4 ms·
If 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
by trident5000 5y ago
If 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?