Priced out of Paris • Hacker News Board

Re: Priced out of Paris

#121

Post by parasight » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:01 PM UTC

jjsz wrote: post #81

JPKab wrote: post #56

My cousin is a .01%-er. My father's brother, due to a position of political power he held in the late 1970's, met and married a woman who is an heir to an American old-money family. (if i were to name them, you would know. If you listen to NPR for more than an hour, you will hear their name mentioned as a donor) The contrast is insane, since my entire family is Appalachian coal mining stock. She NEVER visits, so the…

The old-money lifestyle is _designed_ to sit back, enjoy, and let the investment bankers handle the rest- exactly what she's doing so they're not parasites, they're living an elite's way of life. If you would get closer to her she would produce a lot of good times and memories. Just because you will travel, stay in the house and read more doesn't mean someone is going to sit down and become an inventor / iterator lik…

> There's no point of being envious and no point for me being an apologist but if it bothers you so much become one of her investment bankers.

Envy is a thought-terminating cliché when it comes to criticizing the rich. I think it is possible to criticize this lifestyle without being envious.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#122

Post by rayiner » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:02 PM UTC

reedlaw wrote: post #118

rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin proponents: this is the world deflationary currencies lead to. All the wealth owned by a few, passed on from generation to generation. And you can even cut the investment bankers out of the loop, thanks to the risk free return on just keeping money under your mattress and the constantly falling prices.

This is the world deflationary currencies lead to--referring to the real world where inflationary currencies reign? Seeing how inflation doesn't prevent mis-allocation of resources, I don't see how this example is a good argument against deflationary currencies.

Even in a world of inflationary currencies, there are supply-limited assets like real estate in Manhattan or Paris. The phenomenon you see with respect to those assets: hoarding, little incentive to risk assets by putting them to use, young people pushed out simply for being unlucky enough to be born later, dynastic wealth, etc, are just what happens when you have assets that are tightly limited in supply and appreciate just by virtue of one's holding on to them.

The question is: why on earth would you want to make more things behave that way?

This is not an argument against crypto-currencies, by the way. One can imagine an inflationary bitcoin after all.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#123

Post by jzwinck » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:02 PM UTC

andyking wrote: post #24

stevoski wrote: post #4

The article talks a lot about cities now being the domain only of "one-percenters" and "global elite". This is demonstrably false. Consider the UK. UK's population: 62 million London population: 8 million 13% of the UK's population, therefore, resides in London. To say that only the "1%" can afford London is clearly not the case. In France's case, 15% of the population live in Paris. Perhaps we can't all live in Lond…

Even if my pay was doubled, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in or near London. However, I can afford a comfortable lifestyle in rural Yorkshire (house, car, holidays, internet access, good food, days out etc etc) on a modest pay packet. The rent for my 17th century cottage with garden in a Yorkshire village wouldn't get me a room in a shared house in an undesirable part of London. I don't understand the pull of…

> The oil sheikhs and Russian oligarchs can keep it. I'd much rather live up here even if I had enough money to live in London!

And your government is making sure they do keep it, by "reducing net migration" of working people whilst granting a Tier 1 visa to anyone with one million pounds in the UK banking system. It's "pay to stay," and the offer stands at US $1.6 million.

Refer: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/working/...

Re: Priced out of Paris

#124

Post by saosebastiao » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:04 PM UTC

Development restrictions can and will do that. They have been doing it consistently for several decades.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#125

Post by simonbarker87 » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:05 PM UTC

gman99 wrote: post #83

simonbarker87 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more, I live in Newcastle (Upon Tyne) and wonder why all my friends headed down south after uni - for "the salary" was their reasoning but none of them have savings and their salary goes into rent, commuting and maintain an expensive social life. I'd much rather be here in Newcastle and be able to afford to live and save - just wish the weather were a little better

As someone who went to Uni in Durham and loves the countryside; (but still loved his two year stay in London), I can give you another reason: The sheer variety in cheap cultural things to do. I'm not saying Newcastle lacks decent culture, just that it's not cheap. When living in London, I used to make frequent trips to The Globe (£7 tickets), National Theatre (£12), Sadler's Wells (£15), Museums (free) plus other gre…

Fair enough, that is something I hadn't considered (nor realised how cheap it could be) - although I would counter to say that I wouldn't have discovered road biking or surfing (with a hefty wet suit mind you!) if I wasn't in the north east's easy access to both - 10 minutes on the bike and I am in the countryside.

It's swings and roundabouts I guess.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#126

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:06 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #50

salmonellaeater wrote: post #13

The article implies that it's a big problem for commodities to go to the people willing to pay the most for them. Housing is just another commodity; is it surprising that the people who derive the most value from being in a city center (professionals in finance, law, business) end up paying the most for the privilege?

Housing is simply not just another commodity. An utterly fundamental aspect of commodities is that their production is price-elastic, and governed by supply and demand: if demand increases, prices rise, so, supply increases, prices fall again, and the market remains efficient. The housing supply has very little price elasticity, at least in London. This is for the very simple reason that there is hardly any space to…

The housing supply has very little price elasticity, at least in London.

Demand is also inelastic, which leads to some counterintuitive results. Let's say that you destroy 5% of housing (a catastrophic flood). Prices will double. Dumbasses will assume that housing became more desirable. ("People really want to live here! Prices are going up rapidly!") No, it just became scarcer.

However if you conflate price and value, which most people do, that disaster (that reduces quantity by 5% but doubles prices) will be taken to cause a 90% improvement in "value". Wrong.

See also: 9/11. After the terrorist attack, prices in Manhattan actually went up as speculators bet on future supply compromise/destruction in NYC real estate. There was a brief dip in Lower Manhattan (panic selling) but the more adept speculators bought, creating the morbid 9/11 Boom in NYC real estate.

Slight margins in supply problems have huge price effects. That is the story of housing. That's why it's so infuriating when upper-middle-class people get rent control through connections. It's not that there are many of these people-- they're much less than 1%-- but that they have such a disproportionate impact.

The global elite's parasitism is just one catastrophe that is driving up prices. It doesn't take many houses to be pulled off the market to push them up by huge amounts.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#127

Post by epsylon » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:09 PM UTC

carlob wrote: post #116

epsylon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live just nearby Paris (in Issy-les-moulineaux) and I do vote for a mayor, just not the mayor of Paris. I also vote for a few local representatives (département, canton and région). Representation isn't a problem, since many projects are handled by the départements or région. > An interesting phenomenon in Paris is the fact that there are still many housing projects inside Paris proper. Which means that effectively…

> I live just nearby Paris (in Issy-les-moulineaux) and I do vote for a mayor, just not the mayor of Paris. I also vote for a few local representatives (département, canton and région). Representation isn't a problem, since many projects are handled by the départements or région. I lived in Montrouge and in Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, so I know what I'm talking about. Look at all the trouble they ran into when they tried to…

I don't remember any specific issues about extending the Vélib outside Paris, but perhaps I didn't pay attention too much. Can you develop ?

I don't thing centralizing things more than they are today would significantly improve the issues faced by the various neighbouring municipalities. Au contraire, I'm a proponent of decentralization.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#128

Post by rdouble » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:09 PM UTC

gman99 wrote: post #83

simonbarker87 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more, I live in Newcastle (Upon Tyne) and wonder why all my friends headed down south after uni - for "the salary" was their reasoning but none of them have savings and their salary goes into rent, commuting and maintain an expensive social life. I'd much rather be here in Newcastle and be able to afford to live and save - just wish the weather were a little better

As someone who went to Uni in Durham and loves the countryside; (but still loved his two year stay in London), I can give you another reason: The sheer variety in cheap cultural things to do. I'm not saying Newcastle lacks decent culture, just that it's not cheap. When living in London, I used to make frequent trips to The Globe (£7 tickets), National Theatre (£12), Sadler's Wells (£15), Museums (free) plus other gre…

I've found the same thing is true about NYC. There are loads of free and cheap things to do. Especially during the summer.

Much more so than most other US cities, where everything is pay-to-play and you have to pay for driving and parking as well.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#129

Post by roel_v » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:11 PM UTC

6d0debc071 wrote: post #51

kiba wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of autonomous cars, proximity and density will always be a decisive feature of cities, which is what allows humanity to thrive and innovate. The fact that only the rich people can afford to live in the center of the city is a problem, because it becomes harder to aggregate human ingenuity and innovation. In fact, I believe autonomous cars will increases a city's ability to network, because it increases peo…

> Regardless of autonomous cars, proximity and density will always be a decisive feature of cities, which is what allows humanity to thrive and innovate. Population density is correlated with increased rates of mental illness.

You're suggesting that dense cities drive people crazy (sorry if you aren't), but it's not clear whether it's like that, or that crazy people tend to gravitate towards center with high population densities.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#130

Post by VLM » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 3:14 PM UTC

gman99 wrote: post #83

simonbarker87 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more, I live in Newcastle (Upon Tyne) and wonder why all my friends headed down south after uni - for "the salary" was their reasoning but none of them have savings and their salary goes into rent, commuting and maintain an expensive social life. I'd much rather be here in Newcastle and be able to afford to live and save - just wish the weather were a little better

As someone who went to Uni in Durham and loves the countryside; (but still loved his two year stay in London), I can give you another reason: The sheer variety in cheap cultural things to do. I'm not saying Newcastle lacks decent culture, just that it's not cheap. When living in London, I used to make frequent trips to The Globe (£7 tickets), National Theatre (£12), Sadler's Wells (£15), Museums (free) plus other gre…

I believe you are missing a substantial scalability issue. From an article in The Telegraph "the Globe has played to 480,000 people this year". It seems to seat somewhere around 2000, so I am willing to believe that they have about 200 performances per year.

Living in the US I'm well aware of urban sprawl and the near inability to define imaginary borders. However for the sake of argument, wikipedia claims a bit over 8 million inhabitants in London.

Some long division and making the HUGE assumption that The Globe only permits admittance to locals (LOL I'm guessing its probably 90% rich tourists like myself) then the average local can only visit The Globe once every 16 years rather than your "frequent trips". If my estimate of 90% tourist statistics is correct, then the average London resident can only physically visit The Globe once every 160 years. Of course the average lifespan of a london resident probably does not approach 160 years. And there are more cultural activities than just The Globe. But lets say you want to do something every weekend... Personally I'd take the train and live somewhere else, but if you can find 160*52 = 8352 other equally cheap and worthy cultural activities then it would scale.

"I would never have discovered my love for Classical music, ... if ... the tickets so cheap."

For me it was free audio rentals at the public library. Back when they used vinyl and magnetic tape. They freely loan CDs now, there is a limit but its ridiculous like 10 loaned at a time. I used to visit my local library every week, but the local symphony only plays something like 8 different performances per year, so do the math there. In this modern era its trendy to claim people only want someone elses streaming selections rather than having a mp3 of their own and making their own selection decisions, regardless of how ridiculous that is, its also more or less free.

I live on what amounts to a very small landed estate technically in the suburbs, but somewhat rural. I visit Chicago roughly annually and soak in some culture. I'm glad I don't live there, so I can trivially afford to visit, and my tourist dollars are crowding the locals out of the very cultural activities they supposedly pay $3000/month to live nearby, while I pay about a third that to live in a vastly superior location about 100 miles away. You'd be surprised what a couple extra thousand dollars per month adds up to in the long run.