3 ms·

Causing a problem to spread to more areas so the original area's problem isn't as bad relatively isn't a solution. That's madness.

Pxtl 13y ago
When the problem is caused by a shortage of supply (prestigious NYC housing) compared to the crazy-high demand? Then yes, more supply is a solution.
jlgreco 13y ago
Being a desirable place to live isn't a "problem" it is a feature. Being the only desirable place to live might be problematic to some people who want to live in that desirable place cheaply, but the solution to that is not to tear down the desirable place to the same level as other cities, "Harrison Bergeron" style.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Being a desirable place to live for the boring rich, driving up the prices so that the interesting poor all leave, is a problem for both the rich and the poor. Taking away money isn't the plot of Harrison Bergeron, taking away ability was. Ability is spread throughout the population, not just (or even mostly) the rich part. The rich tend to pay people with ability, rather than to be people with ability (other than the ability to figure out who to pay.)
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > "boring rich" This anti-rich "occupy" shit is getting real old. We get it, you don't like people who have more than you; give it a rest already. > Taking away money isn't the plot of Harrison Bergeron, taking away ability was. Harrison Bergeron is about equalization via crippling. If you want to make it just about muscles and brains, then fine, but you are only taking away a very limited message from it. Stripping NYC of it's primary asset over other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago is one way to make NYC resemble those cities in terms of 'housing for poor people', but it is absolutely the wrong approach to take. Don't smooth inequality by tearing people or cities down, smooth inequality by building people and cities up (figuratively and literally, in the case of cities).

Pxtl 13y ago

When the problem is caused by a shortage of supply (prestigious NYC housing) compared to the crazy-high demand? Then yes, more supply is a solution.

jlgreco 13y ago

Being a desirable place to live isn't a "problem" it is a feature. Being the only desirable place to live might be problematic to some people who want to live in that desirable place cheaply, but the solution to that is not to tear down the desirable place to the same level as other cities, "Harrison Bergeron" style.

pessimizer 13y ago
Being a desirable place to live for the boring rich, driving up the prices so that the interesting poor all leave, is a problem for both the rich and the poor. Taking away money isn't the plot of Harrison Bergeron, taking away ability was. Ability is spread throughout the population, not just (or even mostly) the rich part. The rich tend to pay people with ability, rather than to be people with ability (other than the ability to figure out who to pay.)
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > "boring rich" This anti-rich "occupy" shit is getting real old. We get it, you don't like people who have more than you; give it a rest already. > Taking away money isn't the plot of Harrison Bergeron, taking away ability was. Harrison Bergeron is about equalization via crippling. If you want to make it just about muscles and brains, then fine, but you are only taking away a very limited message from it. Stripping NYC of it's primary asset over other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago is one way to make NYC resemble those cities in terms of 'housing for poor people', but it is absolutely the wrong approach to take. Don't smooth inequality by tearing people or cities down, smooth inequality by building people and cities up (figuratively and literally, in the case of cities).