3 ms·

I think they answered in a curt but succinct way: > when you build you just fuel the vicious cycle of people -> opportunities -> people So long as a place is

I think they answered in a curt but succinct way: > when you build you just fuel the vicious cycle of people -> opportunities -> people So long as a place is desirable to live, people will keep moving there. Obviously there's a logical limit to the argument- things get weird when you build more housing than there are people- but then so too do the logistical issues of sewer, water, electricity, and geology (some locations simply aren't economical to build high rise buildings on).

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> So long as a place is desirable to live, people will keep moving there. The underlying premise being that they're moving to this place from some other place. But that has an obvious solution: Build more housing everywhere. People can't increase the population of everywhere by moving from everywhere to everywhere. It also implies that building it in one place still helps to reduce the cost somewhere else. If you make San Jose more attractive and people move from San Francisco to San Jose then you're reducing demand in San Francisco and lowering the prices there. > Obviously there's a logical limit to the argument- things get weird when you build more housing than there are people- but then so too do the logistical issues of sewer, water, electricity, and geology (some locations simply aren't economical to build high rise buildings on). The constraints at the physical limit are irrelevant because you don't need to get anywhere close to it. The point is that you could if you had to, not that you actually have to.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  This incorrectly assumes that housing is expensive everywhere. It isn't. My house's mortgage payment wouldn't get me a studio apartment in San Francisco.
  - Marsymars 2y ago
    Not that it necessarily invalidates your comparison, but the home pricing run-up has resulted in many people who wouldn't be able to afford a mortgage on their own home if they had to re-qualify and buy at market price.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Far from assuming this, that is the entire premise. Housing isn't that expensive in Detroit. It's expensive in San Jose. So more housing needs to be built in San Jose. This won't remove people from Detroit because the people have already left Detroit (and those cities are quite far apart). It might remove people from San Francisco, but that's a good thing too.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> So long as a place is desirable to live, people will keep moving there. The underlying premise being that they're moving to this place from some other place. But that has an obvious solution: Build more housing everywhere. People can't increase the population of everywhere by moving from everywhere to everywhere. It also implies that building it in one place still helps to reduce the cost somewhere else. If you make San Jose more attractive and people move from San Francisco to San Jose then you're reducing demand in San Francisco and lowering the prices there. > Obviously there's a logical limit to the argument- things get weird when you build more housing than there are people- but then so too do the logistical issues of sewer, water, electricity, and geology (some locations simply aren't economical to build high rise buildings on). The constraints at the physical limit are irrelevant because you don't need to get anywhere close to it. The point is that you could if you had to, not that you actually have to.

zdragnar 2y ago
This incorrectly assumes that housing is expensive everywhere. It isn't. My house's mortgage payment wouldn't get me a studio apartment in San Francisco.
- Marsymars 2y ago
  Not that it necessarily invalidates your comparison, but the home pricing run-up has resulted in many people who wouldn't be able to afford a mortgage on their own home if they had to re-qualify and buy at market price.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Far from assuming this, that is the entire premise. Housing isn't that expensive in Detroit. It's expensive in San Jose. So more housing needs to be built in San Jose. This won't remove people from Detroit because the people have already left Detroit (and those cities are quite far apart). It might remove people from San Francisco, but that's a good thing too.