5 ms·
That's a common response. The problem is that it ignores the fact that San Francisco needs those people to fill jobs that need doing. https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX ht
by gregable 5y ago
That's a common response. The problem is that it ignores the fact that San Francisco needs those people to fill jobs that need doing. https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX
The common response to that then is then we should just raise the pay in an area until every job pays enough to afford to live there, or if not those jobs are clearly not important enough. The problem is that the number of these jobs is growing faster than housing stock. Market forces can't solve the problem of more jobs than homes unless you can build homes or destroy jobs. Take a look at https://bit.ly/36ySeFS https://bit.ly/36ySeFS - Santa Clara County added 300,000 jobs between 2010 and 2020 while building around 6,000 homes per year (5 jobs per home).
SF is the same story: total housing units in San Francisco increased by about 23,000 from 2010 to 2018 (https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2018_Presentation.pdf https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2..., slide 6). Total employment in San Francisco during the same period grew by almost 300,000.
Seattle: total housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 grew by about 59,000 homes (https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo...). Total employment (labor force) in Seattle during the same period grew by 243,000 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253...)
- trident5000 5y agoIf you really need them, then pay them more. Otherwise you dont need them do you. People dont want to pay a business enough so they can hire people? Then you dont get the business. Economics works itself out if you let it.
- timdev2 5y agoI feel like you didn't really address anything past the second sentence of the comment you were responding to. > Economics works itself out if you let it. Sure. But exclusive single-family zoning, for example, isn't exactly "letting it".
- nate_meurer 5y ago> Economics works itself out if you let it. It's not just the businesses that are lost. Entire towns are at risk. We're facing the same problem in a lot of small mountain towns here in Colorado. Businesses can't hire because workers can't afford to leave anywhere near. The poor business environment and rising prices destroys the quality of life for locals, and the feedback can drain the population. I feel like this is an experiment that hasn't been fully conducted on a large scale anywhere, but I fear it will be soon.
- trident5000 5y agoMy point is if rich people are moving in and driving home prices up, then those same people should have the ability and willingness to pay higher prices to local businesses who can then pay employees more. If their business is not a necessity or something the community wants, then yes they are going out of business. I have sympathy for that small town feel, trust me. But thats how its going to go.
- wbsss4412 5y agoThe most common policy responses in this thread are suggesting that the solution is to allow more building by relaxing zoning restrictions and lowering the amount of public input on new development, ie greater property rights. How are you not for that if you believe what you stated in your last sentence?