#1
I'm a long-time New York resident, have watched the real estate market for years, and wonder about the cause and effect of high prices. My sense is that developers develop for the high-end because that is where the profits are. Not justifying the inequality, but over time, the only place to make major profits has been to either reduce costs at a huge scale, e.g., Amazon and Walmart, or to focus on smaller opportunities but aimed at the affluent, e.g., the luxury retail sector. Yes, it is not that simple, since cost is affected by regulations and taxation, but on its face, the high costs of developing in Manhattan, and maybe anywhere in NYC, force developers to focus on the luxury segment. At one time, significant government investment and support in affordable housing made it profitable for developers to build for average incomes, but much of that has been wiped away, along with other supports for the middle class over the past few decades, driving much of our inequality, the same inequality that warps the market towards the wealthy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29895312
#2
@Adams - Absolutely right, and the good companies do just that. I recently reposted an article touting how tech employees are both more productive and more satisfied when they have the remote work option. Granted, this is not always an choice for roles that require face time and presence, but for many - currently, I am spending 60% of my time coding - it could personally reduce the need for transportation and clothing costs, and for companies it could reduce turnover and site costs - people can share desk space - as well as make some more productive and happier. Granted, it is not for everyone. Another study, looking at personality traits conducive to remote work, found that autonomy and stability were associated with having the least stress working from home. I'm sure there are other views, differences dependent on the level of extroversion, tech-savvy, and independence, etc., as well as aspects of the physical environment, but regardless, it would certainly go long way to reduce problems with real estate, transportation, and work-life balance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29896747:29897106
#3
@LEM - NY is not a simple Smith-like argument where we have relatively equal participants since although the level of NIMBYism is less, the city is basically controlled by the real estate industry. Also, SF is not comparable to NYC in its entirety, but more like Manhattan, in terms of volume and area, and in the same way, $100K will not get you a desirable apartment with an easy commute. Yes, you can do it if you opt for a studio, 400 sq feet, or share, but it is still tough. The outer boroughs might be affordable, but the commutes are terrible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29898174:29898249:29898515
#4
@Johnny - Nothing is going to change. America tends toward individualism, traditional sex roles, and short-termism. It is deeply ingrained, the bulk of immigrants coming to the US are from traditional work cultures. For us, the option, if one wants to live in a quality of life culture like the Scandinavian ones, is to move there.
BTW, where did you get the quaint notion that capitalism is about innovation and diversity? A simple search comes back with something more realistic, and Marxist, that of "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." That is what we have, an economy controlled by an ever smaller number of people that dictate that our economic lives. Even then, a mixed economy would likely be more innovative and diverse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29896888:29901124
#5
@LEM - You seem to have created a strawman that you have taken down, that has nothing to do with what I think or believe. I am not going to waste my time hunting down arguments for you, after which you can create more strawmen unrelated to what I think that you will handily trounce. You're arguing with yourself.
I certainly do not think that there is market purity since there are regulations and power imbalances - real estate could never reflect a purely competitive market. There do need to be government controls, the same way that there need to be laws. There is a need to be direct government support for affordable housing, not simply side deals with developers that then skirt the agreements, or with owners that are scofflaws on a massive scale. An unfettered market is ruin for everyone but the few that control it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29898174:29898249:29898515:29899247:29902014
#6
@LEM - You seem to have ignored what I wrote, that SF is not worse than NYC since the real comparison should be with Manhattan. It might seem to have gotten worse in SF since SF has grown so quickly, such that it's now having problems that are by now old for Manhattan. Outrageous prices, homelessness, overdevelopment, and even NIMBYism have existed here for decades, if not longer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29898174:29898249:29898515:29899247:29902085
#7
@Coseo - If you had been reading lately you might have come across articles detailing the decreasing mobility of Americans. Even when the less affluent move, they have to move for cheaper real estate, and that typically means lower wages too. Americans are typically not capable of being mobile to solve problems - granted there are many that can, but even that can entail hardship - and equally fallacious as the concept of economic mobility in the US. It simply does not exist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29901362:29902162
#8
@Coseo - Pardon if I got your sentiment wrong, the bulk of it I like at an emotional level, although I'm not sure how realistic it will be in a country like the US.
Yes, we should make the wealthy and corporations pay more, we should have nationalized insurance, we should be able to pursue our loves in life without having to eventually cave to the crassness of merely making money, and yes we should be subsidizing education for our children, not allowing them to be squeezed by creditors and unethical educators.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29901362:29902261
#9
The title, A Tale of Two Cities, is I think the way that is really growing towards, more so than already the cities of haves and have-nots. For the affluent and wealthy, these cities are often wonderful, offering the best of urban life. For those within this bubble, life is probably nice. For those that have to deal with the poor and homeless, or have to suffer small homes and low wages, life looks different. It is not so simple since many of us are aware of both sides, and as with many situations there is both a continuum and multiple facets.
I work in technology for the finance or medical industry, but I'm not so enthused about Amazon coming to NYC. I think it will disruptive for many NY'ers. The real estate industry will love the new growth and tech people will probably like the increased recruitment and opportunities, but anyone not in those worlds, or unable to benefit from it, will likely suffer in a number of ways, the usual fall out from gentrification, only worse with increased problems for transportation.
Will this discussion solve anything? Unlikely. Do we even think that local solutions are really the issue, or is it broadly problematic, a society pushed by Reagan, the result being a crumbling welfare state? Sure, some cities will find solutions, but the problems we complain about have causes that are far wider than a city can solve.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/upshot/happy-new-year-may-your-city-never-become-san-francisco-new-york-or-seattle.html?comments#permid=29914555
Comments