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

The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#21

Post by jgerrish »

pas wrote: post #17
user3939382 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a lose lose. If you remove the wage floor many people with “livable” wages now would have theirs cut, it’s a problem of adversarial incentives a la nash.

Sure, but now there's a deadweight loss by allocation inefficiencies (plus the disemployment effects are strongest at the margin, so now many people are working less than they want to, because they cannot sell more of their work for less, so ie. they have part time jobs). The "obvious" thing is to subsidize employment (by negative income tax for low-incomes to avoid discontinuities), and sectoral/collective bargainin…

I really appreciate the level of discourse here on Hacker News. Thank you to threads like this and the authors of the comments.

I appreciate your argument, and you knowlwdge of economics adds weight to it. I'm wary of putting the burden on workers to remove information asymmetry and power imbalances in bargaining. Just because it's necessary now doesn't mean it needs to be. It could create a cycle of permanent extra work for those most in need of regulatory help.

I don't know if I had the full language of economic inefficiencies ready to flow like you do if that argument would be more effective. Or if there are other blocks, you know?

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#22

Post by ggfdh »

delichon wrote: post #4
johnnylambada wrote: post #3

I imagine they’re all gone now. A great example of the free market creating a niche product that was useful and affordable to its customers and the government regulating it out of existence. I’m sure there were abuses by owners but the system worked for the majority.

If you can't afford a home up to our standards, better that you should be homeless? If you can't land a job at minimum wage, better for you to be unemployed? I wish that these were reductio ad absurdems rather than common place luxury beliefs.

I'm not sure what standards you're talking about, but if you can't afford a home where you live you should move to a cheaper area. If the decision is being homeless vs moving, you should move.

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#23

Post by bluGill »

t1234s wrote: post #20

Are these types of accommodations popular among tech people working in startups? I imagine if you are spending multiple days in a row at the office (or offices across multiple cities) it doesn't make sense to pay rent on a location you never use. I remember reading an article of a Google employee that lived in a box truck in the parking lot.

I don't think they are popular with anyone.

There are a few people who because they only need a bed use them despite having other options. I've read reports of a few people who sleep under their desk - if the company won't allow this (it is often technically illegal) such a place might be your best option.

There are a few people who because of "problems in life" need a place that is cheap. If your wife gives you a restraining order when you get home as your first notice the marriage is dead you need a place for a few nights while figuring that mess out. (sexism mostly because there are a lot more women's shelters - but otherwise this can apply to either)

There might be some people using this as a really cheap hostel.

But the article makes it clear - most of the people using the place were not what you would call "normal people". They are addicted to something and are there because they need a place to sleep so they can spend more money on their addiction. There is also mental illness - not so bad that they need to be institutionalized, but not really fully able to support themselves.

I get the impression that times have changed - 120 years ago it was much more socially acceptable to live in such a place. You get a bed, and otherwise you are using the city for everything (work, entertainment...)

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#24

Post by mattgrice »

t1234s wrote: post #20

Are these types of accommodations popular among tech people working in startups? I imagine if you are spending multiple days in a row at the office (or offices across multiple cities) it doesn't make sense to pay rent on a location you never use. I remember reading an article of a Google employee that lived in a box truck in the parking lot.

No, these types of accommodations don't really exist any more. That's kind of the point of the article -- they were becoming extinct 30 years ago.

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#25

Post by gosub100 »

delichon wrote: post #4
johnnylambada wrote: post #3

I imagine they’re all gone now. A great example of the free market creating a niche product that was useful and affordable to its customers and the government regulating it out of existence. I’m sure there were abuses by owners but the system worked for the majority.

If you can't afford a home up to our standards, better that you should be homeless? If you can't land a job at minimum wage, better for you to be unemployed? I wish that these were reductio ad absurdems rather than common place luxury beliefs.

How about "if you are unwilling pay someone enough to cover most of their core expenses, you aren't allowed to hire them at all"? I like that phrasing better

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#26

Post by bluGill »

ggfdh wrote: post #22
delichon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't afford a home up to our standards, better that you should be homeless? If you can't land a job at minimum wage, better for you to be unemployed? I wish that these were reductio ad absurdems rather than common place luxury beliefs.

I'm not sure what standards you're talking about, but if you can't afford a home where you live you should move to a cheaper area. If the decision is being homeless vs moving, you should move.

Cheaper options almost always mean less jobs. I know lots of cheap places to live - in the middle of nowhere. Small towns that can't even support a gas station: the locals drive half an hour to get groceries. (they are close to their job on the farm, or at least some job that needs to be out there because the farm is there)

These places were great places for the poor. They are close to lots of people and that implies some of those people will be willing to hire you for a something cheap. It isn't a great life, but if you have very limited abilities you likely prefer to make your own choices in life vs whatever the shelters force on you. (some shelters/institutions have been very abusive in the past)

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#27

Post by bombcar »

derektank wrote: post #14
HDThoreaun wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is lots of profit to be made at $10 per worker hour that can't be made at $15. Sure, if you have decent workers. But decent workers can make $15/hr so you cant get them. If youre stuck with the people who cant get a minimum wage job you dont have anyone you can trust and you cant build a business like that unless youre amazon tracking everyone's metrics with a billion dollar warehouse system. (amazon also pay…

Why is someone who brings in $15.10 of value to a company a decent worker but someone who brings in $14.90 of value someone that can be written off completely? Obviously, we can quibble over the exact numbers and how one assesses value. But that’s kind of the point, we should let people figure that out for themselves what they’re worth and what they are willing to pay other people for. I understand that there are con…

If you’re worth $14.90 to the company they’ll likely hire you, even if just to free up someone who is worth $15.50. The people who wouldn’t be hired at $0 are what you need to solve to fix homelessness.

Conflating the two obscures both.

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#28

Post by t1234s »

mattgrice wrote: post #24
t1234s wrote: post #20

Are these types of accommodations popular among tech people working in startups? I imagine if you are spending multiple days in a row at the office (or offices across multiple cities) it doesn't make sense to pay rent on a location you never use. I remember reading an article of a Google employee that lived in a box truck in the parking lot.

No, these types of accommodations don't really exist any more. That's kind of the point of the article -- they were becoming extinct 30 years ago.

I found this: https://www.napyork.com/

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#29

Post by bombcar »

bluGill wrote: post #23
t1234s wrote: post #20

Are these types of accommodations popular among tech people working in startups? I imagine if you are spending multiple days in a row at the office (or offices across multiple cities) it doesn't make sense to pay rent on a location you never use. I remember reading an article of a Google employee that lived in a box truck in the parking lot.

I don't think they are popular with anyone. There are a few people who because they only need a bed use them despite having other options. I've read reports of a few people who sleep under their desk - if the company won't allow this (it is often technically illegal) such a place might be your best option. There are a few people who because of "problems in life" need a place that is cheap. If your wife gives you a re…

Much of the “good” usage is taken up by budget hotels/motels. We don’t have a group of “missed the train” businessmen as Japan does to support capsule hotels, and the day laborers have cheaper options.

Re: The Big City; Save the Flophouses (1996)

#30

Post by cyberax »

Your daily reminder that urbanism leads only to more misery. Dense cities will never have cheaper housing. And it will only get worse and worse as the density continues to grow.

And we know that the misery won out when people pose it like this:

> If you can't afford a home up to our standards, better that you should be homeless?

The third option is to LIVE IN CHEAPER PLACES. The US has 1.1 housing units per household. We literally have more homes than families! And this doesn't change much if we assume that illegal immigrants are undercounted.

The whole housing policy must focus on making MORE locations feasible, not trying to strangle the democracy with bike lanes.

Post reply on HN