241–250 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real question, why not look for a different job closer to San Jose?
I'm relatively fresh out of school (just over a year full-time at my current job) so I don't know that it'd be as easy to just switch now without looking like I hop job to job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can a free-marketeer address this? I thought stuff like this were obvious rebuttals but look at the top posts in this comment section. It's starting to feel like articles and posts like this aren't driven by discussion or curiosity but just political fights.
There's nothing to dispute here–the are obviously factors other than costs that make (some) people prefer to stay put: local family, friends, or even plain old laziness. That doesn't exclude the cost scenario outline further up, and the relative strength of these effects vary from person to person. And no argument will "win" such debates for either side. These are complex issues, and even if everyone can agree on the…
I assume because that's what people want?
HNers seem to think a downtown core existence is the best and apparently aren't aware there is a big group of people who don't want that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm relatively fresh out of school (just over a year full-time at my current job) so I don't know that it'd be as easy to just switch now without looking like I hop job to job.
maybe you could swing 3 remote days a week at some point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly! If the landlord can get a tenant to pay $5000 per month, then the market rate for that particular unit is $5000 per month.
No, not exactly. In the scenario above, the landlord obviously has to keep the property vacant for some time at $5000/month, much longer than at $3000/month. But because it is a near-certainty the real price would go to $5000/month in 5 years - but he is unable to increase rent to that if he rents out today at $3000/month due to rent control (and this is critical) - he would rather keep it vacant until someone comes…
That's not what he would do. Tenants tend to value a property more as time goes on. Beyond increasing market rates.
Without rent control, your rent will increase faster than the average market increase would indicate unless you move very often. Rent control may not be the optimal way to combat this, but it is something many societies recognize as a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the real kicker in SF. Ok, housing is expensive and I need a $800K mortgage. If your income is high enough you can swing that. But then you look at what $1.5M gets you! It's bottom of the barrel housing most other cities. You need to move up to $3M to get something modern that has things like double-paned windows and a decent kitchen.
The thing that baffles me, though, is that you can take a $1.5M house and update it for much, much less than another $1.5M. Sure, it's annoying: it takes time, and you either have to pay for two residences or live with the dust and noise while the renovation is in progress. And finding reliable contractors in the bay area has been getting harder and harder given the level of demand there as well, but it seems crazy t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What your response misses is the time component of vacancy. If I have rent control, I will list at a higher price and let the property sit vacant for longer to find a tenant because the law says that I am limited in the ability to later adapt the rent to the market. Without rent control, there is much less incentive to leave a property vacant, looking for a tenant willing to pay a higher price point. Most microeconom…
Except that in SF, a landlord can get a tenant for nearly any price, because demand really is that high, and supply really is that low. On the occasion that a rent controlled apartment goes back into the market in SF, it's snapped up within a week, even if the listing price is set above market rate. A savvy renter (which you have to be, if you want to get a place in SF) will know that they're paying a higher price fo…
I've know plenty of people who winced at the rent they paid, but told themselves that in 5 years it'll be worth it as the rent will be below market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real question, why not look for a different job closer to San Jose?
I'm relatively fresh out of school (just over a year full-time at my current job) so I don't know that it'd be as easy to just switch now without looking like I hop job to job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the real kicker in SF. Ok, housing is expensive and I need a $800K mortgage. If your income is high enough you can swing that. But then you look at what $1.5M gets you! It's bottom of the barrel housing most other cities. You need to move up to $3M to get something modern that has things like double-paned windows and a decent kitchen.
The thing that baffles me, though, is that you can take a $1.5M house and update it for much, much less than another $1.5M. Sure, it's annoying: it takes time, and you either have to pay for two residences or live with the dust and noise while the renovation is in progress. And finding reliable contractors in the bay area has been getting harder and harder given the level of demand there as well, but it seems crazy t…
Is he adding more than $800k to the value of his home? Probably, but it's not as much as one would expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe you could swing 3 remote days a week at some point?
Possibly; my manager basically already does that, but then he's a manager so he has the rank to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been paying attention to what economists say fairly rigorously for the last ten years and they have some huge blind spots. One of them is they completely and utterly ignore the importance of income and social stability. Which is they see any expenditures needed to provide those as a unacceptable drag on society.
>> One of them is they completely and utterly ignore the importance of income and social stability. This is literally an entire field of focus of economists and one of the fastest growing ones in the field. Have you considered that maybe you are the one that is ignoring the second-order effects of being a proponent of rent control and how it helps a specific person over a population?
Fundamentally modern economics despises the use of any other type of social control and signaling other then capital. Solution's to all problems must be in the context of markets.
One can see the effect that has had on middle and lower income families. And on our political systems. Where families are starved of resources and politicians are fearful of exercising independent political power on behalf of the voters.
That's the system that economists insisted was going to work much better than the system we had before.