3 ms·

> 1. Major housing developments are accompanied by more jobs than the units being built could serve. Lets take your theory to be true. Even if this is the cas

by stale2002 3y ago

> 1. Major housing developments are accompanied by more jobs than the units being built could serve. Lets take your theory to be true. Even if this is the case, it would still effectively cause housing prices to decrease, relative to the amount of money that people are making. So, if density causes people's income to double, by having all these awesome and cool jobs, but housing prices only go up by 50%, this is still a massive win for the residents.

endisneigh 3y ago
> Even if this is the case, it would still effectively cause housing prices to decrease, relative to the amount of money that people are making. This isn't true at all, though, empirically. Trivially you can look at the minimum wage in the top 10 most expensive cities vs the bottom 10 and see this. > So, if density causes people's income to double, by having all these awesome and cool jobs, but housing prices only go up by 50%, this is still a massive win for the residents. Why exactly would that happen? Ironically denser places result in lower wages, relative to the rent. Your theory is empirically false. This is why people like remote work, so they can better arbitrage.
- stale2002 3y ago
  You can't have it both ways here. Either density is creating lots of high paying jobs in an area, that is driving up the price of housing, or it isn't. > Ironically denser places result in lower wages No it doesn't. The highest paid locations, in the US, are located in these high cost of living areas. > This is why people like remote work, so they can better arbitrage. Yes, they work remote, because dense locations have high salaries. That supports my point. You just agreed with me. If people had high paying jobs, where they live, they wouldn't work remote, to get the highly paid jobs in dense cities.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    > It should be almost self evidently true that they pay more money, than random jobs, in the middle of nowhere, in the US. I'm talking about the wage relative to the price sq/ft. You're laughably wrong. Just google Median NYC salary and look at the median NYC sq/ft, and do the same with say, Dallas, TX. It's not even close. I'm not talking about nominal wages, I'm talking about sq/ft monthly rent adjusted wages. When you look at that, the densest places do not have the highest wages. People are sacrificing earning potential to be in a more fun area, which makes sense.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      Once again, if your statement was true, people wouldn't be moving to NYC, or SF, for the highly paid jobs. If they could get highly paid jobs, elsewhere, they wouldn't pay the high cost of living, to be near the high paying jobs. I am not sure what theory you could invent, that would cause people to move to a high cost of living area, if not for the high paying opportunities in those areas. If, instead they could get better opportunities elsewhere, why pay the high cost of living? > People are sacrificing earning potential to be in a more fun area Hey, if you know of any jobs that pay 500k a year, for a sofware eng position, not in SF or NYC, please let me know then! I'm going to say, that actually its the salaries though.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        > Once again, if your statement was true, people wouldn't be moving to NYC, or SF, for the highly paid jobs. adjusted wages for rent is not the only consideration. cities have far more amenities, which are beyond the scope of the discussion. it's simply a fact, however, that if you're simply looking at square footage, rent, and wage, the densest cities in the united states do not give you the highest wages. there's really no point in arguing about it, you can go look for yourself.
    - 8note 3y ago
      Wage, measured in $/month Housing cost, measured in $/month Housing cost/sqft measured in ($/month)/sqft Wage/(housing cost/sqft) measured in sqft. Why is sqft a measure of earning potential?

endisneigh 3y ago

> Even if this is the case, it would still effectively cause housing prices to decrease, relative to the amount of money that people are making. This isn't true at all, though, empirically. Trivially you can look at the minimum wage in the top 10 most expensive cities vs the bottom 10 and see this. > So, if density causes people's income to double, by having all these awesome and cool jobs, but housing prices only go up by 50%, this is still a massive win for the residents. Why exactly would that happen? Ironically denser places result in lower wages, relative to the rent. Your theory is empirically false. This is why people like remote work, so they can better arbitrage.

stale2002 3y ago
You can't have it both ways here. Either density is creating lots of high paying jobs in an area, that is driving up the price of housing, or it isn't. > Ironically denser places result in lower wages No it doesn't. The highest paid locations, in the US, are located in these high cost of living areas. > This is why people like remote work, so they can better arbitrage. Yes, they work remote, because dense locations have high salaries. That supports my point. You just agreed with me. If people had high paying jobs, where they live, they wouldn't work remote, to get the highly paid jobs in dense cities.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  > It should be almost self evidently true that they pay more money, than random jobs, in the middle of nowhere, in the US. I'm talking about the wage relative to the price sq/ft. You're laughably wrong. Just google Median NYC salary and look at the median NYC sq/ft, and do the same with say, Dallas, TX. It's not even close. I'm not talking about nominal wages, I'm talking about sq/ft monthly rent adjusted wages. When you look at that, the densest places do not have the highest wages. People are sacrificing earning potential to be in a more fun area, which makes sense.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Once again, if your statement was true, people wouldn't be moving to NYC, or SF, for the highly paid jobs. If they could get highly paid jobs, elsewhere, they wouldn't pay the high cost of living, to be near the high paying jobs. I am not sure what theory you could invent, that would cause people to move to a high cost of living area, if not for the high paying opportunities in those areas. If, instead they could get better opportunities elsewhere, why pay the high cost of living? > People are sacrificing earning potential to be in a more fun area Hey, if you know of any jobs that pay 500k a year, for a sofware eng position, not in SF or NYC, please let me know then! I'm going to say, that actually its the salaries though.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      > Once again, if your statement was true, people wouldn't be moving to NYC, or SF, for the highly paid jobs. adjusted wages for rent is not the only consideration. cities have far more amenities, which are beyond the scope of the discussion. it's simply a fact, however, that if you're simply looking at square footage, rent, and wage, the densest cities in the united states do not give you the highest wages. there's really no point in arguing about it, you can go look for yourself.
  - 8note 3y ago
    Wage, measured in $/month Housing cost, measured in $/month Housing cost/sqft measured in ($/month)/sqft Wage/(housing cost/sqft) measured in sqft. Why is sqft a measure of earning potential?