3 ms·

The article isn't actually about housing being unaffordable. It says housing is unavailable. They could build more housing, but no one wants to get caught hold

The article isn't actually about housing being unaffordable. It says housing is unavailable. They could build more housing, but no one wants to get caught holding the bag if the boom turns to a bust as the world returns more to normal. And even if they did choose to build the housing, housing next year doesn't solve the issue of housing today. That said, where I live we are building plenty of housing but we still can't fill jobs. Why exactly is hard to say, but general consensus is that government unemployment benefits are currently compelling enough that people will trade taking a hit on their income in exchange for not having to work. Can't blame them, I guess. Seems like a painful readjustment in the coming years as we unwind all the emergency decisions we made last year.

jrs235 5y ago
OP's comment still holds true: "Plenty of available jobs" is what happens when the deal you are offering- cash for labour- is not an acceptable deal to the labour side. When businesses cannot be profitable at market-chosen labour prices, the businesses will close down. When low paid workers can't afford to live locally because of availability of affordable housing, they must live further away. Commuting has a cost too so if low paid workers can afford housing an hour away, it still might be cost prohibited to take those jobs because commuting costs too much (or "affordable" transportation isn't available). Then if you include the 2+ hours of commute time per shift to take those jobs, it may very well make those jobs less attractive as the effective hourly pay rate is lower than elsewhere.
- war1025 5y ago
  > Commuting has a cost too so if low paid workers can afford housing an hour away Maybe I'm wrong, but given my experience driving through the Rockies, I doubt there is any more housing an hour away than there is town. It's just a giant vastness of undeveloped land. Wikipedia says that the county Ketchum is in has a population density of 8 people/sq mile, and an area of 2600 sq miles. Wikipedia also says that many people commute in for work from neighboring Lincoln county, population 5000. I think the OP's comment is correct in general, but the particular situation in question has more nuance to it. I don't see any conflict between the two.

jrs235 5y ago

OP's comment still holds true: "Plenty of available jobs" is what happens when the deal you are offering- cash for labour- is not an acceptable deal to the labour side. When businesses cannot be profitable at market-chosen labour prices, the businesses will close down. When low paid workers can't afford to live locally because of availability of affordable housing, they must live further away. Commuting has a cost too so if low paid workers can afford housing an hour away, it still might be cost prohibited to take those jobs because commuting costs too much (or "affordable" transportation isn't available). Then if you include the 2+ hours of commute time per shift to take those jobs, it may very well make those jobs less attractive as the effective hourly pay rate is lower than elsewhere.

war1025 5y ago
> Commuting has a cost too so if low paid workers can afford housing an hour away Maybe I'm wrong, but given my experience driving through the Rockies, I doubt there is any more housing an hour away than there is town. It's just a giant vastness of undeveloped land. Wikipedia says that the county Ketchum is in has a population density of 8 people/sq mile, and an area of 2600 sq miles. Wikipedia also says that many people commute in for work from neighboring Lincoln county, population 5000. I think the OP's comment is correct in general, but the particular situation in question has more nuance to it. I don't see any conflict between the two.