3 ms·

So if i'm reading this right, the "obvious" answer to homelessness in New York, LA and SF - some of the most expensive spots on this planet - is to try to accom

So if i'm reading this right, the "obvious" answer to homelessness in New York, LA and SF - some of the most expensive spots on this planet - is to try to accommodate everyone there at any cost? You'd think that in the US, one of the most mobile societies in the world, free market would incentivize people to, you know, maybe move somewhere more affordable than Manhattan?

dieselgate 4y ago
What if you are born in one of those places and had no choice about where you live? This is bigger than city of SF or LA - the whole surrounding areas are quite expensive too.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  My wife grew up in Silicon Valley, born there a few years before it became known as Silicon Valley. Her sister (my SiL) was born and raised there and by the time she died at 55 a few years ago she was essentially just couch surfing, house sitting and (we suspect) occasionally sleeping in her car. Because she wasn't a tech worker she couldn't come near to affording rent. My wife had invited her to come live with us for a while (in a much lower COL area) but she just couldn't do it. She didn't drink or do drugs so that wasn't the reason for her near-homelessness. She grew up there and felt like she had roots there and she didn't like the colder climate we live in. I think sometimes we discount the idea that someone could be tied to a geographical area, that they could feel like they have roots there.
UncleOxidant 4y ago
Places like Manhattan and SF need restaurant workers, teachers, daycare workers, janitors, etc. Jobs that don't pay anywhere near enough for them to afford to live anywhere near them. Somehow we need to provide these workers with housing that they can afford so they can do the work that needs doing in those areas.
- chii 4y ago
  or, those workers migrate to another city where the cost of living is lower (and thus they would make more money in that new city). The lack of workers in NY/SF will mean those worker's wages there would increase - at some point the increase matches the cost of living for them to remain. Affordable housing might patch over the problem of high cost of living - but it's yet another bandaid, isnt it? If it costs taxpayer money to subsidize housing to make it affordable, then you'd just be subsidising the wage costs for businesses indirectly. If affordable housing could be built privately without state subsidy, i would imagine the private sector would already have done it (let's disregard the NIMBYism for now). The fact that this currently doesn't happen, but that expensive ("unaffordable") housing does still get built means that affordable housing is not profitable. So what would make it profitable? Density - aka, fix the NIMBY problem, or lower cost of material/labour. Unfortunately, i dont see any of these problems getting solved in the near/medium term at all.
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    > If it costs taxpayer money to subsidize housing to make it affordable, then you'd just be subsidising the wage costs for businesses indirectly I'm generally not referring to subsidized housing. Yes, certain incentives for building less expensive housing are needed. As you suggest, currently the incentives are towards building more high end, unaffordable housing. Some of it could come down to changing zoning to allow higher density or conversion of office space into housing space. Other ideas would be to create units that share some kind of central kitchen, for example - this would probably require a change in building codes. > or, those workers migrate to another city where the cost of living is lower Sure, some of that could happen and likely has. But people on the lower end of the income strata also tend not to be able to afford to move very far. Also, if you compare places with lower cost of living they tend to also have less amenities like restaurants so it could be that those workers don't move there because the jobs aren't there. Looking back a hundred years or so it seemed we had more options for people on the lower end of the income scale: boarding houses, longterm hotels (which were affordable for people like artists who didn't make much - lots of writers who later became famous lived in longterm hotels), even places like the Y(MCA) (which apparently still exist, but now are more like exercise/activity centers that don't seem to offer any housing options)
theGnuMe 4y ago
Most of the new job growth in the US is in service sector jobs that service the needs of college educated workers (profs, lawyers, tech workers etc...) and the elderly.

dieselgate 4y ago

What if you are born in one of those places and had no choice about where you live? This is bigger than city of SF or LA - the whole surrounding areas are quite expensive too.

UncleOxidant 4y ago
My wife grew up in Silicon Valley, born there a few years before it became known as Silicon Valley. Her sister (my SiL) was born and raised there and by the time she died at 55 a few years ago she was essentially just couch surfing, house sitting and (we suspect) occasionally sleeping in her car. Because she wasn't a tech worker she couldn't come near to affording rent. My wife had invited her to come live with us for a while (in a much lower COL area) but she just couldn't do it. She didn't drink or do drugs so that wasn't the reason for her near-homelessness. She grew up there and felt like she had roots there and she didn't like the colder climate we live in. I think sometimes we discount the idea that someone could be tied to a geographical area, that they could feel like they have roots there.

UncleOxidant 4y ago

Places like Manhattan and SF need restaurant workers, teachers, daycare workers, janitors, etc. Jobs that don't pay anywhere near enough for them to afford to live anywhere near them. Somehow we need to provide these workers with housing that they can afford so they can do the work that needs doing in those areas.

chii 4y ago
or, those workers migrate to another city where the cost of living is lower (and thus they would make more money in that new city). The lack of workers in NY/SF will mean those worker's wages there would increase - at some point the increase matches the cost of living for them to remain. Affordable housing might patch over the problem of high cost of living - but it's yet another bandaid, isnt it? If it costs taxpayer money to subsidize housing to make it affordable, then you'd just be subsidising the wage costs for businesses indirectly. If affordable housing could be built privately without state subsidy, i would imagine the private sector would already have done it (let's disregard the NIMBYism for now). The fact that this currently doesn't happen, but that expensive ("unaffordable") housing does still get built means that affordable housing is not profitable. So what would make it profitable? Density - aka, fix the NIMBY problem, or lower cost of material/labour. Unfortunately, i dont see any of these problems getting solved in the near/medium term at all.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  > If it costs taxpayer money to subsidize housing to make it affordable, then you'd just be subsidising the wage costs for businesses indirectly I'm generally not referring to subsidized housing. Yes, certain incentives for building less expensive housing are needed. As you suggest, currently the incentives are towards building more high end, unaffordable housing. Some of it could come down to changing zoning to allow higher density or conversion of office space into housing space. Other ideas would be to create units that share some kind of central kitchen, for example - this would probably require a change in building codes. > or, those workers migrate to another city where the cost of living is lower Sure, some of that could happen and likely has. But people on the lower end of the income strata also tend not to be able to afford to move very far. Also, if you compare places with lower cost of living they tend to also have less amenities like restaurants so it could be that those workers don't move there because the jobs aren't there. Looking back a hundred years or so it seemed we had more options for people on the lower end of the income scale: boarding houses, longterm hotels (which were affordable for people like artists who didn't make much - lots of writers who later became famous lived in longterm hotels), even places like the Y(MCA) (which apparently still exist, but now are more like exercise/activity centers that don't seem to offer any housing options)

theGnuMe 4y ago

Most of the new job growth in the US is in service sector jobs that service the needs of college educated workers (profs, lawyers, tech workers etc...) and the elderly.