Submitted by natekrinsky t3_124nm50 in nyc
Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je33pif wrote
There’s got to be some solution. This isn’t just about the homeless. People vital to keeping the city running are being priced out of the city. Teachers, cops, fire fighters, EMT workers, you name it. All the cashiers in all the stores.. think they can afford to live here? I work full time and I have a side hustle and I can only afford to be here because I’m renting from a family friend. I knew someone. That’s all. I hear all the arguments against Good Cause Eviction protections but then, how will this city run if all the people who run it can no longer be here?
Substantial_Bend_580 t1_je367ij wrote
It won’t be ran at all. All the working class people are retiring or cannot afford to live here anymore. City hates us
grizybaer t1_je3p9c3 wrote
Tenant and eviction protections raise the costs to landlords, which will trickle down to tenants in increased rent.
This increased cost more heavily burdens small landlords, who eventually sell to larger landlords who can operate and have the advantage of scale and better lawyers
Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je4cuf7 wrote
Those larger landlords and corporations are buying up properties around the country. Not just here where there are some protections.
grizybaer t1_je4m3ag wrote
Its more of a problem in lower cost of living areas with lower costs to buy.
In higher cost of living areas, higher home prices mean lower rates of return.
When comparing Boston vs NYC, home prices are 7% more in NYC but rents are 40% higher in NYC
Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je4mn6n wrote
So what’s the solution? Lift all the protections, let the city crumble a bit because the people who run it can’t afford to be here, wait years for it to become less desirable over it?
supermechace t1_je5dj9g wrote
I have a theory that much of current American capitalism is finding ways to shift costs(including labor and time) to someone else. I would say current crisis has been brewing partly because employers were able to get away with low salaries and benefits for a long time. The resulting consequences of people being priced out causing homelessness was shifted to tax payers to pay for homeless shelters. NYC politicians talk a lot about affordable housing but ultimately fail to enact anything and keep leaning on private sector solutions because they're backed by real estate industry yet propped up by property tax revenue. Unfortunately in this musical chairs of shifting responsibility and costs it's hard to see a solution. If govt services collapse the govt might resort to outsourcing complete depts
grizybaer t1_je60y9q wrote
Not mentioning a solution but a deeper dive into unintended consequences.
NYC and Boston are large cities. As far as I know, there were fewer tenant protections enacted in Boston and overall, rent has not increased as quickly.
More protections seem to protect bad actors and also has a disproportionate impact on smaller owners who cant absorb the costs.
Small owners leaving the market seems to create a larger problem of consolidated ownership/ fewer players, which leads to higher rent .
If my logic is wrong please let me know. Property in NYC is expensive and renting your property carries risk. Having tenants who refuse to pay rent can easily push owners into foreclosure
NetQuarterLatte t1_je805gb wrote
The solution is to build more housing (we need to build a heck more to make a difference), so that there’s no scarcity premium and everyone can pay market rates when renting or buying their own house.
Tenants should ideally be the short term only. Anyone who wants long term housing security should ideally own their own home: the ultimate solution.
But again, for that to be possible, we need a lot more housing supply.
You nailed the reason why we have this legacy of artificially lower cost housing: to subsidize artificially cheap labor.
Such legacy goes back in history when employers would directly provide housing to their employees, and obviously that would come with even lower wages, or even “free labor”.
In reality, the multiplicative gains of a high density economy should allow even low skilled work to be paid a lot more compared to a lowers density location. But the distortion in the housing market basically perpetuates a distortion in the labor market.
Sirrplz t1_je4txfe wrote
Hell, even affordable housing in some places will be like 2800 for people making 120k. At first you think it’s absurd until you realize dude next to you is paying 5k for the same layout
Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je4ub1r wrote
There will be no one left to teach kids, remove garbage, police the streets, drive the ambulances, busses, etc at this rate. What, are we all supposed to move 2 hrs upstate and commute? Everyone? Who wants to do that?
supermechace t1_je5iatq wrote
The govt will just outsource everything and will wind up paying more than if they had offered competitive wages
Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je6g9ol wrote
For government jobs, but what about the guy that makes you lunch at the office? They’ll need to make 6 figures to live here
supermechace t1_je6p9p0 wrote
I think six figures is a bit of an exaggeration as theres more affordable housing (or arrangements like room mates )further out from Manhattan. But big corps can find ways to fill the void like packaged food prepared off site or in ghost kitchens. McDonald's is researching robotics and already has self serve kiosks
Frequent-Shape6950 t1_je808bv wrote
>I think six figures is a bit of an exaggeration
My friend pays his nanny $90,000/yr.
supermechace t1_je8bffz wrote
Does he provide healthcare? If no healthcare I would say her actual take home is $78k and that's not counting if he provides retirement match plan, though if he pays under the table then that's better than if you're making 120k
Frequent-Shape6950 t1_jeakd0a wrote
Good question. I'll ask next time he brings it up. He is a longtime close friend but makes 40x my income so I don't want to be nosy.
The point is, in 2023 NYC "six-figures" doesn't mean what it used to.
supermechace t1_jeasjfi wrote
Oh definitely but in the framework of the article it doesn't mean you can't find a place to live in NY, just that it gets you a lot less. For those that make much less it's much harder to get by much less get ahead.
MarbleFox_ t1_jefw469 wrote
Why should someone have to commute to Manhattan just work a job that doesn’t pay them enough to live in Manhattan?
supermechace t1_jeg6huj wrote
This particular scenario would be up to the person whether through demanding better pay, quitting, or unionize. I think the bigger issue is long term NYC residents being pushed out of their neighborhoods. In a capitalist society that's hard to prevent but ideally people would profit from the sales of their homes and use it to move to lower costs areas appropriate for them and their fiances. Unfortunately the answer for that in many cases is outside NYC like Florida.
Type_suspect t1_je69yzr wrote
About a million people leaving the city probably. But more seem to want to come than are leaving. Growth cant be infinite we can’t build one million more apartments. Maybe The city is going to get harder to deal with the policies liberal or conservative and costs etc that might be the catalyst to get ppl to give up and leave. Cause some economic and social despair which hopefully leads to a correction. then we head back into ppl wanting to live here and everything increases.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments