241–250 of 391 posts
The author is of course strictly correct, and practically wrong. Eventually our civilization will collapse, and the sun will go supernova. But for the foreseeable future, fiscal policy will be managed by inflation, and economic policy will be managed by economies of scale. The surprising thing is the author, doesn't mention either inflation or scalability once. When information technology no longer scales, and we ach…
Nope. Not massive enough.
This article crystalizes a point that was vague in my mind: "megacities have a problem making it affordable to raise large or even medium-size families. How many of us could live in San Francisco, London or New York City and bring up three children in a decent neighborhood with good schools? Only the already well-to-do can manage such a feat.". As a mid-30s person with a new baby, I don't see how the numbers work for…
> An option we are considering is to move to BC and just rent for a few years in Vancouver. I'm not really sure how moving to Vancouver helps solve any of your problems. If you're priced out of Milton you're likely priced out of the entire Metro Vancouver area. Is rent in Vancouver that much cheaper than the GTA that you're saving money and it's worth moving? I don't think it is.
>At least we get a better city out of it.
With the train of logic going like this:
1. We're priced out of big cities in Canada, so we have to rent
2. If we have to rent, then we are flexible with the location
3. If we are flexible with the location, then might as well move somewhere with nicer weather
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly right. Young people today would rather be poor in a "trendy" city, than rich in a not so trendy one. It has almost become a badge of honor of how much you can rough it to stay afloat in X trendy city. I am guessing it was not like this for previous generations, and I think it leads to too much homogeneity of culture. I think we should start to encouraging people to go to a uncool city and help build it up and…
It was definitely like this for previous generations. Young people have been moving to big cities they could barely afford for at least 100 years, and probably since Roman times.
That's somewhat different today but it's really a very recent change.
Especially for information technology, I don't understand the rationale why it has to be concentrated at certain places. As long as there is a good net connection, it could be anywhere in the world. Let's concentrate on the US for a moment. Why can't a successful startup not be in Dallas, Amarillo, Miami or Des Moines? Talented people already move from one coast to the other, so they could as well move to any other p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tokyo is a good case study for how effective selective deregulation and zoning policy can lead to more efficient housing construction. In Minato ward — a desirable 20 sq km slice of central Tokyo — the population is up 66 per cent over the past 20 years, from 145,000 to 241,000, an increase of about 100,000 residents. In the 121 sq km of San Francisco, the population grew by about the same number over 20 years, from…
Thank you. This is a great read and this is the suggestion Economist Cowan should have offered. "Harding wrote in the article, the city had 142,417 housing starts in 2014, which was “more than the 83,657 housing permits issued in the state of California (population 38.7m), or the 137,010 houses started in the entire country of England (population 54.3m)." Compare this, also, with the roughly 20,000 new residential un…
I can only dream. As someone who must post a permit and involve the city in order to remove a tree in my own back yard
Our homes are micromanaged here. It's like the city has created a city-wide HOA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ricardo's law of rent shows that indeed, even without artificial scarcities imposed by regulation, rent can go up forever as long as productivity is rising. While we want housing to be affordable, arbitrarily trying to reduce rental costs is futile. Rent exists. It is a reflection of the intrinsic desirability of the location. The only way to reduce the rent is if the location becomes less desirable and less producti…
> "Ricardo's law of rent shows that indeed, even without artificial scarcities imposed by regulation, rent can go up forever as long as productivity is rising." The rent-seeking that he established states that political regulation can artificially create a situation of scarcity thus resulting in high lands costs that benefit landowners. Specifically, he illustrated this regarding the "Corn Laws" of Britain which were…
It is quite possible to create an artificial scarcity of gold, and thus gold would be higher than it should be. But it would be ridiculous to claim "gold can't go up forever" and that to achieve affordable gold we only need to remove the artificial scarcity.
It may be desirable that we remove the artificial scarcity, but it is also a distraction from the core question at hand.
It is ignoring the natural scarcity and the general rising level of productivity. Prime locations are prime locations. A port, for instance, only becomes more desirable as total production levels increase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard this pitch for Chicago many times, and it seems reasonable if you are in the one of the industries, Tyler mentions, that are more diffuse. The main problem with Chicago is it lacks an anchor industry. Is it the best place to be for finance? No, that's NYC. Is it healthcare? Boston, Baltimore, Cleveland or Rochester. Energy? Houston. Technology? SF. Entertainment? LA or NYC. Politics? DC. What exactly is Ch…
Chicago is the center for futures and options trading, especially commodities. Proprietary trading is generally based in Chicago, while banks and hedge funds are usually in NYC. There are a massive number of other companies headquartered here, like Boening, CNA, Kraft Foods, Walgreens, State Farm. While NYC might be known for its comedy, it recruits directly from Second City in Chicago, and the numerous small comedy…
Especially for information technology, I don't understand the rationale why it has to be concentrated at certain places. As long as there is a good net connection, it could be anywhere in the world. Let's concentrate on the US for a moment. Why can't a successful startup not be in Dallas, Amarillo, Miami or Des Moines? Talented people already move from one coast to the other, so they could as well move to any other p…
>Especially for information technology, I don't understand the rationale why it has to be concentrated at certain places. As long as there is a good net connection, it could be anywhere in the world. Let's concentrate on the US for a moment. Why can't a successful startup not be in Dallas, Amarillo, Miami or Des Moines? Because the real commodity being sold with the apartments and offices isn't net access or even lan…
You have to be a lot more specific. There is an immense number of rich people in Los Angeles and it has historically had a mediocre tech scene for example (especially compared to SF, but it also lags Seattle and NY currently).
It's proximity to large numbers of very specific rich people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you move out to the suburbs when you have kids. It's not uncommon for young 20-somethings to live in the city and then move out when they start having children. Case in point, my cousin in NYC just had her third kid. She'd been considering moving to the suburbs for a while, because there was barely any room in their tiny apartment in Battery Park City for her, her husband, and the twins. Now that they've got anoth…
Right, but now you're forced to get a new job in a new place, or at the very least have a very lengthy commute. What's the point of having a family and kids if you're spending 3-4 hours a day just commuting to work? Or worse, having to live in Texas? This of course assumes that there's even jobs for you in TX or other low-cost locations. Basically, if you want to be a decently-paid professional and have a rewarding c…
This is what the corporate world is like all across the country.
To answer specific points:
> Right, but now you're forced to get a new job in a new place, or at the very least have a very lengthy commute.
People change jobs all the time, and they typically get raises and promotions out of it
Oh, and having a long commute and spending lots of time at work is considered a bonus to many people who have kids. Work is the best way to get a breather from the screaming babies at home. You know the guy who's always super-excited and happy to be in the office at 8:00 Monday morning? He's obviously a father.
> Or worse, having to live in Texas?
I actually love living in Texas. I've lived here my entire life, and the only reason I'm even considering moving later this year is because of SB6, and even then I'm going out of my way to move to a suburban environment that reminds me of home (I've pretty much decided on Torrance, CA, though Orange County is still a backup).
> This of course assumes that there's even jobs for you in TX or other low-cost locations.
And it's not like Dallas doesn't have any tech industry. We're even called the Silicon Prairie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Prairie
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington is the fourth largest metro area in the country, and Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land is the fifth-largest [0]. It's patently absurd to say there are no jobs here. Both metro areas individually (Dallas: 7.1M; Houston: 6.7M) are more populous than San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward (#11) and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara (#35) combined (6.6M).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistic...
[1] (And the people they have somehow brainwashed into being on backing them up, despite it being against their best interests.)