Live data from Hacker News

Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

bloomberg.com

321–330 of 391 posts

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everywhere has culture. You just didn't like the one you were in. I remember reading a conservative/neocon author who tore into this relativizing of culture, insisting on the old definition that "culture" didn't just mean "whatever junk's growing in a petri dish", but I can't remember who it was -- Barzun, Goldman ("Spengler"), or Dalrymple. The point's valid regardless. "Culture" means "culture", not just "whateve…

Recognizing that other cultures exist and that people have different preferences isn't a partisan idea. Nor is it cultural relativism.

[deleted]

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#322
post #4

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…

You're absolutely right! It could be anywhere in the world! Talented people can easily move anywhere! Startups can be successful in San Antonio, Phoenix, or Ithaca! So why do so many smart people insist on concentrating themselves so?

Is it possible that perhaps there may be reasons for people to choose such an obviously irrational thing? What do they think they're getting out of it?

Many companies have found that they benefit significantly from physically proximate workers. There are distinct benefits to putting people in offices in person. On top of that, having many such companies in one place is beneficial to the specialist worker. It mitigates risks of unemployment, and enables workers to take greater risks.

Myself, I've done what you suggest. I took a job in a cheap place. It was great in some ways, and terrible in others. When I decided I was done with the job, I had to leave that city. There just weren't many options for me there. I understand why a businessperson would like it - you get more leverage over cheaper employees - but it's not the best choice for me.

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't a successful startup not be in Dallas, Amarillo, Miami or Des Moines? Some of the burden is on you to prove what has failed so far. If it is possible to build a successful large scale startup in Amarillo, why hasn't it happened? I'll point out the theory of agglomerative clustering also includes the contrary point: a city that is great at something tends to exclude other activities, for any given amount o…

It's also important to note that "successful large scale startup" in this context means "a new web application with a lot of users". The Dept. Of Energy, Southwest Airlines, Texas Instruments, and Principal Financial Group need not apply.

DoE may be slightly different from the others...

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#324
post #63
post #4

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…

A lot of people don't want to live in boring, conservative places like Amarillo and Des Moines. More importantly, tech company executives and managers really don't want to live there. The workers have to work on-site with managers, so the workers obviously can't live there either. Everyone has to be co-located in the same place.

> Everyone has to be co-located in the same place.

Why?

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everywhere has culture. You just didn't like the one you were in. I remember reading a conservative/neocon author who tore into this relativizing of culture, insisting on the old definition that "culture" didn't just mean "whatever junk's growing in a petri dish", but I can't remember who it was -- Barzun, Goldman ("Spengler"), or Dalrymple. The point's valid regardless. "Culture" means "culture", not just "whateve…

>"Culture" means "culture", not just "whatever the local savages are doing" People are "savage" because they like different things to you such as country music? If so, you're an incredibly narrow minded and shitty person. If not, please elaborate.

Culture in Matthew Arnold's definition is the pursuit of human perfection.

Different cultures have different norms of human perfection, and pursue different things; this fits Spengler's (the real one's) idea that a culture has a core proposition. Within a civilization, high culture is a culture's full expression of itself; it seeks out and engages with the contradictory or self-defeating parts of its values, and tries to advance the culture's understanding of what perfection is and how it can be attained. (What the postmodernists call deconstruction, and Gardiner called "high parody," is a fundamental part of this process.) Low culture is mindless entertainment; it doesn't try to shape its consumers in any positive way, and certainly doesn't advance the society's understanding of its ideals. Middlebrow/bourgeois culture tries to be high culture and fails -- but typically fails intentionally. (To be at the forefront of understanding is prestigious but uncomfortable, and the middle class wants prestige but not discomfort.) Mass culture is typically low, since low culture sells, but can rise to middle or high. Low culture, and occasionally middlebrow or mass culture, can produce things that high culture finds interesting and takes up -- and high culture can similarly cross-fertilize downwards. See Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe for some very interesting discussion of this, which was more common then than it is today.

"Culture" historically means "high culture": the thrust towards self-improvement, plus the continued refinement of what exactly you're trying to self-improve towards. This sounds uniquely Western (especially modern Western -- "Faustian" in Spengler's terminology), but you see the same process in other parts of the world, especially in East Asia.

The catch is that you can't engage in high culture without access to high culture -- so perhaps it's unreasonable of me to condemn poor rural areas for not participating in it. Or perhaps not? It's not just mass culture that the Internet makes available.

Regardless, it's high culture -- or at least middlebrow culture, which is regrettably easy to mistake for it -- that reverend_gonzo was lamenting lack of access to.

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#326
post #270
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bars and restaurants, museums and the opera, high-paying jobs And these would actually be rent seeking activities? Is that the idea?

Is that a typo? Rent seeking refers to a specific kind of behavior https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Exactly what I meant. Bars and museums require wealth

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#327
post #270
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bars and restaurants, museums and the opera, high-paying jobs And these would actually be rent seeking activities? Is that the idea?

Is that a typo? Rent seeking refers to a specific kind of behavior https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[deleted]

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#328
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to use "culture" to refer, more often than not, to the local availability of global culture-production top-dogs. For example, New York has "fashion culture", because it's a place where you can expect to run into people who aren't just into fashion, but who lead and dictate the world's fashion. In other words, people want access to socially-dominant individuals. It's probably some sort of backwards instinc…

That means "culture" is a dog whistle referencing some sort of elitism.

It's about self-perfection: figuring out the best way to live, getting closer to that ideal, and exploring and trying to resolve its internal contradictions.

But the best way to live differs from culture to culture -- and I'm not convinced that the rural South has the same kind of ideal as the North, which means I came on too strong earlier. What does the Celtic or Celticized world's high culture look like...?

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#329
I found housing prices to be harbingers of what turned out to be the "Great Recession". Looking around my metropolitan area, wages and income just weren't keeping pace (and we didn't have a localized influx of foreign investment, like in Vancouver, BC).

I suspect that escalating rents, tuition, and perhaps some other things, are similar signs of change, although it may prove to be less sudden and dramatic.

Sooner or later, the "slop" in consumers' budgets that can accommodate these runs out.

Also, the U.S. is becoming a less friendly place to foreigners. Although I don't know whether that applies -- or will be made to apply, by this 'embrace the "winners"' Administration and Congress -- to the global 1% buying in to e.g. U.S. real estate. (The U.S. currently being the center of my perspective.)

Re: Rents in Megacities Can't Go Up Forever

#330
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2008 rents didn't drop much. I think landlords will leave places empty before they will drop rents too much.

Apparently hedge funds scheme to always leave a a fraction of the units empty as a means of pushing against the market.

That doesn't make sense.
Post reply on HN