901–910 of 1001 posts
I thought the median had to be significantly lower with those ultra luxurious rentals distorting the average, but I was wrong. The median is $4000 as of a few months ago: https://www.elliman.com/corporate-resources/market-reports
4000 in rent is not significantly lower than 5000?
I thought the median had to be significantly lower with those ultra luxurious rentals distorting the average, but I was wrong. The median is $4000 as of a few months ago: https://www.elliman.com/corporate-resources/market-reports
I was wondering this too, I know plenty of people who live alone in Manhattan and don't pay anywhere near $5k. Some renewed recently even but I don't know who had stabilization and who didn't. Where did you see the $4k number? This looks like condo and co-op numbers mostly?
I wonder how much of contemporary Democratic politics is driven by insane rents in NYC and SF. The party has seen an influx of core Reagan voters—everyone from Wall Street bankers to Silicon Valley engineers (Reagan won Santa Clara County by 17 points in 1984). These affluent, highly educated folks have adopted the narratives and politics of the working class, juxtaposed against a ever-more-narrowly-defined “elite.”…
I wonder how much of contemporary Democratic politics is driven by insane rents in NYC and SF. The party has seen an influx of core Reagan voters—everyone from Wall Street bankers to Silicon Valley engineers (Reagan won Santa Clara County by 17 points in 1984). These affluent, highly educated folks have adopted the narratives and politics of the working class, juxtaposed against a ever-more-narrowly-defined “elite.”…
This comment nicely attempts to paint high earning (not necessarily wealthy) upper middle class professionals as the scapegoat for an issue they did not create. The reality is, the people who are actually wealthy (think deca millionaires on up through billionaires) and investment firms and corporations are the ones suppressing supply for individual home owners. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-est…
The vast vast majority of homes in the US are owned by single family homeowners. And even if that wasn't true it wouldn't make much of a difference. Investment firms don't purchase homes to let them sit there, they purchase homes to rent them out. To whatever degree they're competing against single family homeowners they're just causing a small percentage of housing to shift from owner occupied to rental housing which should actually lower the cost of rentals.
Especially in NYC and SF the cause is very simple: local government has made it illegal to build enough housing to keep pace with demand.
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…
> I like that the city is generally safer than the rest of America. Coming from New Hampshire: this is just fantastically untrue. NYC is about one hundred times more violent than where I live. It is so thoroughly not the same that I can usually tell when people come from cities simply based on how nervous they are. I think most people don't realize how badly it affects them, or how violent cities are versus "the rest…
I don't have stats for Amherst specifically, but here is a comparison between NYC and NH as a whole:
NYC: 5.5 murders per 100k + 1.6 auto fatalities per 100k = 6.1 deaths per 100k
NH: 1.0 murders per 100k + 8.9 auto fatalities per 100k = 9.9 deaths per 100k
There is an elephant in the room that people refuse to look at when it comes to rents: Airbnb.
Property is a tough nut to crack because there are a bunch of different issues creating this problem and some of them are local. NIMBYism is a big one obviously but so many are inveted in the value of their house that increasing property prices becomes a political goal. Worse, property becomes a tool for the ultra-rich to park money in a way that is hedged against inflation. Rents tend to follow property prices but t…
I think you've misdiagnosed the problem.
One piece of the puzzle I'm struggling with in all of this is why if housing is so expensive and rents so high are more houses not being built? Surely the incentive is there, what's going wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Many attempts at public housing failed because they just tried to provide housing for low-income people in separated and/or undesirable areas, with a predictable outcome. So the taxpayers should pay so the people with low income or no income can live iny Manhattan? Why not also provide them with expensive cars and exotic vacations?
> So the taxpayers should pay so the people with low income or no income can live iny Manhattan? Yes. It's a city not a luxury resort. If people are to work all kinds of jobs at all levels of income there, then people at all income levels should be able to live there as well. This mechanism accounts for that. > Why not also provide them with expensive cars and exotic vacations? Maybe they should idk. Seems completely…
One piece of the puzzle I'm struggling with in all of this is why if housing is so expensive and rents so high are more houses not being built? Surely the incentive is there, what's going wrong?
NIMBYism. The incentive is definitely there but the issue is that existing landowners don’t want any more buildings. After all - more supply while keeping demand fixed hurts their profitability. You need eminent domain from the government to fix this. At this point - it’s complete class warfare and landowners are fucking over many generations.
There are plenty of landowners that want to build. The issue is that NIMBYs have largely captured the city government and zoning restrictions have made new building mostly illegal. We jut need a government that legalizes new construction.