|
|
|
|
|
|
by massysett
3984 days ago
|
|
|
Naively assumes that the building restrictions cause permanent productivity losses. Instead, building restrictions likely push some jobs elsewhere. Since housing is too expensive in SF, some tech jobs go to other places. Since housing and office space is too expensive in NYC, some finance jobs go elsewhere. Some amount of municipal planning is a good thing. It provides needed services for residents and increases the quality of what is built. But there is probably a limit to how much growth a government can handle in a responsible way. That suggests that building restrictions might even be a good thing. If the government is overloaded, the restrictions push the growth to other areas where the governments are more eager to plan for the growth. |
|
|
The theory goes that these high-density population centres have higher productivity, for a couple of reasons:
- "Truer" competition -- distance is an artificial barrier that reduces employees' access to jobs and reduces employers' access to job candidates. It also reduces companies' access to each other.
- More cross-pollination as people a free to move jobs more often and (in theory) have more interactions with other companies.
There are no doubt some downsides to concentrating all of your nation's business in one place, and things like telecommuting and fast public transport will have the effect of bringing people closer together without straining infrastructure as much, but there's really no alternative to density.