3 ms·

Increasing the supply alone does not counter the gentrification / ghetto effects the parent comment talked about, in fact it might amplify them. A gross oversi

Increasing the supply alone does not counter the gentrification / ghetto effects the parent comment talked about, in fact it might amplify them. A gross oversimplification, but if you somehow make ten thousand new apartments available in Manhattan at $1k/month, they will eventually fill up with low-income tenants, which will make them undesirable. Pressure on all the existing $5K properties will remain the same.

mattzito 4y ago
Why would they fill up with low income tenants? Why would that make it undesirable?
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  Because low income anywhere (rental area or even just low income suburban areas) typically has a population that is less able to invest into their area (in time or money), and historically has shown that they seek an extractive relationship with their environment rather than invest in it.
  - feet 4y ago
    Are you joking? Poor people are the exploitative ones? That's just entirely false The entire basis of capitalism in the US is that the work of the poor is exploited by those with the capital to build factories and businesses which extract labor and resources from the poor people That's why they can't invest. You have it entirely backwards
    - jimmaswell 4y ago
      Exactly. Most of a poor person's income will be spent locally every paycheck. Higher income, more is saved or sent offshore etc
  - mym1990 4y ago
    Haha "extractive relationship" come on man. Poor people aren't vampires, they need to be resourceful in their environment to survive.
a_c_s 4y ago
Pressure would remain the same just as eating a single grape would not abate a person's hunger: NYC has millions of existing housing units. To make a significant dent in the rent would require building hundreds of thousands of new apartments.
runako 4y ago
Are you suggesting that people paying $5k are doing that because of some inherent property of a $5k rental, and that they would not prefer to pay the year 2000 rent on the same unit, say $3000? If people paying $5k would prefer to pay $3k for their units, why would this logic not also apply to people who are currently paying $3k? If lower rents would make the city become undesirable, why did people want to move there in the year 2000, when rents were much lower?
- pvarangot 4y ago
  > inherent property of a $5k rental, The inherent property of a 5k rental he's referring to is that it costs 5k. Most people paying 5k for a studio just _don't want people around their houses_ specially if they are poorer than them. Otherwise they would be paying less than 3k for a room with a shared kitchen and bathroom or renting a bigger place with roommates.
Aunche 4y ago
$1k/month rent isn't exactly low income material. As a high income SWE, I definitely feel like I'm sucking the city dry in a way. I'm not making $8 chopped cheeses. I'm not building parks. I'm not creating art. I'm just a consumer. Having said that, what's even worse than me is "low income" consumers. A lot of affordable housing, especially HDFC apartments, end up in the hands of the children of the rich. Not only are they not producing anything of value, they're also costing us tax dollars.

mattzito 4y ago

Why would they fill up with low income tenants? Why would that make it undesirable?

namelessoracle 4y ago
Because low income anywhere (rental area or even just low income suburban areas) typically has a population that is less able to invest into their area (in time or money), and historically has shown that they seek an extractive relationship with their environment rather than invest in it.
- feet 4y ago
  Are you joking? Poor people are the exploitative ones? That's just entirely false The entire basis of capitalism in the US is that the work of the poor is exploited by those with the capital to build factories and businesses which extract labor and resources from the poor people That's why they can't invest. You have it entirely backwards
  - jimmaswell 4y ago
    Exactly. Most of a poor person's income will be spent locally every paycheck. Higher income, more is saved or sent offshore etc
- mym1990 4y ago
  Haha "extractive relationship" come on man. Poor people aren't vampires, they need to be resourceful in their environment to survive.

a_c_s 4y ago

Pressure would remain the same just as eating a single grape would not abate a person's hunger: NYC has millions of existing housing units. To make a significant dent in the rent would require building hundreds of thousands of new apartments.

runako 4y ago

Are you suggesting that people paying $5k are doing that because of some inherent property of a $5k rental, and that they would not prefer to pay the year 2000 rent on the same unit, say $3000? If people paying $5k would prefer to pay $3k for their units, why would this logic not also apply to people who are currently paying $3k? If lower rents would make the city become undesirable, why did people want to move there in the year 2000, when rents were much lower?

pvarangot 4y ago
> inherent property of a $5k rental, The inherent property of a 5k rental he's referring to is that it costs 5k. Most people paying 5k for a studio just _don't want people around their houses_ specially if they are poorer than them. Otherwise they would be paying less than 3k for a room with a shared kitchen and bathroom or renting a bigger place with roommates.

Aunche 4y ago

$1k/month rent isn't exactly low income material. As a high income SWE, I definitely feel like I'm sucking the city dry in a way. I'm not making $8 chopped cheeses. I'm not building parks. I'm not creating art. I'm just a consumer. Having said that, what's even worse than me is "low income" consumers. A lot of affordable housing, especially HDFC apartments, end up in the hands of the children of the rich. Not only are they not producing anything of value, they're also costing us tax dollars.