[OnlineGladiator]

You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to function.

Now extend your own logic to teachers, service workers, etc.

[ericmay]

> which means it's too expensive to function

Well it functions up until people such as this head chef say "screw these housing prices" and relocate somewhere else and open their restaurant and have a better life and then whoever is living in Seattle gets crappy or extremely expensive restaurants to account for the high housing prices.

[int_19h]

Indeed. So, speaking as someone who lives in the Greater Seattle area, enjoys the local restaurants, and would like their head chefs to remain here - it is a problem, and I would like to solve it. Even if it means that my home equity might not be as valuable on paper as it would otherwise be in 10 years.

[ericmay]

Sure… but Seattle is valuable and desirable because it is Seattle. The only thing you could do to make it like you wish is to make Seattle undesirable.

Think about it like this. What do you think of when you think about Indianapolis, or Kansas City, or Charlotte, etc.? Do those cities seem very desirable to you? Places you want to go and uproot your life to move to?

Probably not. Flat. Boring. Dog shit weather. Car-only infrastructure. (I know I live in a similar city for family/friends reasons)

You can’t solve this problem with less home equity - that’s a contradiction. The great things you enjoy are tied 1-1 inseparably from your home equity. The only way for your home equity to not be as valuable in ten years as it otherwise would be is to get rid of the very things that you enjoy!

[int_19h]

The only reason why none of these sound particularly desirable is the overall politics of their respective states. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a problem living in any of them now that remote work is reasonably well established. It wasn't back when I bought a house here - then it was all about the jobs.

I also have to note that "dog shit weather" is literally one of the things that define the Seattle experience. I don't actually mind personally, but a lot of people do.

[ericmay]

> The only reason why none of these sound particularly desirable is the overall politics of their respective states.

That’s not the only reason and you know it. And even if it were the only reason for you it’s not the only reason broadly speaking. But the desirable political climate adds to the desirability of Seattle.

> I also have to note that "dog shit weather" is literally one of the things that define the Seattle experience. I don't actually mind personally, but a lot of people do.

Seattle has fewer homes with air conditioning than even San Francisco [1] at 33% (as of 2018). Kansas City is at 99%. It’s very moderate throughout the year. You don’t get crazy temperature variance. Seattle isn’t San Diego but it’s not Buffalo, Kansas City, or Mobile either.

[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-is-le...

[kevviiinn]

The Free Market(tm) has decided we don't need teachers, obviously

[Izikiel43]

> The Free Market(tm)

If it was a true free market, housing wouldn't be an issue because developers wouldn't be forbidden from building density. Capitol hill is a disaster for city living as most of it are single family homes, whereas they should be 5 story condo buildings.

[kevviiinn]

Ah yes, the no true Scotsman of capitalism

[int_19h]

Capitalism and free markets are not synonymous, and you can have the latter without the former (indeed, that was the case for most our history as economic species).

Capitalism is detrimental to free markets because it has inherent positive feedback loops that concentrate capital. Concentration of capital inhibits competition, and a market without competition is by definition not free, regardless of the amount of government regulation in it.

[kevviiinn]

Is a free market free of regulation?

[int_19h]

It could be, in principle. The problem with monopolization of capital is fundamentally caused by our overall conceptual take on private property as an abstract concept. Within that framework, you need regulation to keep the market free. But it's not the only framework that is possible; e.g. consider the situation where all capital is commonly owned and held in usufruct by its actual users ("everything is a co-op").

[hd95489]

At some point it would if no teachers would work in Seattle

[AstralStorm]

Market will move instead to where it is reasonably cheap and labor is available, leaving a ghost town behind. Ultimately this results in high concentration.

There's literally no force compelling it to invest in a failing area, or one perceived to be failing.

[hd95489]

It’s too expensive for chefs to live in Seattle it really is. People here don’t spend enough money eating out to justify the number on chefs so they can’t afford to live in decent housing

[randomdata]

He’s saying that the people who spend money in Seattle don’t care if the chefs leave. That comes with the freedom to choose what to spend on.

[NDizzle]

Specific to Seattle, once you see what the teachers are teaching kids there you'll see that they soon won't actually need teachers. Nobody that has both a functioning brain and children would put their kids in Seattle schools.

The problem kind of solves itself.