4 ms·

In fraught issues like rent control and housing, I often see claims like the one in the article that people moving to cities can see up to a 30% increase in inc

by jkic47 3y ago

In fraught issues like rent control and housing, I often see claims like the one in the article that people moving to cities can see up to a 30% increase in income, but they never seem to factor in the increase in costs, which could be far higher than 30%, leading to a net loss. Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to cold. I am not claiming the point is invalid - just that a fuller picture can make the conversation richer.

alephnerd 3y ago
Rent control and Height restrictions aren't enforced in India. Property contract disputes in India follow the principle of "Jiski lathi, uski bhains" (might makes right // That cow belongs to the guy with the bamboo or iron rod). The landlord or the tenent can enforce their ideal level of rent based on who can force the other to comply, and civil courts have decades long backlogs so nothing will get done - property disputes make up the majority of cases in India.
marcinzm 3y ago
> Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to cold. I am not claiming the point is invalid - just that a fuller picture can make the conversation richer. Studies on this definitely account for both. Of course, given that cold related deaths are already significantly fewer than heat deaths there isn't much to talk about beyond noting the fact that they're essentially irrelevant. This of course highlights why if one sees something "obvious" that experts miss the response should be to dig into why they're not accounting for it versus assuming they're idiots or malicious.
- jkic47 3y ago
  Not sure where you see my comment assuming they are idiots or malicious. I just note that they don't mention it, where they might reference the study that supports your assertion that they are significantly fewer.
taneq 3y ago
There are some pitfalls in comparing percentages like this. Net profit (or disposable income - it’s weird how different the connotations of these terms are) is a much better measure. Consider a farm worker who’s paid $10/day, and pays $1/day for bread and board. They move to the city where they’re paid $13/day and pay $3/day in living expenses. That’s 30% more pay but 300% higher costs. Assuming all else is equal (quality of life etc) are they better off?
- anonyfox 3y ago
  if finances remain equal-ish, then I'd say it depends on the individuum and exact circumstances. For example I hate living in the countryside or small village - I'd always pick the densest/urban/modern area I can afford to live, just because I crave the buzzing energy and constant novelty and stimulating options around. But other people can be the exact opposite.
- bombcar 3y ago
  You can also have situations (especially in poor countries) where you go from your $10/day but able to survive if work stops, because you can just grow some food for yourself, survive on very little, etc to being absolutely dependent on a salary or social support if work fails.

by jkic47 3y ago

alephnerd 3y ago

Rent control and Height restrictions aren't enforced in India. Property contract disputes in India follow the principle of "Jiski lathi, uski bhains" (might makes right // That cow belongs to the guy with the bamboo or iron rod). The landlord or the tenent can enforce their ideal level of rent based on who can force the other to comply, and civil courts have decades long backlogs so nothing will get done - property disputes make up the majority of cases in India.

marcinzm 3y ago

> Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to cold. I am not claiming the point is invalid - just that a fuller picture can make the conversation richer. Studies on this definitely account for both. Of course, given that cold related deaths are already significantly fewer than heat deaths there isn't much to talk about beyond noting the fact that they're essentially irrelevant. This of course highlights why if one sees something "obvious" that experts miss the response should be to dig into why they're not accounting for it versus assuming they're idiots or malicious.

jkic47 3y ago
Not sure where you see my comment assuming they are idiots or malicious. I just note that they don't mention it, where they might reference the study that supports your assertion that they are significantly fewer.

taneq 3y ago

There are some pitfalls in comparing percentages like this. Net profit (or disposable income - it’s weird how different the connotations of these terms are) is a much better measure. Consider a farm worker who’s paid $10/day, and pays $1/day for bread and board. They move to the city where they’re paid $13/day and pay $3/day in living expenses. That’s 30% more pay but 300% higher costs. Assuming all else is equal (quality of life etc) are they better off?

anonyfox 3y ago
if finances remain equal-ish, then I'd say it depends on the individuum and exact circumstances. For example I hate living in the countryside or small village - I'd always pick the densest/urban/modern area I can afford to live, just because I crave the buzzing energy and constant novelty and stimulating options around. But other people can be the exact opposite.
bombcar 3y ago
You can also have situations (especially in poor countries) where you go from your $10/day but able to survive if work stops, because you can just grow some food for yourself, survive on very little, etc to being absolutely dependent on a salary or social support if work fails.