5 ms·
You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to
by OnlineGladiator 4y ago
You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to function.
Now extend your own logic to teachers, service workers, etc.
- kevviiinn 4y agoThe Free Market(tm) has decided we don't need teachers, obviously
- hd95489 4y agoAt some point it would if no teachers would work in Seattle
- AstralStorm 4y agoMarket will move instead to where it is reasonably cheap and labor is available, leaving a ghost town behind. Ultimately this results in high concentration. There's literally no force compelling it to invest in a failing area, or one perceived to be failing.
- Izikiel43 4y ago> The Free Market(tm) If it was a true free market, housing wouldn't be an issue because developers wouldn't be forbidden from building density. Capitol hill is a disaster for city living as most of it are single family homes, whereas they should be 5 story condo buildings.
- kevviiinn 4y agoAh yes, the no true Scotsman of capitalism
- int_19h 4y agoCapitalism and free markets are not synonymous, and you can have the latter without the former (indeed, that was the case for most our history as economic species). Capitalism is detrimental to free markets because it has inherent positive feedback loops that concentrate capital. Concentration of capital inhibits competition, and a market without competition is by definition not free, regardless of the amount of government regulation in it.
- kevviiinn 4y agoIs a free market free of regulation?
- int_19h 4y agoIt could be, in principle. The problem with monopolization of capital is fundamentally caused by our overall conceptual take on private property as an abstract concept. Within that framework, you need regulation to keep the market free. But it's not the only framework that is possible; e.g. consider the situation where all capital is commonly owned and held in usufruct by its actual users ("everything is a co-op").
- kevviiinn 4y ago>everything is a co-op That sounds an awful lot like socialism
- int_19h 4y agoThat's because it is. Free-market socialism is a thing, with a spectrum from centralized demsoc to left libertarians to anarchists. "Freed markets" is the term usually used specifically in the latter context: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sheldon-richman-libertarian-left-free-market-anti-capitalism-the-unknown-ideal https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sheldon-richman-libe...
- ericmay 4y ago> which means it's too expensive to function Well it functions up until people such as this head chef say "screw these housing prices" and relocate somewhere else and open their restaurant and have a better life and then whoever is living in Seattle gets crappy or extremely expensive restaurants to account for the high housing prices.
- int_19h 4y agoIndeed. So, speaking as someone who lives in the Greater Seattle area, enjoys the local restaurants, and would like their head chefs to remain here - it is a problem, and I would like to solve it. Even if it means that my home equity might not be as valuable on paper as it would otherwise be in 10 years.
- ericmay 4y agoSure… but Seattle is valuable and desirable because it is Seattle. The only thing you could do to make it like you wish is to make Seattle undesirable. Think about it like this. What do you think of when you think about Indianapolis, or Kansas City, or Charlotte, etc.? Do those cities seem very desirable to you? Places you want to go and uproot your life to move to? Probably not. Flat. Boring. Dog shit weather. Car-only infrastructure. (I know I live in a similar city for family/friends reasons) You can’t solve this problem with less home equity - that’s a contradiction. The great things you enjoy are tied 1-1 inseparably from your home equity. The only way for your home equity to not be as valuable in ten years as it otherwise would be is to get rid of the very things that you enjoy!
- int_19h 4y agoThe only reason why none of these sound particularly desirable is the overall politics of their respective states. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a problem living in any of them now that remote work is reasonably well established. It wasn't back when I bought a house here - then it was all about the jobs. I also have to note that "dog shit weather" is literally one of the things that define the Seattle experience. I don't actually mind personally, but a lot of people do.
- hd95489 4y agoIt’s too expensive for chefs to live in Seattle it really is. People here don’t spend enough money eating out to justify the number on chefs so they can’t afford to live in decent housing
- NDizzle 4y agoSpecific to Seattle, once you see what the teachers are teaching kids there you'll see that they soon won't actually need teachers. Nobody that has both a functioning brain and children would put their kids in Seattle schools. The problem kind of solves itself.
- randomdata 4y agoHe’s saying that the people who spend money in Seattle don’t care if the chefs leave. That comes with the freedom to choose what to spend on.