331–333 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? This is a false dichotomy. These people could be just as skilled, if not more. So then your only argument is localism. Also, if we _let immigrants compete in the labor market properly_ by not handcuffing people like H-1Bs to their company.... they won't be cheaper. They could just get poached by another company or take a job…
If they were just as skilled, they'd not be being trained by the people they are replacing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed; look how well that's worked for Manhattan. /s Realistically, density doesn't seem to ever drive down housing prices in the long term. All it does is increase the value of land tremendously, and thus push local home ownership out of reach of everyone but the ultra-wealthy.
I think that cause and effect might be backwards - people only ever lay out the large upfront expense to build density when the land becomes valuable enough. And that only happens when people are clamoring to live in the same area. If you then refuse to build up, it makes the affordability much, much worse.
How? If you've balanced jobs/wages against housing supply via standard planning practices, then you should be able to tweak demand.
If demand is still high, density just drives prices higher, and shifts the entire housing economy to a rent-seeking one.
Furthermore, the real-estate market is global, but the housing market is local. My parents own homes in another state that they've never even seen, and merely rent out via a property management company.
As land prices get driven up through density, how do people participating in the local housing market compete with those in the real estate market?