking point to, and instead of voting with their feet, they vote to evict the invaders. California isn't the only place where this a problem. All across the world we are seeing pushback against ultra-wealthy taking over cities/neighborhoods and driving out middle class residents.
- setr 6y ago
  Driving up prices such that a minority population can afford it is a solution to overcrowding -- not a cause of it. In fact, its the natural market solution to overcrowding: demand exceeding supply..
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    And yet, the problem isn't fixed, even after 20+ years of this "natural market solution". Turns out, these people have to live somewhere, so now they travel from further out by car, causing a bunch of traffic congestion. They had to move, but the jobs are still in the same place.
    - twblalock 6y ago
      There has not been a "natural market solution" for housing for two reasons: strict zoning laws, and rent control. Both of those together have caused the housing shortage.
    - setr 6y ago
      If you have 20,000 people in the city, and 200,000 people outside and you kick out the 20,000 people in the city, to another state so 20,000 suburbans move into the city now you have 20,000 people in the city, and 180,000 people outside I'm not sure what you've solved. It feels like you're arguing this is a knee-jerk reaction, and a fair reaction, and that this is a solution, but you keep avoiding saying how it actually solves anything regarding overcrowding. Like it solves every problem except the one under discussion.
- twblalock 6y ago
  Most of the residents you are talking about were "invaders" one time too. The difference is that when they showed up, more housing was built for them. Today, more housing does not get built, primarily because of strict zoning laws supported by the existing residents, so newcomers end up competing with existing residents for housing. On the other hand, if new housing was built for the newcomers, they would contribute to the economy of the city and pay taxes, and their presence would be an overall net positive. Something is really wrong with the way a city is run if an influx of high earners is considered a bad thing.

Why would you want to incentivize wealthy people to leave?

by idoh 6y ago

Why would you want to incentivize wealthy people to leave?

Because they drive up prices. If a bunch of people with 10-100x your income kept moving into your city, driving property prices into the stratosphere, you'd be pissed too. It doesn't stop with houses either. All of the middle class stores start getting replaced with higher cost ones that cater to the ultra-wealthy, leaving you to drive further out for good deals. Resident who don't want to be pushed out have their own breaking point to, and instead of voting with their feet, they vote to evict the invaders. California isn't the only place where this a problem. All across the world we are seeing pushback against ultra-wealthy taking over cities/neighborhoods and driving out middle class residents.

setr 6y ago
Driving up prices such that a minority population can afford it is a solution to overcrowding -- not a cause of it. In fact, its the natural market solution to overcrowding: demand exceeding supply..
- mywittyname 6y ago
  And yet, the problem isn't fixed, even after 20+ years of this "natural market solution". Turns out, these people have to live somewhere, so now they travel from further out by car, causing a bunch of traffic congestion. They had to move, but the jobs are still in the same place.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    There has not been a "natural market solution" for housing for two reasons: strict zoning laws, and rent control. Both of those together have caused the housing shortage.
  - setr 6y ago
    If you have 20,000 people in the city, and 200,000 people outside and you kick out the 20,000 people in the city, to another state so 20,000 suburbans move into the city now you have 20,000 people in the city, and 180,000 people outside I'm not sure what you've solved. It feels like you're arguing this is a knee-jerk reaction, and a fair reaction, and that this is a solution, but you keep avoiding saying how it actually solves anything regarding overcrowding. Like it solves every problem except the one under discussion.
twblalock 6y ago
Most of the residents you are talking about were "invaders" one time too. The difference is that when they showed up, more housing was built for them. Today, more housing does not get built, primarily because of strict zoning laws supported by the existing residents, so newcomers end up competing with existing residents for housing. On the other hand, if new housing was built for the newcomers, they would contribute to the economy of the city and pay taxes, and their presence would be an overall net positive. Something is really wrong with the way a city is run if an influx of high earners is considered a bad thing.