Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

denverite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 391 posts

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#61

Post by mindslight »

jmye wrote: post #18
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we also could just stop having the federal government limit the number of residency slots so we could have enough doctors trained in the US.

Not just residency. Fix the cost (and capacity) of the education system as a whole, especially for mid-levels. There’s no reason this country should have such a chronic NP shortage, and you don’t need MD/DOs for most of the healthcare gaps we have. You also make rural care viable when you don’t have folks who need to pay off astronomical loans.

How are NPs not just the trend of enshittification? Most doctors already aren't very engaged in the tiny 15 minute slices of appointments, and now we're supposed to be happy that they'll be even less educated? The most straightforward way to address the doctor shortage is to make it so doctors are spending most of their time on healthcare, rather than appeasing "insurance" company bureaucrats with onerous paperwork.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#62

Post by hangonhn »

elictronic wrote: post #52
hangonhn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You basically can’t or it won't have the same effects because medicine doesn’t really follow the same dynamics as most other markets: the supplier (doctor) has an information asymmetry and thus makes most of the decisions, while the buyer (patient) is not usually the payer (insurance) so aren’t really incentivized to save. Kenneth Arrow famously analyzed the healthcare market and made the above insight: https://asset…

He said free clinics.

But then you're just shifting the cost somewhere else. The doctors aren't working for free. Someone is paying them. It's just not the patients in the case of free clinics.

In addition, doctors aren't the only cost centers in health care either. Even if they're free, which is sort of already the case or fairly inexpensive for the insured in the US, the overall cost of healthcare will still be high.

Plus if you want completely free clinics (everything from doctors to medicine, etc), then you're not talking about a market solution to the issue, which is completely fair too. No one said you have to use a free market solution for this problem.

My point is that we can't expect a free market to solve this issue. It isn't as simple as supply and demand.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#63

Post by hangonhn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37
hangonhn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You basically can’t or it won't have the same effects because medicine doesn’t really follow the same dynamics as most other markets: the supplier (doctor) has an information asymmetry and thus makes most of the decisions, while the buyer (patient) is not usually the payer (insurance) so aren’t really incentivized to save. Kenneth Arrow famously analyzed the healthcare market and made the above insight: https://asset…

> the supplier (doctor) has an information asymmetry and thus makes most of the decisions, while the buyer (patient) is not usually the payer (insurance) so aren’t really incentivized to save Counterfactual: patients in India routinely shop around for second opinions and negotiate fees.

Completely fair point. I should have prefaced my statement with US based healthcare system is structured this way. I don't know how the dynamics are in other countries -- though I do suspect it's similar in term of information asymmetry. I imagine doctors everywhere have some pretty advanced and specialized knowledge. I don't know enough about India to know how they overcome this issue or if they do or not.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#65

Post by [deleted] »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #44
DaveZale wrote: post #3

Living in So CO, I smh at what's going on up there. The cost of living elsewhere in the state can be 1/3 to 1/2 the price. The govt and corporate employers could easily decentralize and stay in CO.

How far south are you? I lived in Colorado Springs for a few years as a ski bum and all my friends in Denver used to mock me driving back and forth, but my rent was almost $500 cheaper living in Springs. You're 100% right though.

[deleted]

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#66

Post by tptacek »

MangoToupe wrote: post #13

It's a nice victory story for the YIMBYs hoping to win over the upper-/middle class trying to retain the narrative that the market will provide "affordable" housing (not what this even demonstrates, but anyway), but this isn't going to get people off the street. We need a public housing sector to appropriately meet everyone's needs. Otherwise this is just a game of justifying "who deserves housing", a discussion over…

Until you reach transient shelter beds, which may not be saturated in a region (in some places in Chicagoland the work is going into outreach to get people off the street and into shelter beds as much as it is in expanding the number of beds), every additional unit of housing you build frees up some unit at or below that unit on the stack of housing. The effect percolates all the way down to long-term supportive housing rooms.

I don't really understand the intuition people have for how anything else could be the case. You make new housing available, people move into it, leaving vacancies. Pretty simple.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#67

Post by jeffbee »

unethical_ban wrote: post #49
jeffbee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is in fact quite wrong and one of the biggest obstacles in American society is fetishization of homeownership.

Why is it wrong to want to have equity in the place you live? "Ownership" could be a house, it could be a townhome, it could be flat. But in the US, "owning" an apartment is very rare, while real estate investors buy up all the valuable land in the urban cores of cities and rent it.

If you want equity in real estate nobody is stopping you. The problem is when people get this idea that we need to discourage investors from building very greatly desired rental housing.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#70

Post by jmye »

mindslight wrote: post #61
jmye wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just residency. Fix the cost (and capacity) of the education system as a whole, especially for mid-levels. There’s no reason this country should have such a chronic NP shortage, and you don’t need MD/DOs for most of the healthcare gaps we have. You also make rural care viable when you don’t have folks who need to pay off astronomical loans.

How are NPs not just the trend of enshittification? Most doctors already aren't very engaged in the tiny 15 minute slices of appointments, and now we're supposed to be happy that they'll be even less educated? The most straightforward way to address the doctor shortage is to make it so doctors are spending most of their time on healthcare, rather than appeasing "insurance" company bureaucrats with onerous paperwork.

What a weird comment. What do you think you need an MD for, in your primary care visit, that an NP can’t do? What do you actually know about their education? What do you actually know about licensing? How much time, in a day, do you think doctors are spending on “insurance”, and what specific experience leads you to believe that?

(Because the actual answer is “near zero for literally any provider who isn’t completely independent, and almost none of them are, anymore”.)

Or was this just a way to memetically add “enshittification” to a conversation it doesn’t even slightly apply to, but you think that’s currently trendy?

Post reply on HN