401–410 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet I can still find rooms for this weekend in Manhattan ranging from sub $100 to about $250 a night.
> they just need a lot better enforcement of that law. Perhaps also worth asking why Airbnb continues to host listings it knows are in violation of the law.
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the average londoner doesn't pay 5600 GBP a month for their flat. same goes for 5k USD ~= 4200. for a one bedroom if your rent is above 2000 GBP you're living in a luxury apartment
The average londoner doesn't live in central London.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be such a bad thing if those artists move to, say, St. Louis and create the next big thriving art hub there?
Might as well be in Chicago, which has probably the most reasonable CoL for any big city in the US.
"I would put it this way: there are many ways to impose a Georgist land tax, fiscal insolvency being one of them. Very wealthy people and institutions know that if they relocate to Chicago, they will be required to ante up for the final bill. And so they stay away. For a city of its size and import, Chicago just doesn’t have that many billionaires, nor do I think a rational billionaire should consider moving there.
In other words, there is a pending wealth tax. Either directly or indirectly, this will place fiscal burdens on Chicago land, the immobile factor. And this keeps down rents in Chicago now."
The problem for me, as a long time NYC resident, is that there's no other place in America I want to live even with work from home as a possibility. I like mass transit. I like not owning a car. I like that the city is generally safer than the rest of America. I like that it's the center for tech on the east coast, the arts for the entire country, and finance for most of the world. I like that we generally get along…
Try some European city with reasonable rents like Warsaw. Even the skyscrapers will remind you of Manhattan.
But yeah, learning Polish is not easy.
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
> and property owners provide almost no value, but to provide access to housing for people who has no capital for it, which is service that could be perfectly provided by a state entity. Property of course requires maintenance and management, so the sleight of hand here is to define away all those aspects of ownership so that by definition all that's meant by "landlord" is "old guy who cashes checks." But somebody ha…
FWIW, I'm with you, I think rental income ("landlording") and airbnb-ing are both legitimate demand, and the system would work fairly if we didn't have artificial constraints on supply.
Insofar as landlords actively work to constraint supply to artificial inflate rents, it is immoral behavior (but 'muh' neighborhood) and we should not allow it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should people who come to the city for a couple of weeks not be able to find any accommodation? Why do you think that they should have less rights that people that live in the city full-time? They already have obvious market forces working against them (short-term rents are always more expensive than long-term).
Yes? People who live in the city have families, friends, jobs, and other community structures that they contribute toward. It's where they LIVE. People who "come to the city for a couple of weeks" are at best visiting for work or family -- in which case, they can get work to subsidize the housing, or stay with the family they're visiting -- and are at worst tourists who are only visiting the city to have fun. People'…
Vote there. Obviously, laws will (and should) side with voters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do the costs of goods and services need to go up? Or do the places paying low wages now just need to accept a smaller profit margin or lower executive pay? It's unquestionably true that there are some places that pay low wages that cannot afford to pay better wages without increasing prices; however, we seem to have collectively decided that that's the only way wages can increase. But that ignores the fact that corpo…
Ehhhh. I don't disagree for a second that, say, Starbucks could take a hit, reduce profits and still be able to operate successfully in New York. But I'd argue a lot of what makes New York the city it is is things like small independent restaurants that already operate on very thin margins. They also have no fat cat executives pocketing the spoils. So, perhaps, yes, the city could survive without increasing wages but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property owners providing almost no value is just factually wrong. Their function is similar to insurance. You pay rent to live somewhere because you don't want to take the risk or can't get the loans to buy a property yourself. And it costs real money and time (i.e. real resources) to build those homes and maintain them. In return property owners (or insurance runners) can get rich off your monthly payments as well…
> it costs real money and time to build those homes and maintain them. As a renter of a dangerously unmaintained property, whose owner has never worked because he inherited a bunch of apartments, I can only laugh hysterically at your ridiculously-over-the-top sarcasm.
The deadbeat landlord problem would solve itself once we build ourselves out of scarcity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the private market can't do it. When most cities in the US have 80%+ of its land zoned for single-family units, developers can not build anything other than expensive McMansions.
> cities in the US have 80+ of its land zoned for single-family units How is that even a city? Single family zoning is a suburban desert at best. Even remote villages have more life and vibrancy than that.