3 ms·

It also means that in places like SF those who built the cities character and provide the backbone of all kinds of services can stay. If the market price came t

It also means that in places like SF those who built the cities character and provide the backbone of all kinds of services can stay. If the market price came to be they’d have to move, and then we’d only have tech workers who have way more elasticity in their budgets than kindergarten teachers. You have to recognize reality is messy and you need a mix.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That is how functioning markets need to work. If demand goes up, then the market price goes up. If the price goes up and tech workers want their kids to go to school, they need to pay teachers more. Right now, there are crappy 100 duct tape fixes. Maybe some teachers are in rent controlled places paying 25% market price, and some are paying full market. Some teachers are in City owned housing that only teachers qualify for. In short, it isnt a functioning market. For it to be a functioning market, you have to let the taxpayers confront the question of if they would rather pay for schools or not have them.
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago
  OR supply can change. Increased demand, in the long run, in a well-functioning market can cause market price to fall. Because supply goes up, and production in volume decreases cost. Anyway we're talking people here (for now; AI will change this and soon). The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think what I said holds true independent of increasing housing supply, which I also support. A functional market would find a labor price where necessary workers can afford the housing price, or face going without their labor. I think the current approach is counter productive because it tries to bypass this with policy solutions that mean workers keep making unsustainable wages, but are subsidized in several other ways with poor implementation. >Anyway we're talking people here.... The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear. Im not sure what you are saying here. I dont think the costs to become a teacher are the bottleneck. Cost of living is the financial bottle neck, and the misery of working in a dysfunctional school districts is the emotional bottle neck. I know several former teachers in SF. You can afford to be a teacher in SF if you have rent control, but not if you dont. Some left for jobs that pay even worse because the conditions were so bad (broken bones from students, incompetent administrators, hostile parents, ect)
- rickydroll 2y ago
  Markets don't account for the human capacity for self-deception. For a market to work, there needs to be sufficient information on both sides to decide whether to buy or walk away. There also needs to be enough logic to make a cold decision and not let emotions, hopes, desires, fantasies, or hallucinations influence your decision in any way. Market participants count on the human capacity for self-deception, asymmetrical information, and emotion-based decision-making. In the case of teachers, there will always be some unwise rationalization based on the kids they'll be helping, how beautiful San Francisco is, how nice it is to be on the ocean, etc., which will cause them to make a bad decision about taking a job in San Francisco. Maybe that's a job for AI. Tell it your job offer and how you spend your money, and it will tell you whether or not you can afford to take the job or run away.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Correct. Markets function on the desires humans act on. They dont optimize for how humans "should" act but dont. I think there is far more moral hazard in having the government overrule the preferences people act on and enforce the solution they think people should select. Some people make mistakes. People learn and society learns. Markets take time to search for and find equilibrium. Preventing markets which are out of equilibrium from progressing towards equilibrium often triggers a cascade of secondary problems.
    - azinman2 2y ago
      What you’re suggesting, if I understand you correctly, is the market is suggestion it’s irrational for any teacher to go to SF? And thus SF shouldn’t have any teachers because richer people can afford to displace them?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I'm sorry if you got that impression.Im saying the exact opposite. I'm saying we should let the schools get to the point of teacher shortages, and then teacher salaries will increase until the they can afford to live in the area. The current solution is stupid. We keep paying them unsustainable salary and work them in garbage conditions, but 1/10 wins the free housing lottery and gets below market housing.
refurb 2y ago
So basically the signal that prices provide (more supply is needed) is stifled. Seems like a great way to make sure supply never adjusts, which is what happens in places like SF.
- azinman2 2y ago
  I don’t understand - are you suggesting rent control keeps doing prices? SF is one of the most expensive housing and rental markets in the US. What’s not clear about the need for more supply? In the mean time rent control means we haven’t completely killed off normal people who were here before. The city has already suffered a big blow to culture, teachers, etc due to the price increases this far (and with it techies who care about money and job vs desiring the location, and thus take vs give). location
  - refurb 2y ago
    > In the mean time rent control means we haven’t completely killed off normal people who were here before. Do you think all restaurants would just close down if there wasn't rent control? Of course not, restaurants would be forced to pay a high enough wage for workers to pay for housing.
    - azinman2 2y ago
      That literally does happen. Restaurants in places like SF close all the time because they cannot get enough staff since folks cannot afford to live here, and there are maximums the public are willing to pay for a given category of food.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That is how functioning markets need to work. If demand goes up, then the market price goes up. If the price goes up and tech workers want their kids to go to school, they need to pay teachers more. Right now, there are crappy 100 duct tape fixes. Maybe some teachers are in rent controlled places paying 25% market price, and some are paying full market. Some teachers are in City owned housing that only teachers qualify for. In short, it isnt a functioning market. For it to be a functioning market, you have to let the taxpayers confront the question of if they would rather pay for schools or not have them.

JoeAltmaier 2y ago
OR supply can change. Increased demand, in the long run, in a well-functioning market can cause market price to fall. Because supply goes up, and production in volume decreases cost. Anyway we're talking people here (for now; AI will change this and soon). The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think what I said holds true independent of increasing housing supply, which I also support. A functional market would find a labor price where necessary workers can afford the housing price, or face going without their labor. I think the current approach is counter productive because it tries to bypass this with policy solutions that mean workers keep making unsustainable wages, but are subsidized in several other ways with poor implementation. >Anyway we're talking people here.... The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear. Im not sure what you are saying here. I dont think the costs to become a teacher are the bottleneck. Cost of living is the financial bottle neck, and the misery of working in a dysfunctional school districts is the emotional bottle neck. I know several former teachers in SF. You can afford to be a teacher in SF if you have rent control, but not if you dont. Some left for jobs that pay even worse because the conditions were so bad (broken bones from students, incompetent administrators, hostile parents, ect)
rickydroll 2y ago
Markets don't account for the human capacity for self-deception. For a market to work, there needs to be sufficient information on both sides to decide whether to buy or walk away. There also needs to be enough logic to make a cold decision and not let emotions, hopes, desires, fantasies, or hallucinations influence your decision in any way. Market participants count on the human capacity for self-deception, asymmetrical information, and emotion-based decision-making. In the case of teachers, there will always be some unwise rationalization based on the kids they'll be helping, how beautiful San Francisco is, how nice it is to be on the ocean, etc., which will cause them to make a bad decision about taking a job in San Francisco. Maybe that's a job for AI. Tell it your job offer and how you spend your money, and it will tell you whether or not you can afford to take the job or run away.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Correct. Markets function on the desires humans act on. They dont optimize for how humans "should" act but dont. I think there is far more moral hazard in having the government overrule the preferences people act on and enforce the solution they think people should select. Some people make mistakes. People learn and society learns. Markets take time to search for and find equilibrium. Preventing markets which are out of equilibrium from progressing towards equilibrium often triggers a cascade of secondary problems.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    What you’re suggesting, if I understand you correctly, is the market is suggestion it’s irrational for any teacher to go to SF? And thus SF shouldn’t have any teachers because richer people can afford to displace them?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I'm sorry if you got that impression.Im saying the exact opposite. I'm saying we should let the schools get to the point of teacher shortages, and then teacher salaries will increase until the they can afford to live in the area. The current solution is stupid. We keep paying them unsustainable salary and work them in garbage conditions, but 1/10 wins the free housing lottery and gets below market housing.

refurb 2y ago

So basically the signal that prices provide (more supply is needed) is stifled. Seems like a great way to make sure supply never adjusts, which is what happens in places like SF.

azinman2 2y ago
I don’t understand - are you suggesting rent control keeps doing prices? SF is one of the most expensive housing and rental markets in the US. What’s not clear about the need for more supply? In the mean time rent control means we haven’t completely killed off normal people who were here before. The city has already suffered a big blow to culture, teachers, etc due to the price increases this far (and with it techies who care about money and job vs desiring the location, and thus take vs give). location
- refurb 2y ago
  > In the mean time rent control means we haven’t completely killed off normal people who were here before. Do you think all restaurants would just close down if there wasn't rent control? Of course not, restaurants would be forced to pay a high enough wage for workers to pay for housing.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    That literally does happen. Restaurants in places like SF close all the time because they cannot get enough staff since folks cannot afford to live here, and there are maximums the public are willing to pay for a given category of food.