6 ms·

The city resident needs the labor of the residents of the suburbs in order for the city to function.

germinalphrase 4y ago
Which doesn't necessitate the presence of the suburban environment. If suburban residents want a lifestyle distinct from living in the city, that is absolutely fine - but they should pay the costs of that lifestyle as it is a choice (just as living in a single family home versus an apartment is a choice urban residents make and should pay the corresponding costs to support).
- TigeriusKirk 4y ago
  Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need?
  - jrkatz 4y ago
    Asserting that the cost is necessary is a _big_ assumption. It's subsidized, sure, but that doesn't imply that it needs to be. If the subsidy ends, maybe wages will rise to close the gap, or maybe they won't, and suburban residents will move into denser accommodations nearer the city.
    - TigeriusKirk 4y ago
      Or the suburban residents will move to a city that pays for them to live they way they want to live. Cities are in competition for talent and labor. Those that provide more of what the people who provide that labor want will do better than those that do not.
      - jrkatz 4y ago
        Right, I am suggesting that a city can play out this competition by paying higher wages, i.e. paying suburban workers directly, rather than indirectly via subsidy. The experiment here is in wondering what those same workers would do given a net zero change to their income through a larger paycheck and higher housing costs. The subsidy doesn't allow efficient price discovery.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need? Because they don't need the specifically-suburban labor? They can get the labor from their 'fellow' urban dwellers?
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Presumably, the suburban residents work at businesses in the city. The city has attracted the businesses. It is the business that directly demands and compensates labor not the city.

Which doesn't necessitate the presence of the suburban environment. If suburban residents want a lifestyle distinct from living in the city, that is absolutely fine - but they should pay the costs of that lifestyle as it is a choice (just as living in a single family home versus an apartment is a choice urban residents make and should pay the corresponding costs to support).

TigeriusKirk 4y ago
Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need?
- jrkatz 4y ago
  Asserting that the cost is necessary is a _big_ assumption. It's subsidized, sure, but that doesn't imply that it needs to be. If the subsidy ends, maybe wages will rise to close the gap, or maybe they won't, and suburban residents will move into denser accommodations nearer the city.
  - TigeriusKirk 4y ago
    Or the suburban residents will move to a city that pays for them to live they way they want to live. Cities are in competition for talent and labor. Those that provide more of what the people who provide that labor want will do better than those that do not.
    - jrkatz 4y ago
      Right, I am suggesting that a city can play out this competition by paying higher wages, i.e. paying suburban workers directly, rather than indirectly via subsidy. The experiment here is in wondering what those same workers would do given a net zero change to their income through a larger paycheck and higher housing costs. The subsidy doesn't allow efficient price discovery.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need? Because they don't need the specifically-suburban labor? They can get the labor from their 'fellow' urban dwellers?
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Presumably, the suburban residents work at businesses in the city. The city has attracted the businesses. It is the business that directly demands and compensates labor not the city.