Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by drbeast 1260 days ago
Maybe, just maybe instead of liveable wages we should be asking why the hell are our fixed costs so high? How about instead of jacking up wages, we lower the costs that make those untenable wages tenable. Start b eliminating real estate investors and forcing landlords OUT of residential real estate entirely. Gasp I know, denying monopoly cash to the parasite class.
2 comments
orangecat 1260 days ago
we should be asking why the hell are our fixed costs so high?

Yes.

Start b eliminating real estate investors and forcing landlords OUT of residential real estate entirely

This does absolutely nothing to address the situation that X people want to live where Y units are available, and X>>Y.

link
Rury 1259 days ago
You're ignoring that, it's entirely possible allow Y people to live there, without increasing numeric margins on rents. Instead, landlords/investors often look to maximize their profit margin as much as demand allows.

Which shows, that investors can be a factor to the problem, by either choosing to maximize profits for selfish gain, or keep rents minimized despite excess demand.

link
drbeast 1259 days ago
Wrong again bucko. See what the great frozen north did for foreign real estate investors https://www.npr.org/2023/01/07/1147678857/a-new-two-year-ban....
link
cycrutchfield 1260 days ago
How about just build more housing? Might be an easier solution than upending property rights entirely.
link
MrOwnPut 1260 days ago
Because there's no room left?

Almost every square inch of New York is already covered.

link
cycrutchfield 1260 days ago
Are you aware that there exists a third dimension?
link
MrOwnPut 1259 days ago
No, and I guess you're the only one, please go inform the architects of your original idea.

We could call them tallrises, skytouchers or something like that.

You said: "Might be an easier solution than upending property rights entirely."

My point was that land is owned by someone already, skyscraper or not.

So if you want to force people to make highrises, you will have to take their land. Good luck with that.

Alternative: don't crowd all into one city, there's plenty of land and many jobs can be remote now.

link
cycrutchfield 1259 days ago
Land is owned almost everywhere in the US. The point is if regulations on density are relaxed then denser housing will be built. You don’t need to take anybody’s land. Invisible hand of the market and all that.
link
MrOwnPut 1259 days ago
Find a plot in New York City that isn't owned. If the owner isn't building housing, what makes you think new regulations will make them?

How much denser would you like the new regulations to be btw? Do you know the current density?

link
drbeast 1259 days ago
This is bolshevism. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-remote-work-is-killi... There are plenty of empty sky scrapers in midtown NYC. Want to know why they aren't turning them into apartments? > Building codes I'm sorry but if we want affordable housing then it's time to accept that some apartments won't have windows.
link
MrOwnPut 1259 days ago
Learn to use words properly, it's not bolshevism lol.

How in the world would it be if they are privately owned buildings?

Now if the government seized them, it would be.

But yes there is a problem with cities like New York, but that's a local problem and will continue to be so if people keep voting the same people in.

link