Coastal Cities Priced Out Low-Wage Workers. Now College Graduates Are Leaving(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Coastal Cities Priced Out Low-Wage Workers. Now College Graduates Are Leaving
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/15/upshot/migrations-college-super-cities.html
88 comments
Of course, young families with kids migrating out of cities (but often not the broader metro area) is a trend that's been happening pretty much forever. Of my cohort of grad school classmates who moved to NYC upon graduation, I'm guessing only a couple were still actually in the city a decade later.
As you say, the increase in some urban populations relative to a couple decades ago was mostly driven by new college grads, many of whom previously did not live in the city after undergrad, in part, because many of the jobs that weren't in finance were out in the suburbs/exurbs.
As you say, the increase in some urban populations relative to a couple decades ago was mostly driven by new college grads, many of whom previously did not live in the city after undergrad, in part, because many of the jobs that weren't in finance were out in the suburbs/exurbs.
> Of course, young families with kids migrating out of cities (but often not the broader metro area) is a trend that's been happening pretty much forever. Of my cohort of grad school classmates who moved to NYC upon graduation, I'm guessing only a couple were still actually in the city a decade later.
Right -- I didn't highlight it specifically, but that's another part of the article I found misleading: NYC has historically had large outflows because, every summer, hundreds of thousands of undergraduates and graduates complete their studies and leave. And similarly with young families: those who stay for over a decade are likely to remain, but many come to the city while they're young, stay to date and work, and decamp for the suburbs once they've had their fill.
Both of these demographics and their historical trends are conflated with the post-COVID numbers (again, ending at 2020/1) for unstated reasons.
Right -- I didn't highlight it specifically, but that's another part of the article I found misleading: NYC has historically had large outflows because, every summer, hundreds of thousands of undergraduates and graduates complete their studies and leave. And similarly with young families: those who stay for over a decade are likely to remain, but many come to the city while they're young, stay to date and work, and decamp for the suburbs once they've had their fill.
Both of these demographics and their historical trends are conflated with the post-COVID numbers (again, ending at 2020/1) for unstated reasons.
> Of course, young families with kids migrating out of cities (but often not the broader metro area) is a trend that's been happening pretty much forever.
>
> As you say, the increase in some urban populations relative to a couple decades ago was mostly driven by new college grads, many of whom previously did not live in the city after undergrad, in part, because many of the jobs that weren't in finance were out in the suburbs/exurbs.
That trend hasn't been happening "forever". It's only a few decades old, and it's a direct function of the broad changes in housing and social policies that were made between the 1960s-1980s.
That trend hasn't been happening "forever". It's only a few decades old, and it's a direct function of the broad changes in housing and social policies that were made between the 1960s-1980s.
I'm not sure it's that hyperbolic to describe trends that have basically been in place since about WWII (and there were streetcar suburbs before that) to be "forever."
This is fantastic.
Young folks get to take advantage of wage arbitrage. Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector. Two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other while collectively giving the middle finger to an unholy Government/Big Corp alliance trying to corral everyone in a few big geographical regions.
Plea to young knowledge workers... Don't give in on remote work, take advantage of it.
Young folks get to take advantage of wage arbitrage. Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector. Two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other while collectively giving the middle finger to an unholy Government/Big Corp alliance trying to corral everyone in a few big geographical regions.
Plea to young knowledge workers... Don't give in on remote work, take advantage of it.
> Young folks get to take advantage of wage arbitrage. Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector. Two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other while collectively giving the middle finger to an unholy Government/Big Corp alliance trying to corral everyone in a few big geographical regions.
That sounds like a fantasy that's misrepresenting the effects that are already happening. You don't get the cross-pollination, you get more and different resentment, because the "new blood" may "revitalize" the physical area, but they don't revitalize the original residents. Those people get driven out through gentrification, and you end up with a little colony full of coastal colonizers.
That sounds like a fantasy that's misrepresenting the effects that are already happening. You don't get the cross-pollination, you get more and different resentment, because the "new blood" may "revitalize" the physical area, but they don't revitalize the original residents. Those people get driven out through gentrification, and you end up with a little colony full of coastal colonizers.
> Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector.
I think that is what is most galling about the fight against remote work. It is the way for knowledge workers to have quality of life (versus heading to a coast to save up before you have to leave because the COL is unsustainable into parenthood or retirement) while also providing a sustainable economic base for smaller towns that would otherwise be hallowed out. You don't want to cater to companies (who can play jurisdictions against each other for tax breaks and if they leave, can cause outsized impact to the tax base and local economy), you want to cater to remote workers [1] [2] (who will settle down and anchor themselves to your community, hopefully).
[1] https://www.bobvila.com/slideshow/13-u-s-cities-incentivizin...
[2] https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job#relocatio...
I think that is what is most galling about the fight against remote work. It is the way for knowledge workers to have quality of life (versus heading to a coast to save up before you have to leave because the COL is unsustainable into parenthood or retirement) while also providing a sustainable economic base for smaller towns that would otherwise be hallowed out. You don't want to cater to companies (who can play jurisdictions against each other for tax breaks and if they leave, can cause outsized impact to the tax base and local economy), you want to cater to remote workers [1] [2] (who will settle down and anchor themselves to your community, hopefully).
[1] https://www.bobvila.com/slideshow/13-u-s-cities-incentivizin...
[2] https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job#relocatio...
> It is the way for knowledge workers to have quality of life (versus heading to a coast to save up before you have to leave because the COL is unsustainable into parenthood or retirement)
Meh, what you gain in square footage of your house moving in the Midwest, which is what I think you meant by "quality of life", you loose in career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children.
> (who will settle down and anchor themselves to your community, hopefully).
Folks with 4-5x the median income coming into a county is more likely to create resentment than anything too, if they end up staying.
Meh, what you gain in square footage of your house moving in the Midwest, which is what I think you meant by "quality of life", you loose in career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children.
> (who will settle down and anchor themselves to your community, hopefully).
Folks with 4-5x the median income coming into a county is more likely to create resentment than anything too, if they end up staying.
> Meh, what you gain in square footage of your house moving in the Midwest, which is what I think you meant by "quality of life", you loose in career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children.
Strongly disagree on virtually every point, and this seems to be a common refrain I hear from those seemingly trying to convince themselves as much as anyone why the sky-high cost of living in certain areas of the country is worth paying. Yes, it's true there is more to eat and go do in many HCOL areas in the country, but there are diminishing returns. Perhaps 20 years ago the gap was significant enough to matter. But these days, even in medium sized Midwestern cities there is typically more variety in cuisine, entertainment, and cultural options than the average person can actually utilize. Weather can also be a driving factor, but even some places that are particularly expensive like Seattle or NYC don't have particularly great weather. And with global warming, the Midwest is generally getting less cold in the winter, while HCOL areas like those out west are getting regular wildfires, record breaking floods, and extreme heat waves, so even on this front the gap is diminishing. As for careers opportunity, that seems to be rapidly disappearing with the advent of remote work.
I'm not making the claim that Michigan or Wisconsin are toppling NYC or LA as top destinations for tourism. But there is a difference between a vacation destination and a place to make a living, and it's getting hard to see how some of these HCOL areas in the country make sense given the other options these days, given the cost difference.
Strongly disagree on virtually every point, and this seems to be a common refrain I hear from those seemingly trying to convince themselves as much as anyone why the sky-high cost of living in certain areas of the country is worth paying. Yes, it's true there is more to eat and go do in many HCOL areas in the country, but there are diminishing returns. Perhaps 20 years ago the gap was significant enough to matter. But these days, even in medium sized Midwestern cities there is typically more variety in cuisine, entertainment, and cultural options than the average person can actually utilize. Weather can also be a driving factor, but even some places that are particularly expensive like Seattle or NYC don't have particularly great weather. And with global warming, the Midwest is generally getting less cold in the winter, while HCOL areas like those out west are getting regular wildfires, record breaking floods, and extreme heat waves, so even on this front the gap is diminishing. As for careers opportunity, that seems to be rapidly disappearing with the advent of remote work.
I'm not making the claim that Michigan or Wisconsin are toppling NYC or LA as top destinations for tourism. But there is a difference between a vacation destination and a place to make a living, and it's getting hard to see how some of these HCOL areas in the country make sense given the other options these days, given the cost difference.
> Strongly disagree on virtually every point, and this seems to be a common refrain I hear from those seemingly trying to convince themselves as much as anyone why the sky-high cost of living in certain areas of the country is worth paying.
I'd argue on the cost of living front that you'd be better off being in a expensive area, because you can always downgrade COL, rarely upgrade :).
> But these days, even in medium sized Midwestern cities there is typically more variety in cuisine, entertainment, and cultural options than the average person can actually utilize
Frankly, you need to spend more time in the Bay Area / LA or the NYC area with people who like food. The food scene is just incomparable to anywhere else in the US (or my native France).
> And with global warming, the Midwest is generally getting less cold in the winter, while HCOL areas like those out west are getting regular wildfires, record breaking floods, and extreme heat waves
Those things happen for less than a month a year. Compare that with the climate of the midwest, where it goes from "super cold" to "unbearably hot", with a few months of nice spring/fall if you're lucky. Super obvious if you look at https://weatherspark.com/y/557/Average-Weather-in-San-Franci... vs say https://weatherspark.com/y/12083/Average-Weather-in-St.-Loui... . Not to mention the mosquitos.
If you never go outside (which frankly is a thing a lot of suburban Americans do), it doesn't matter, but if you're into hiking, sailing, surfing, skiing, or just eating outside on your patio, California just can't be beat. There's a reason you see folks from all over the world moving here and not to Missouri.
I'd argue on the cost of living front that you'd be better off being in a expensive area, because you can always downgrade COL, rarely upgrade :).
> But these days, even in medium sized Midwestern cities there is typically more variety in cuisine, entertainment, and cultural options than the average person can actually utilize
Frankly, you need to spend more time in the Bay Area / LA or the NYC area with people who like food. The food scene is just incomparable to anywhere else in the US (or my native France).
> And with global warming, the Midwest is generally getting less cold in the winter, while HCOL areas like those out west are getting regular wildfires, record breaking floods, and extreme heat waves
Those things happen for less than a month a year. Compare that with the climate of the midwest, where it goes from "super cold" to "unbearably hot", with a few months of nice spring/fall if you're lucky. Super obvious if you look at https://weatherspark.com/y/557/Average-Weather-in-San-Franci... vs say https://weatherspark.com/y/12083/Average-Weather-in-St.-Loui... . Not to mention the mosquitos.
If you never go outside (which frankly is a thing a lot of suburban Americans do), it doesn't matter, but if you're into hiking, sailing, surfing, skiing, or just eating outside on your patio, California just can't be beat. There's a reason you see folks from all over the world moving here and not to Missouri.
As one who fled the Midwest because of the summers (in part, at least), the Midwest warming up isn't even close to the selling point you make it out to be. I'll take shoveling feet of snow every winter over sweating through every layer of my clothing from April to October. The PNW warming up (and the heatwaves you mentioned) is a problem in and of itself, but it's still generally a place where, for 7-8 months of the year or so, I can comfortably wear hoodies and avoid sunburns and swamp ass.
Agree. Seattle's "bad weather" is overblown. It's livable all year, compared to e.g. Austin which is too cold in the winter and hot as hell in the summer.
You can also be pretty accessible to a lot of major cities without being close enough to comfortably commute in every day (and paying a big housing premium for a smaller place). I go into the nearest major coastal city semi-regularly but it's not like I'd be going out to restaurants, bars, or the theater every other day even if I lived there.
Having more cultural options than the average person can utilize in a “medium town” is a bit hyperbolic. Maybe your “average person” fits in with that, but your argument seems to be that it’s no loss at all which is very untrue.
Carrok(3)
> you loose in career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children
Hehe, this generalization is way off the mark. It's ok to live in a coastal/urban/whatever area simply because you like it - no need to tell yourself stories to justify it. :)
Hehe, this generalization is way off the mark. It's ok to live in a coastal/urban/whatever area simply because you like it - no need to tell yourself stories to justify it. :)
What makes you think there is a difference? Seemingly the "story" here is just an explanation of what the person likes about it.
Sure, except that they stated subjective measurements as if they were objective measurements.
I mean all of those are technically objective measurements:
"career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children".
It's hard to beat the career opportunities (so far), the weather / outdoor activities ( https://weatherspark.com is awesome weather wise, and a trip to google maps will easily tell you the range of outdoor activities), the quality of food (that you'll have to discover by yourself), and the diversity of cultural enrichment activities for you and your children (same).
It'll cost you plenty of money to live in the bay area for sure, but there's a reason for that.
"career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children".
It's hard to beat the career opportunities (so far), the weather / outdoor activities ( https://weatherspark.com is awesome weather wise, and a trip to google maps will easily tell you the range of outdoor activities), the quality of food (that you'll have to discover by yourself), and the diversity of cultural enrichment activities for you and your children (same).
It'll cost you plenty of money to live in the bay area for sure, but there's a reason for that.
Considering many bands and live acts now avoid the Bay Area, but heavily tour the mid-west I am going to have to disagree about it all being a negative living in the Midwest.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/31/cities-pandemic-moving-tren...
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/05/03/why-americans-are-le... (Control-F "On the move from big cities to rural communities" and "On where Americans want to live now")
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture...
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/metr...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Enjoy the city if that's your jam, genuinely! Lots of options for everyone to live their best life.
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/05/03/why-americans-are-le... (Control-F "On the move from big cities to rural communities" and "On where Americans want to live now")
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture...
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/metr...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Enjoy the city if that's your jam, genuinely! Lots of options for everyone to live their best life.
Let's see, I gained a local ski mountain with reasonable locals season pass rates (cheaper to take the kids skiing than the family going to see a movie every weekend in the winter), got a great boat for the local lake and my kids grew up boat camping (at spots only accessible by boat) where they saw beavers, otters, etc every week. We hiked and picked huckleberries and saw black bears, moose, elk. Friends had wakesurfing boats. We white water rafted and floated rivers. In Santa Cruz we would kinda body surf/boogie board and hike crowded trails. Not sure what culture there was in Santa Cruz we're missing, we went and saw the old missions but other than that??? Biggest thing we missed was the Monterey Aquarium and some food, but we just learned how to make it ourselves.
"two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other"
Or fight to the death, like the European far left and far right in 1930s Berlin, Madrid etc. Proximity sometimes breeds understanding, sometimes explosion.
Or fight to the death, like the European far left and far right in 1930s Berlin, Madrid etc. Proximity sometimes breeds understanding, sometimes explosion.
The article is about the 40-to-64 demographic, not young folks.
(This isn't your fault for misunderstanding that -- the article's phrasing goes to lengths to imply otherwise.)
(This isn't your fault for misunderstanding that -- the article's phrasing goes to lengths to imply otherwise.)
This assumes that small towns that have shrinking and aging populations are more desirable to live in than cities for the sole purpose that housing is cheaper. Cities have large advantages like proximity to other jobs should it be lost, services, better schools, better restaurants, more people your age you can hang out with.
I know a powerful, politically connected woman who moved from the DMV to Aimes Iowa. She absolutely loves it, and is shocked by how much more walkable, affordable, and cultured the town is than where she came from.
This is maybe the ... 15th? person I know who's said something like this. I think people literally don't know how nice a lot of America is.
This is maybe the ... 15th? person I know who's said something like this. I think people literally don't know how nice a lot of America is.
Ames is not a gutted Midwestern town, though. College towns centered on large research universities benefit from a similar dynamic as the DMV.
The new labor crisis is fairly wild. All the really nice places to live are becoming so expensive that there is no local labor pool. Many of the wonderful mountain towns of Colorado for example are also suffering this fate.
this is after abusing illegal immigrant labor relentlessly for 25 years, kicking the can down the road; truly reprobate
I've noticed the fast food places around me are back to hiring teenagers. It has been mostly people from South America in the past decade or so.
because less immigrants are coming to the US now, because our labor situation is worse than many 3rd world countries for low wage workers
Recently visited friends near Park City, UT - whose house has seen a double of real estate value and it looks to be headed towards a Jackson Hole situation where people live in trailers or down in Provo, which has had many avalanches this year on the highway. I’ve also seen the same in towns like you’ve mentioned in Colorado - one example I know being Silverton, which I think has doubled or more than doubled since 2019 (also famously the site of the mining tailings pond release)
Lots of people are quick to blame Californians but it actually seems a small percentage overall, but it’s a convenient bogeyman.
Lots of people are quick to blame Californians but it actually seems a small percentage overall, but it’s a convenient bogeyman.
All the really nice places to live are becoming so expensive
Doesn't need to be this way either. We've come up with a number of ways to lower real estate prices on this very board that simply aren't being implemented by local communities. I have to believe that 2024 is going to be a massive turning point for a lot of US cities.
Doesn't need to be this way either. We've come up with a number of ways to lower real estate prices on this very board that simply aren't being implemented by local communities. I have to believe that 2024 is going to be a massive turning point for a lot of US cities.
The people who already own in the community vote against lowering real estate prices. The prospective future residents don't get a vote, so they lose every time.
We've had countless discussions about this on HN. There are solutions that don't require outright lowering real estate prices. There's simply no motivation from local governments to acquire any momentum toward changing things. The "luxury high class" renters are seen as more desirable than anything else to boost local economies and everyone else is seen as disposable.
> There are solutions that don't require outright lowering real estate prices.
There really aren't.
The upward pressure caused by the need to keep property values increasing will always, in the long run, outweigh any other policy that you can use to attempt to reign in cost-of-living. You can play tricks to delay the effects or slow them down, but adding drag resistance doesn't stop a falling leaf from trending downwards.
Mathematically, you cannot lower cost-of-living while also insisting that the price of the single largest living cost (housing) keep increasing.
The only alternative is to lower the price of housing, but you can't do that without lowering real estate values for existing landed property owners, so they fight that tooth and nail, in nearly every locality across the board.
There really aren't.
The upward pressure caused by the need to keep property values increasing will always, in the long run, outweigh any other policy that you can use to attempt to reign in cost-of-living. You can play tricks to delay the effects or slow them down, but adding drag resistance doesn't stop a falling leaf from trending downwards.
Mathematically, you cannot lower cost-of-living while also insisting that the price of the single largest living cost (housing) keep increasing.
The only alternative is to lower the price of housing, but you can't do that without lowering real estate values for existing landed property owners, so they fight that tooth and nail, in nearly every locality across the board.
You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't have cheaper homes and simultaneously not lower real estate prices.
I believe the idea is to automate all that labor away so that rich people won't even have to think about breathing the same air as regulars, let alone ever see them.
Buried the lede:
> The overall migration rate in America today is historically low, and mobility has fallen since the 1980s for all kinds of demographic groups.
> The overall migration rate in America today is historically low, and mobility has fallen since the 1980s for all kinds of demographic groups.
It makes sense. Low-wage workers simply can't afford to move to a lower cost of living city, even if there were better job opportunities and cost of living.
How does this work? When I was a student and later when I got a job afterwards, moving was way easier. And I had hardly any money.
Or am I thinking wrong here. The hurdle is not the physical move, but like losing close access to friends and family?
Or am I thinking wrong here. The hurdle is not the physical move, but like losing close access to friends and family?
It'll cost $5-$10k to move a modest household to a different state. That alone is an massive barrier for a lot of working class people/families. But you're also right that they may lose access to friends and family, which might include free childcare, rides to school, etc.
Several factors:
* I'm assuming that when you were a student, you didn't have a lot of possessions to move, didn't have a family and kids to move too, didn't have a house to sell.
* You generally need to acquire a place to live before you can move, otherwise you'll be homeless when you get there. This will probably involve putting down a significant deposit on a new apartment, before you get the deposit back on your current apartment, if you live in an apartment. And many apartments require income verification to apply, which makes it difficult to move to find a new job; you have to already acquire a new job in the new place before you move. And of course travel is expensive to find/acquire a new job/home in a new place.
* Moving can be very time consuming, especially if it's long distance. Which means time off from work, which may lower your income even more.
* Of course losing access to friends and family, as you said.
* I'm assuming that when you were a student, you didn't have a lot of possessions to move, didn't have a family and kids to move too, didn't have a house to sell.
* You generally need to acquire a place to live before you can move, otherwise you'll be homeless when you get there. This will probably involve putting down a significant deposit on a new apartment, before you get the deposit back on your current apartment, if you live in an apartment. And many apartments require income verification to apply, which makes it difficult to move to find a new job; you have to already acquire a new job in the new place before you move. And of course travel is expensive to find/acquire a new job/home in a new place.
* Moving can be very time consuming, especially if it's long distance. Which means time off from work, which may lower your income even more.
* Of course losing access to friends and family, as you said.
> * Of course losing access to friends and family, as you said.
Also, this can be a big economic hit for "low wage workers" (to use the GGP's term), since they often rely on their friends and family to provide a economic safety net and needed services at low cost (e.g. it's a lot cheaper for grandma to watch her grand-kids while you're at work than pay for daycare).
Also, this can be a big economic hit for "low wage workers" (to use the GGP's term), since they often rely on their friends and family to provide a economic safety net and needed services at low cost (e.g. it's a lot cheaper for grandma to watch her grand-kids while you're at work than pay for daycare).
There are a lot of policy issues where it feels like it's difficult to get anything done. Housing is one where ordinary people can make a real difference - and are. So much of this is at a local or state level where a small, dedicated group can really change the conversation.
It's also an issue where the "ideological sorting hat" hasn't lumped it into a partisan category, yet. Montana just passed a bipartisan housing deal that's really good: https://www.sightline.org/2023/05/09/montanas-big-bipartisan...
Groups like https://yimbyaction.org/2021/ and https://welcomingneighbors.us/ are a great way to get involved.
It's also an issue where the "ideological sorting hat" hasn't lumped it into a partisan category, yet. Montana just passed a bipartisan housing deal that's really good: https://www.sightline.org/2023/05/09/montanas-big-bipartisan...
Groups like https://yimbyaction.org/2021/ and https://welcomingneighbors.us/ are a great way to get involved.
> The overall migration rate in America today is historically low, and mobility has fallen since the 1980s for all kinds of demographic groups.
Nearly every single economic disadvantage the "not rich" endures always goes back to Reagan.
Nearly every single economic disadvantage the "not rich" endures always goes back to Reagan.
The "obvious" solution, raising wages, would add fuel to the engines of inflation.
No one who understands what out-of-control inflation is like wants that.
Central banks, in particular, don't want that.
No one who understands what out-of-control inflation is like wants that.
Central banks, in particular, don't want that.
By that logic, do you think we should be lowering the minimum wage to help reduce inflation? Or has the minimum wage miraculously remained at the exact right level without adjustment for the last 15 years despite its volatility in real terms?
The minimum wage should be lowered or dispensed with due to its deleterious effects on those most marginalized on the fringes of the modern economy, not due to any effect on inflation.
> The minimum wage should be lowered or dispensed with due to its deleterious effects on those most marginalized on the fringes of the modern economy, not due to any effect on inflation.
That's just free-market dogma. People already can't support themselves on minimum wage, and it's not going to do anyone (besides exploitative employers) any good to have them paid even less.
That's just free-market dogma. People already can't support themselves on minimum wage, and it's not going to do anyone (besides exploitative employers) any good to have them paid even less.
I lived in Northern Virginia most of my life until after college moving to Oregon. Virginia infamously stuck to a 7.25 wage until the last two or 3 years. I thought it was the worst and I worked a job for one month getting paid that.
But now that I’m in Oregon I’ve noticed small businesses can’t compete with corporations here at all on price. It’s honestly crazy how much worse it is to get food at a small business. It’s definitely partially because of the overhead high minimum wage creates.
Only small businesses that I see who can compete are entirely within a family so they probably have family members helping out without expecting $22 an hour or whatever it is here.
Point is minimum wage laws aren’t black and white.
But now that I’m in Oregon I’ve noticed small businesses can’t compete with corporations here at all on price. It’s honestly crazy how much worse it is to get food at a small business. It’s definitely partially because of the overhead high minimum wage creates.
Only small businesses that I see who can compete are entirely within a family so they probably have family members helping out without expecting $22 an hour or whatever it is here.
Point is minimum wage laws aren’t black and white.
> and it's not going to do anyone (besides exploitative employers) any good to have them paid even less
I disagree, on the basis that a poorly-paid job is better than no job at all in the long run for the employee.
A price floor causes a surplus, in this case of labor, meaning unemployed people; the people for whom the economic value of their labor is less than the minimum wage. You can call this free-market dogma if you'd like, but it's a well-established phenomenon.
The second-order effect is that those unemployed people become less and less employable over time, since they lose out on the experience, skill-learning, and relationship-building that they would have gotten on the job, poorly-paid though it may have been. They become further less competitive than the lucky ones who made the cut above minimum wage and were employed, and runs the risk of being a permanently unemployable underclass.
Countries like Norway and Singapore do quite well with no legally-mandated minimum wage.
I disagree, on the basis that a poorly-paid job is better than no job at all in the long run for the employee.
A price floor causes a surplus, in this case of labor, meaning unemployed people; the people for whom the economic value of their labor is less than the minimum wage. You can call this free-market dogma if you'd like, but it's a well-established phenomenon.
The second-order effect is that those unemployed people become less and less employable over time, since they lose out on the experience, skill-learning, and relationship-building that they would have gotten on the job, poorly-paid though it may have been. They become further less competitive than the lucky ones who made the cut above minimum wage and were employed, and runs the risk of being a permanently unemployable underclass.
Countries like Norway and Singapore do quite well with no legally-mandated minimum wage.
In most places in the US, it's too low to make a difference.
1.5% of US workers make minimum wage, who probably have much less to spend. So I don’t think it’s the same token of logic at all
I'd personally consider overriding local single family zoning and allowing denser building the "obvious" solution. Seems like California is slowly moving in that direction.
these clear solution gets downvotes here -- some people say that local government is more difficult than large government precisely because of indignant individuals plus local power bases. A well-thought out density solution has been seriously investigated for decades, in difference tech contexts for hundreds of years. The American solution of suburbs with cars was founded on inexpensive private automobiles. The world is full of toxins to pay for it, but roughly zero people who benefit from it are ready to change, especially if they can claim someone else is giving orders.
Good point. You're right. NIMBYism stands in the way, but I agree it's the more "obvious" solution.
This gets repeated often but it's not as if housing is the only expensive part of living in a big city, and increasing density will only make those other factors MORE expensive, not less, even though it reduces (slightly, temporarily) the price of housing.
California with 10% more houses is not 10% cheaper. It is slightly more expensive.
California with 10% more houses is not 10% cheaper. It is slightly more expensive.
What gets more expensive with increasing density? Seems like most things are cheaper with more density, because (compared to less density but equal population) there's less area that needs to be covered by roads, water mains, fire stations, transit service, etc.
..and you'll use 10% more electricity and 10% more water and 10% more fire/rescue calls and so on. You'll need 10% more buses. Your airport will be 10% busier. You will have 10% more people eating at restaurants...
And installing a water main in a rural area is a lot cheaper than installing one in downtown NYC... and your water main needs to be bigger now too.
And installing a water main in a rural area is a lot cheaper than installing one in downtown NYC... and your water main needs to be bigger now too.
But I said to keep population equal. Take two million people, and put a million in a city as dense as Manhattan (74,780.7/sq mi), and the other million in a city as dense as Jacksonville, Florida (1,270.73/sq mi). So New Manhattan would be 13 square miles, and New Jacksonville would be 787 square miles. It seems obvious to me that most things in New Manhattan would be more efficient and cheaper. You'd need fewer police officers to have the same patrol density. You'd have a couple larger fire stations instead of numerous smaller ones. You'd have far less utility and road infrastructure to maintain. Everyone would spend less time traveling places, because everything's so close together, and fewer people would feel like they had to purchase a personal vehicle, which means fewer and smaller parking lots to pave. You have to make other tradeoffs for this bonus, of course, and many find those tradeoffs unacceptable, which is fine. But it seems like efficiency is density's greatest strength, to me.
Police officers scale as calls scale. There's some minimum threshold based on space, but if you have 50 calls at once then you need 50-70 officers. And your manhattan officer doesn't have the option of "let the angry dude kick rocks in a farm field until he gets bored and arrest him". Every fleeing perp becomes a danger to _hundreds_ of other people. Every fired pistol round has a high chance of hitting a bystander. CS gas cylinders are right out.
Same for fire, except now you have a new problem. When a house in New Jacksonville burns, one option is to let it control burn. The home is a loss, but this is a safe and viable option.
You can't do that in our manhattan. The entire city will be on fire.
And fighting a fire on a one floor residential house is easy. Fighting a fire on a 40 floor condo structure is complicated and takes many, many more trucks - and now instead of one home being lost, we are looking at ten or more homes, even if we are successful.
Water distribution to a bunch of little houses is easy if sort of requiring some piping. Distributing to a 40 floor condo building is an expert task requiring a whole mess more of complexity.
Same for fire, except now you have a new problem. When a house in New Jacksonville burns, one option is to let it control burn. The home is a loss, but this is a safe and viable option.
You can't do that in our manhattan. The entire city will be on fire.
And fighting a fire on a one floor residential house is easy. Fighting a fire on a 40 floor condo structure is complicated and takes many, many more trucks - and now instead of one home being lost, we are looking at ten or more homes, even if we are successful.
Water distribution to a bunch of little houses is easy if sort of requiring some piping. Distributing to a 40 floor condo building is an expert task requiring a whole mess more of complexity.
10% more people in bay area will create 10% more demand for services sector (many of which employ low wage workers) and will drive wage growth for services sector
[deleted]
mrangle(4)
Once again the market sorts things out itself. And in the areas losing young talent, it will also sort itself out. Nothing needs to be done, just observe what is happening and wait.
Just like in Vancouver.
1980 vs. Now
https://twitter.com/pmcondon2/status/1653438594823094278
1980 vs. Now
https://twitter.com/pmcondon2/status/1653438594823094278
Yep... Canada never got it's teeth kicked in by the 2008 crisis, but we had similar price appreciation so there was never a lul to get the younger generations into the market without significant up front costs. It's also slammed the breaks on most families upsizing their homes. They live with what they got.
I'm looking at homes today and to enter the market for a house is 1.4 million. Our family has a good income so that's actually achievable. The vast majority will never earn enough.
When real estate is perceived as a better investment than equities, society is doomed.
I'm looking at homes today and to enter the market for a house is 1.4 million. Our family has a good income so that's actually achievable. The vast majority will never earn enough.
When real estate is perceived as a better investment than equities, society is doomed.
How expensive would Vancouver be if it didn't create new housing?
Condon is a nimby plain and simple, obfuscating with all sorts of horse shit his clear desire keep everyone out and keep his leafy west side home the way it always has been.
Condon is a nimby plain and simple, obfuscating with all sorts of horse shit his clear desire keep everyone out and keep his leafy west side home the way it always has been.
True. The question is what sort of disruptions will emerge when the political class resides far away from economic power.
I am now in Italy. Rome is the capital, but the center of Italian economic activity is Milan. Northern Italian businesspeople and politicians hate or at least despise "thieving Rome" and there was/is a significant secessionist movement.
As of now, within the structures of the EU, an actual split of Italy is logistically impossible, but the country seems to owe some part of its dysfunctionality to the physical distance between seats of power and wealth.
I am now in Italy. Rome is the capital, but the center of Italian economic activity is Milan. Northern Italian businesspeople and politicians hate or at least despise "thieving Rome" and there was/is a significant secessionist movement.
As of now, within the structures of the EU, an actual split of Italy is logistically impossible, but the country seems to owe some part of its dysfunctionality to the physical distance between seats of power and wealth.
This goes both ways though. In the UK, everyone outside of London and the Home Counties despises London because it gets far more spent on it than elsewhere in the country. Take transport for instance:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spendi...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spendi...
Lol. More people live in London than any three of those other areas combined; depending on how large you draw the circle that is 'London' you are looking at around 25% of the population. Trust me, everyone in London has an equal amount of loathing for the parasitic gammons outside the London area who could not survive without the handouts we provide but still bitch and moan about every pound they get.
If people weren’t convinced about the typical Londoner’s superiority complex I present the above comment as exhibit A.
> Trust me, everyone in London has an equal amount of loathing for the parasitic gammons outside the London area who could not survive without the handouts we provide but still bitch and moan about every pound they get.
Congrats on your life in the dirty money capital of the world. I would like to see how long you survive in London if the surrounding areas of the country decided not to provide you with food on your table and energy for your home.
> Trust me, everyone in London has an equal amount of loathing for the parasitic gammons outside the London area who could not survive without the handouts we provide but still bitch and moan about every pound they get.
Congrats on your life in the dirty money capital of the world. I would like to see how long you survive in London if the surrounding areas of the country decided not to provide you with food on your table and energy for your home.
But 'the market' for housing is completely broken. The completely unattainable housing in wealthy productive places is a policy choice, not some law of nature.
I mean, yeah, they're not going to be the cheapest places ever, but there could be a lot more housing if we allowed it to be built.
I mean, yeah, they're not going to be the cheapest places ever, but there could be a lot more housing if we allowed it to be built.
> Once again the market sorts things out itself.
It's always funny to see "the free market works itself out" used in contexts where markets are anything but free, due to intense regulation, high barriers to entry, and inelastic demand.
After national defense and healthcare, it's hard to think of a market that is less free - by economists' definition of "free" - than housing.
It's always funny to see "the free market works itself out" used in contexts where markets are anything but free, due to intense regulation, high barriers to entry, and inelastic demand.
After national defense and healthcare, it's hard to think of a market that is less free - by economists' definition of "free" - than housing.
In fact, the only mention of younger college graduates is in a wiggle phrase with no attached statistic:
> Younger educated workers were at first a bulwark against that trend, but have increasingly migrated away from these regions, too.
(The same can be said for the article's statistics -- it's misleading, at best, to limit the analysis to 2020 and 2021.)