2 ms·

Not if they can't afford their own rent. if you actually look at housing inflation vs. wage growth, the real story is that people are getting substantially poo

Not if they can't afford their own rent. if you actually look at housing inflation vs. wage growth, the real story is that people are getting substantially poorer over time. A little bit of extra tax revenue to their town or city isn't going to offset that. But yes, it's nice when someone is contributing to your living space but doesn't actually live there. Localized example: my building neighbor is away ~50% of the time and it's amazing. I get all the benefits of a multi-unit building with a dedicated landlord, but my day-to-day life is a lot like living in a single-family detached house.

xnx 3y ago
It's a very complex issue. Housing inflation v. wage growth charts often don't account for houses being much bigger and better than the used to be and more people wanting to live in fewer areas. Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), you can look at price per square foot and see the same story. Prices of 100-year-old 1400-sqft homes are going up too, faster than consumer prices and faster than wages. > more people wanting to live in fewer areas > Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago As far as I know, people wanting to live in remote areas was a relatively short-lived phenomenon in American history, facilitated by a number of economic and political factors that are not repeatable. My personal belief is that improving mass transit (think: Netherlands) is the best and most sustainable way to mitigate the current crisis, especially in the Boston area.
  - xnx 3y ago
    Cost per square foot hasn't changed much in 40 years: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/ https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/ That doesn't even account for the higher code requirements for insulation, fire, and wind resistance. > As far as I know, people wanting to live in remote areas was a relatively short-lived phenomenon in American history, As the US left its agrarian roots, more people have been living in fewer places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Urban_and_rural_populations_in_the_United_States_(US_Census_Bureau_(1790_to_2010)),_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta... It will be interesting to see if the remote knowledge work can reverse this trend. The Netherlands is great, but I don't know if its successes can be repeated in the US.

xnx 3y ago

It's a very complex issue. Housing inflation v. wage growth charts often don't account for houses being much bigger and better than the used to be and more people wanting to live in fewer areas. Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago.

nerdponx 3y ago
As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), you can look at price per square foot and see the same story. Prices of 100-year-old 1400-sqft homes are going up too, faster than consumer prices and faster than wages. > more people wanting to live in fewer areas > Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago As far as I know, people wanting to live in remote areas was a relatively short-lived phenomenon in American history, facilitated by a number of economic and political factors that are not repeatable. My personal belief is that improving mass transit (think: Netherlands) is the best and most sustainable way to mitigate the current crisis, especially in the Boston area.
- xnx 3y ago
  Cost per square foot hasn't changed much in 40 years: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/ https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/ That doesn't even account for the higher code requirements for insulation, fire, and wind resistance. > As far as I know, people wanting to live in remote areas was a relatively short-lived phenomenon in American history, As the US left its agrarian roots, more people have been living in fewer places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Urban_and_rural_populations_in_the_United_States_(US_Census_Bureau_(1790_to_2010)),_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta... It will be interesting to see if the remote knowledge work can reverse this trend. The Netherlands is great, but I don't know if its successes can be repeated in the US.