Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

Post by eip » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

projectramo wrote: post #370

pc86 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps actually trying to fix the root issue rather than scrambling for the "F you, I got mine" route and buying property you don't need now on the speculation that its value will increase over the next decades. Companies should be incentivized (by us, software developers) to hire remote workers for jobs that don't need to be physically in an office.

Please lay out your plan in more detail. I just want to see the logic of this. You think I can put downward pressure on property prices by insisting on a remote job? I don't think hiring companies take joy in making your life difficult. They would hire more remote workers if they felt it could work. I prefer working remotely but find it much harder to manage.

Post by JBlue42 » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #543

Feniks wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans think government is evil and all that. So there's no government rescue plan to build more housing because that's commie talk. So everyone's waiting for the market to fix it.

The market would absolutely produce more housing in a lot of places were there not a ton of regulations in place to stop it from doing so. And I don't write that as a fingers-in-ears, market-will-solve-all-problems libertarian, but as a fairly left-wing guy.

Post by nerfhammer » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

pjmorris wrote: post #650

nerfhammer wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't explain shortages. If the price of one thing increases relative to the price of everything else (including the price of labor, i.e., how much you get paid) that cannot directly be explained by a money supply change. A shortage being caused by something else is a much simpler explanation.

True, shortages can be caused by a number of circumstances, including housing supply vs. demand. That said, approximately 2 Trillion of the 3 Trillion increase in the Fed's balance sheet over the last decade went to purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). This had multiple effects, including: 1) boosting real estate prices by putting the Fed's fresh capital in competition with wage earners for real estate, and…

Post by hx87 » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #566

hx87 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But a lot of people would not consider that a good outcome. If they didn't consider that a good outcome, they would stop paying money to move there, or move out, and cause housing prices to drop, thus solving the problem.

personal incentives don't "solve" social problems. People compete themselves into subsistence -- not motivated to improve a situation until it's too miserable to bear, and then back off just to the edge. This is the "tragedy of the commons" coordinate problem

Post by mixmastamyk » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

JBlue42 wrote: post #664

mixmastamyk wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was talking about East Hollywood, at the center of a 10 million plus megalopolis. If nimbys want to live in the sticks, by all means.

That's kind of funny. East Hollywood is already pretty dense (not height-wise though) compared to surrounding areas. I can see from a parking standing point what the complaint would be but...I don't know, any new building in E Hollywood is an improvement.