- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Atlantic: the great affordability crisis breaking America
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:22 pm to uway
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:22 pm to uway
quote:
It makes the shortage worse and the quality of housing worse. But does it make housing less affordable?
Think about what you just said.
quote:
It makes the shortage worse
0
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:27 pm to ShortyRob
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/11/20 at 7:28 am
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:29 pm to cahoots
Exactly. That’s why zoning was initially unconstitutional
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:30 pm to Powerman
quote:
So elite software engineers can find gainful employment in New Orleans?
If you're truly elite, you can work anywhere you want. They'd put up a system in Siberia if you're really that good.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:33 pm to Jcorye1
Pretty much.
A lot of distance technologies these days make the requirement to be in office an optional thing instead.
Software engineering may be most needed in SF, Austin, LA, NYC, or Seattle but someone wanting it bad enough will let you VPN into the office.
A lot of distance technologies these days make the requirement to be in office an optional thing instead.
Software engineering may be most needed in SF, Austin, LA, NYC, or Seattle but someone wanting it bad enough will let you VPN into the office.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The POINT is, if a place is going to trend more $$, having the govt do shite that inevitably drives costs up even more is idiotic. And yet, in every one of these places, govt is doing just that.
I don't think this is true about Seattle or the surrounding areas. Seattle had zoned 75% of its residential land for single-family, which obviously was the source of the problem, but attempts to upzone have been met with varying degrees of resistance from residents, until last year, where a new upzoning policy was enacting, with 6,000 new units expected by 2030. Seattle and the surrounding areas were ill-prepared for the population growth, driven by Amazon's expansion, as well as Microsoft's, among many other businesses. The rate at which the city attracted new residents left pretty much all the municipalities in the MSA unprepared. Seattle didn't have rent control either, which was reflected in apartment average rents, which were around 950 for a 1Br and 1450 for a 2Br at the start of the decade. By 2015, the rent for a 1Br increased to 1850 and for a 2Br to 2500, which reflected market demand pretty accurately, in my view.
This post was edited on 2/10/20 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Irrelevant to the point. We can't control geography. We CAN control piling on to it with govt stupidity.
Not as much as geography does.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:05 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Irrelevant to the point.
No, the point is supply and demand. The demand is high in places where they can't expand - therefore supply is low.
Prices go up when the demand is high but the supply is low.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:07 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The demand is high in places where they can't expand - therefore supply is low.
Prices go up when the demand is high but the supply is low.
well supply is artificially low due to governmental regulations (and citizens using government as NIMBYs)
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/11/20 at 7:27 am
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well supply is artificially low due to governmental regulations
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a high-rise in an earthquake-prone area.
SF is on a peninsula.
Seattle is on an isthmus.
NYC is on an island.
BOS (also on a peninsula) has already filled in much of the historic harbor for development.
These are definite geographical restrictions on growth. Not like OKC, one of the largest US cities by area - and one of the most conservative. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, none of which are really restricted, geographically.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:50 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:I already acknowledged that idiot. The point is if you already have a supply-and-demand pressure the government shouldn't make it worse
No, the point is supply and demand. The demand is high in places where they can't expand - therefore supply is low
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:50 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
mean, I know you're not an econ guy, but think it thru. Rent controls kill the desire of developers to add capacity. Would you add capacity if YOU were a developer in that environment?
I do understand supply and demand. I am assuming a relatively fixed supply, on the belief that voters in these places do not want their cities to become more and more densely populated a la some cities in Asia.
There are a lot of things in play, and the reasons it isn't "fixed" have far more to do with the complexity of the situation than with the political leanings of the people in charge.
For lots of people, including me, the cure of mega high rise apartment buildings everywhere is worse than the sickness.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:51 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
SF is on a peninsula.
Seattle is on an isthmus.
I get what you're trying to say, but you know that cities can grow in multiple directions, right? These two are not like the NE cities you listed.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:52 pm to cahoots
I would just like to point out that there isn't actually a problem even with everything discussed in this thread
Clearly prices are where they are because people can afford them. Just not everybody that wants to be able to afford them can afford them. But enough such that the people charging the prices can keep charging them
If at some point the above isn't true then people won't be able to move to these places and companies that have significant footprints in these places will have to move to where they can actually find employees
So the thread has been fun but really we are talking about a solution in search of a problem.
Clearly prices are where they are because people can afford them. Just not everybody that wants to be able to afford them can afford them. But enough such that the people charging the prices can keep charging them
If at some point the above isn't true then people won't be able to move to these places and companies that have significant footprints in these places will have to move to where they can actually find employees
So the thread has been fun but really we are talking about a solution in search of a problem.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:55 pm to uway
quote:probably true but then that's self-inflicted and why would I worry about that?
I do understand supply and demand. I am assuming a relatively fixed supply, on the belief that voters in these places do not want their cities to become more and more densely populated a la some cities in Asia
quote:I tend to agree. But life is about choices. You can't make decisions as a body politic that drive prices up because you prefer a certain aesthetic and then complain about the prices.
For lots of people, including me, the cure of mega high rise apartment buildings everywhere is worse than the sickness
This is a big problem in America. People seem to want to be able to avoid all consequences of their decisions. Partied too much in college and didn't get good grades or your degree? That's okay complain about the success of the person who didn't party too much and got good grades and a degree
that's pretty much a universal problem here in this country and people need to get over it
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:56 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
So the thread has been fun but really we are talking about a solution in search of a problem.
There is a very real problem of cities becoming places it's impossible to raise a family in.
It's a matter of opinion, but in mine, this is an enormous loss, and America is in trouble.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:57 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
So the thread has been fun but really we are talking about a solution in search of a problem.
This quote defines most of the modern left's political platform
Posted on 2/10/20 at 2:59 pm to uway
quote:define for me why this is a problem? There is no right to raising your family in a particular location. Don't get me wrong. Sure it sucks for those who want to be able to do it but that doesn't require a solution. That's just part of life.
There is a very real problem of cities becoming places it's impossible to raise a family in
quote:I'm not asking this to be flippant but really why? I mean I don't even want to live in these places so admittedly I can't quite fathom why it's an enormous loss for the country.
It's a matter of opinion, but in mine, this is an enormous loss,
Posted on 2/10/20 at 3:00 pm to The Pirate King
quote:Because home prices would probably be higher on purpose (free market) if republicans ran those cities. The only reason prices are high is because of capitalism. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Liberal hotbeds with liberal leaders and ridiculous taxes...but the author fails to address that.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News