`I.i` the San Francisco Bay Area – probably the most productive place in the Western world That is absurd. Beyond absurd -- insulting. Every day I only feel mo

`I.i` the San Francisco Bay Area – probably the most productive place in the Western world That is absurd. Beyond absurd -- insulting. Every day I only feel more shame for being associated with Silicon Valley, because of how arrogant the culture has become... `I.ii` In the 1960s, it was commonplace that a middle class single-earner American or British family would be able to afford a comfortable home. This is such a common fallacious belief the author doesn't even think to cite it. That's very relatable, but regardless it should be called out: home ownership was rarer in 1965[1]. `I.iii` These prices range from about twice to four times the cost of building new homes of equivalent specification. This wedge, between build costs and house prices, is a rough proxy for how much extra cost is being driven by restrictions on new building. I'm sure we can all agree that streamlining housing bureaucracy should've been a priority in the US, but this super-simple picture is misleading, IMO. Regulations are the first layer of friction, but they cover up real conflicts/costs/externalities; simply removing all regulations on housing production would destroy San Francisco's famous skyline and unique architecture, for one. Ultimately this quote represents the core of my problem with this (well written, relatable!) piece: it's discussing capitalism without mentioning capitalists. A huge part of housing costs are tied to corporate monopolization and rent-seeking, not just red tape. `I.iv` By contrast, almost every other household product has become better and less expensive since then. Housing is considered a service by the Fed (I guess because it requires construction workers?), so this is less surprising than it's framed here; services have all gotten more expensive as goods have gotten cheaper. See Section 3/Chart 4 here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/04v10n3/0412peacpdf.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/0... `II.i` This means that many people are working in less productive jobs than they could if it was easier for them to move to more productive places. Very true -- as I said, the underlying impetus is very relatable! This is exactly why we were in such desperate need for reliable, cheap mass transit outside of NYC and DC. Luckily, WFH is something of a hack here. `II.ii` Sheer size is not all that matters, because complementarity between workers matters even more – a skilled software engineer will likely increase her income more by moving to Berlin (population: 4.4 million) than to Mexico City (population: 21 million). ...because Germany is richer, not because they're nerdier. I really want to like this article, but it almost seems to be intentionally ignoring the inequalities created by capitalism + nationalism. `II.iii` By historical and global standards, today’s most successful cities in America and other Western countries are astonishingly sparsely populated and sprawling... The main cause of this is regulations that ban buildings that make better use of the land. Again: c'mon. The fact that the word "automobile" doesn't appear in this paragraph isn't an omission, it's a fatal flaw to the entire point. We've known the effect of cars on urban density since 1939[2]. `II.iv` According to one study[3]... [if productivity of labor is vastly different across cities, output can in principle be increased by expanding employment in high productivity cities at the expense of low productivity cities] That is a very questionable hypothesis; AFAIU, they're saying that doubling the population of San Jose would double the GDP generated by the city. IMO That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes rich cities rich. I'll cut my rant here -- the inequality section is interesting (love a Henry George reference!), even if I don't buy the final "...because of regulations" point. And he does get around to mentioning cars in the obesity & climate change sections! And this is downright fascinating: "radically localized democracy that allows individual streets to opt in to greater density by voting for it" Sorry for clogging the thread a bit, I hope someone finds my rants a bit helpful. John (and Ben and Sam and Kade!!), if you're here: I love the writing, I share your goals, but I think you need to be a bit more careful when everything seems to be fitting together so neatly. If regulation is the core of inequality, I don't think this article will prove it to many people. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N [2] Lewis Mumford's The City, 1939 -- start around 16:00 for the ~4min section on cars. https://youtu.be/7nuvcpnysjU?si=WJWmIGWxZ1fwIsi5&t=960 https://youtu.be/7nuvcpnysjU?si=WJWmIGWxZ1fwIsi5&t=960 [3] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388