Live data from Hacker News

Priced out of Paris

ft.com

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: Priced out of Paris

#161
post #94
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) I'm not envious, and somehow you take my disapproval of the elites wasting valuable space as envy. It is not. If I express disapproval at someone who dumps toxic waste in a river, do I envy them also? 2) Your comment made zero contribution to the conversation. Do you think I haven't hung out with my cousin and had a good time? I have. This changes nothing. Every person on the planet is capable of "producing good t…

"She is also capable of taking her wealth and helping people at levels of magnitude that the rest of us can't, yet she does nothing."

This is a fact stated from a point of view of a clear philosophy - that the powerful/resourceful people have to use their power/resources for the good of humanity. All it takes for her (and alike) is not to share this philosophy and prefer let's say, a more hedonistic one. Let's enjoy the philosophical diversity, shall we? ;)

Re: Priced out of Paris

#162
post #154
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your cousin and her friends aren't parasites for delegating the management of their wealth to professionals. They'd be idiots not to get first-class lawyers, tax advisors, accountants, estate managers, and investment advisors to run their private wealth. They don't "produce nothing". These professionals are investing their capital and the world is wealthier as a result.

They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite". Usually I'…

«They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite".»

You know, when I tried to picture what you implied to be the right and correct resource use I come up with Bangladesh life-style - many people living in a small area, not a lot of space wasted. If I think more about it, the entire american life-style resonates in opposition with your objections. In fact, all the american-dreamers long to what she is and what she has, don't they?

Re: Priced out of Paris

#163
post #130
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I used to go to the Globe pretty much every week (it's open air, so plays were only on in summer). One thing that I did not mention is the fact that the £7 tickets are actually "standing" -- I kindof prefer that as it means you're up right next to the stage. I always bought tickets on the day and they're pretty much never sold out (popular days/weekends could mean a fairly tight view :)

About scalability, as someone already said, there are so many venues available that pretty much whatever you wanted to do, there was always available seats for you -- just perhaps not in your first choice of venue (even after restricting your ticket price to £15 or less) Heck, as you're already in London and the public transport is free (you've got a travelcard as you have to commute to work anyway), you can go and do/watch/listen to something for free every night of the week.

Point taken about CD's in the library. But somehow even though I had the opportunity to take them out of the library before, I never made use of it. I guess I never knew I'd like classical music. But as the live performance was so cheap, I tried it and found I really liked it.

And now I live on the outskirts of London. I pay about the same in rent (bigger place) but hardly ever go into London. Mainly because I used to live about 12minutes from Waterloo and now it's more like an hour and a half (which means all trips have to be planned for weekends; as I can't really be bothered to head out after a full day's work)

Would I rather still live in London? Possibly not. But I'm definitely happy I lived there for a couple of years.

>>You'd be surprised what a couple extra thousand dollars per month adds up to in the long run

Well, like I said, there really is no change in my rent (but I now have a two bed flat and not a one bed), and I now own a car (additional expense). I've also stopped eating out, as restaurants are nowhere near as cheap as they were in London (expensive restaurants were a lot more expensive, but I've never found places that do £2.50 mains like in Tooting, for example) -- on the flip side I always enjoyed cooking, so this isn't a big deal for me. I am also living closer to work (as I work outside London now), so I guess my quality of life is better & the commute is less stressful (and the pollution is lower).

I'm just not as ready as you are to dismiss all the benefits of living in a city. But hey, we're all different. Just saying that I had a point of view very similar to yours until I was forced (SO's job change) to live in London for awhile. Now I understand the delights of living in London (but I can understand why others may not -- just wish people would give it a try :)

Re: Priced out of Paris

#164
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I completely agree. I would not have discovered the joys of hiking and hillwalking if it wasn't for my four years at Durham (and "relatively" easy access to the Lake District).

Overall, my love of the countryside trumps cheap access to live plays/concerts/public transport/museums/etc; that's why I moved out.

My point is just that there are definitely reasons why people would choose to live in the city (reasons I did not fully appreciate until I lived in London)

Swings & roundabouts, as you say :)

Re: Priced out of Paris

#165
I currently live in Manhattan and I've lived in London (Golders Green, Hampstead) and Paris (7th, 6th).

The reason why costs are rising is because of land use restrictions through zoning and building codes that regulate housing and commercial real estate density. In other words, politically induced scarcity benefiting wealthy landowners at the cost to those people wishing to buy housing, to rent an apartment, or to run a business is the cause for rising housing prices.

The answer is deregulating the politically induced scarcity of land use. The politically induced scarcity interferes with the market efficiency that would otherwise allow the housing to be more affordable.

This is a basic principle of microeconomics and was initially explained by David Ricardo when he explained that the Corn Laws that restricted the import of corn into Britain benefited landowners because it artificially increased the cost of corn thus making the cost of land more scarce and expensive.

David Ricardo felt so strongly about this that he joined Parliament to overturn the Corn Laws. Similarly the solution today is to deregulate the overly restrictive zoning and building code regulations that cause the scarcity.

Economist (and FT columnist) Tim Harford explains this in more detail in his book, "The Undercover Economist."

Re: Priced out of Paris

#166
post #157
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite". Usually I'…

I understand and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I'll try to elaborate more on the points you've made: > They are parasites because they are spending money Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it. > (that they didn't earn by producing anything) The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it. Wh…

[deleted]

Re: Priced out of Paris

#167
post #33
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…

A 2009 report said that 40% of London's families are on housing support. So these people live there because someone else pays.

And the payers is not the type with accounts and charities to use for tax dodging.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#168
post #61

I'm an American ruby/python developer living in Paris. The cost of living in Paris is comparable to living in New York City or San Francisco. In some ways it can be cheaper. You can find affordable places to live and work all over Paris, and you can find all kinds of ways to spend or save money in any city.

You can live in a nice one-room apartment in Berlin for about 390 euro a month, 15 mins away from the hip boroughs by great public transport, and 10 mins by bike. What's the price like in Paris (honest question)?

Re: Priced out of Paris

#169
post #129

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. 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.

It's not, and that's a good point. But it sounds more logical to me. Could you give some reasons why people with 'mental illness' would gravitate towards centers?

(mind, I'm asking this with the assumption that mental illness is much broader than just homeless schizophrenics, so to speak. I can definitely see why they might gravitate towards heavily populate areas. But they usually don't pay rent.)

Re: Priced out of Paris

#170
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That theory seems awfully simplistic. Or on the other hand, perhaps the whole world is deflationary, because it is a limited resource. So the the bleak future you depict is inevitable.

Or on the other hand, perhaps the whole world is deflationary, because it is a limited resource. That's flatly untrue, however. The world is not a limited resource. That's even true of real estate. Back when Silicon Valley was becoming great it was a backwater where the Establishment assholes didn't want to live (hence cheap land). The value of things is a product of their relationships to other things, and the pool…

How can the world not be a limited resource? Have you thought this through?
Post reply on HN