4 ms·

You are living in the part of the country with rising housing prices? Go find out the housing prices in many other parts of the country. You can get a house in

by babesh 5y ago

You are living in the part of the country with rising housing prices? Go find out the housing prices in many other parts of the country. You can get a house in the Rust Belt for 50,000 and the Rust Belt is a big area stretching through many states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc… Heck, there are parts of California where housing prices have grown less than inflation. Want a house for less than 200k about 80 miles from San Francisco? We need to reindustrialize.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> You can get a house in the Rust Belt for 50,000 and the Rust Belt is a big area stretching through many states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc… You can, but there are no jobs there, which is why housing is so cheap. The residents of these towns are leaving for the nearest growing city in huge numbers, leaving behind cheap housing and economic stagnation for those that remain. And in the places where the jobs are, housing is getting expensive. Even in the “rust belt”. They’re cheaper than San Francisco, sure, but with places like Columbus seeing their housing prices grow 20% year over year, it’ll get bad fast. > Want a house for less than 200k about 80 miles from San Francisco? Again, it depends on what you do for a living. How long is the commute from there to the nearest job center? I’m assuming the answer is “unbearably long”. Again, right now housing is cheap where people dont want to live.
- babesh 5y ago
  So you are for building all this housing when existing housing stock exists rather than trying to revitalize depressed economic areas???? How is that efficient?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Please point out where I’m opposed to revitalizing depressed economic areas. I’ll wait.
    - babesh 5y ago
      If you revitalize economically depressed areas then there is less demand for housing in the hot areas thus precluding the need to build so much housing in those areas. So focusing on building housing in the hot areas does not address the root cause.

by babesh 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

> You can get a house in the Rust Belt for 50,000 and the Rust Belt is a big area stretching through many states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc… You can, but there are no jobs there, which is why housing is so cheap. The residents of these towns are leaving for the nearest growing city in huge numbers, leaving behind cheap housing and economic stagnation for those that remain. And in the places where the jobs are, housing is getting expensive. Even in the “rust belt”. They’re cheaper than San Francisco, sure, but with places like Columbus seeing their housing prices grow 20% year over year, it’ll get bad fast. > Want a house for less than 200k about 80 miles from San Francisco? Again, it depends on what you do for a living. How long is the commute from there to the nearest job center? I’m assuming the answer is “unbearably long”. Again, right now housing is cheap where people dont want to live.

babesh 5y ago
So you are for building all this housing when existing housing stock exists rather than trying to revitalize depressed economic areas???? How is that efficient?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Please point out where I’m opposed to revitalizing depressed economic areas. I’ll wait.
  - babesh 5y ago
    If you revitalize economically depressed areas then there is less demand for housing in the hot areas thus precluding the need to build so much housing in those areas. So focusing on building housing in the hot areas does not address the root cause.